RE: Action items from 1/23/07 meeting

Hi Makoto,

The question wasn't whether there would be NO browsers the supported 200%
but whether authors had to do this if A PARTICULAR browser didn't support
200%.   I don't think there will ever be a situation where there are NO
browsers that do 200%.


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 6:25 PM
> To: Gregg Vanderheiden
> Cc: Loretta Guarino Reid; TeamB
> Subject: Re: Action items from 1/23/07 meeting
>
>
> 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 06:18:44 UTC