Re: Action items from 1/23/07 meeting

Makoto,
  The problem with "Visually rendered text can be resized without
assistive technology without loss of content or functionality. " is
that it would mean that you should be able to scale the content
arbitrarily large. But we know that if you scale large enough, you can
no longer fit even a single character on the screen. This introduces
basic usability problems that hurt accessibility.
  Loretta

On 1/23/07, Makoto Ueki <makoto.ueki@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Gregg,
>
> Why do the authors have to do it if any browsers won't support 200% in
> the future?  Though I don't think that this would happen....  It
> doesn't matter if the authors can test it or not.
>
> But if there will be no browser which can zoom text up to 200%, "200%"
> won't make sense any more as nobody can zoom it without AT. So I think
> that specifying the value of "200%" is browser-dependent. We'd better
> say "Visually rendered text can be resized without assistive
> technology without loss of content or functionality. " rather than
> "Visually rendered text can be resized without assistive technology up
> to 200 per cent without loss of content or functionality." in order to
> make the SC browser-independent.
>
> I can live with "200%" if the explanation is presented. But the web
> professionals who read this SC will have such a question. "200%" is
> based on the situation where 200% zoom is supported by at least one
> browser available. That is my concern. Maybe I'm overly cautious.
>
>
> - Makoto
>
>
> 2007/1/24, Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>:
> > I wouldn't think that whether a particular browser supports 200% or not
> > would be the author's problem.   The guideline is that the content can be
> > zoomed to 200%.    Other browsers could be used to test this.
> >
> >
> > Gregg
> >  -- ------------------------------
> > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org
> > > [mailto:public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Makoto Ueki
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 2:21 PM
> > > To: Loretta Guarino Reid
> > > Cc: TeamB
> > > Subject: Re: Action items from 1/23/07 meeting
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > Loretta, thank you for the note.
> > >
> > > > Loretta - add discussiono to How To Meet 1.4.5, 1.4.6 about why 200%
> > >
> > > It is important for the WG to present the reason why it is
> > > required, whenever we require the authors to do something
> > > like "200%", "3 seconds", "10 times" and so on. The rationale
> > > would be fine even if it is not research-based.
> > >
> > > Another my concern about "200%" is how the authors can be
> > > responsible for "200%". How can the authors ensure that text
> > > can be resized up to 200% if the  future version of the user
> > > agents won't provide the zoom function up to "200%"? For
> > > example, if IE 8 or later limit the zoom function up to 180%
> > > in the future, what can the authers do? Though the Japanese
> > > version of IE 7 can zoom text up to 400%.
> > >
> > > The readers will ask us such a question if we specify the
> > > value of 200% or anything else in the SC. Actually I couldn't
> > > understand it when I read the How to Meet documents on 1.4.5
> > > and 1.4.6.
> > >
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Makoto
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2007/1/24, Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>:
> > > >
> > > > Sean - send Loretta example for How to Meet 1.4.6 All -
> > > send Loretta
> > > > resources for dynamic layout Gez - review techniques for
> > > How To Meet
> > > > 1.4.5, 1.4.6 for correctness, completeness Loretta - add
> > > discussiono
> > > > to How To Meet 1.4.5, 1.4.6 about why 200% Sorcha - Compose
> > > responses
> > > > to conformance/baseline comments, based on the revised Conformance
> > > > section
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>

Received on Wednesday, 24 January 2007 01:31:30 UTC