Re: Action items from 1/23/07 meeting

Makoto,

You can see the problem using the sample file that Sean Hayes sent
earlier. I have attached it again, with a bug fixed that was causing
problems in Firefox. It should show three columns of text.

In Firefox, there is no limit on how large we can scale the text. If
you open the attached file in Firefox, you can increase the font size
with Ctrl-Shift-+. On my system, the sixth time that I  increase the
font size, the words "objective" and "technique" can no longer fit
within the column. The words are either clipped, or they overlap with
the text in the next column. (I see different behavior on Windows and
Unix!) But it is no longer possible to increase the size without
losing the visual display of some of the information.

Since we can always increase the font size in Firefox, eventually the
characters will become larger than the browser window, no matter what
size browser window we are using. It is impossible to satisfy SC 1.4.6
(no horizontal scrolling) in this case.

The only solution that is always safe is "uniform scaling of content",
that is, a Zoom function like the one provided in Adobe Reader. While
this is safe, not all HTML browsers provide such a function. And for
smaller amounts of scaling, it is often better for the user to use a
liquid layout so scrolling is  not needed.

Please let me know if this is still confusing to you. We need to
include a clear explanation in the How To Meet documents.

Thanks, Loretta



On 1/23/07, Makoto Ueki <makoto.ueki@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Loretta,
>
> My apologies that I've missed the discussion/rationale on this. But I
> can't explain this issue to anybody else.
>
> I couldn't understand "...you can no longer fit even a single
> character on the screen.This introduces basic usability problems that
> hurt accessibility." in your comment. Could you explain it more for
> me?
>
> Thank you very much in advance.
>
> - Makoto
>
>
> 2007/1/24, Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>:
> > 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
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>