RE: 30 Jan 2007 Team B Meeting

The value comes from those with clinical experience.   It is also consistent with older screen magnifiers that provide a minimal magnification of 200%.  There was also the assertion that with all the software involved, 2x and 200% are used in a consistant manner.  (I am skeptical of that, but cannot refute it.)

 -----Original Message----- 
 From: public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org on behalf of Makoto Ueki 
 Sent: Tue 1/30/2007 10:18 PM 
 To: TeamB 
 Cc: 
 Subject: Re: 30 Jan 2007 Team B Meeting
 
 


 Late regrets.  I couldn't make it this morning..... 

 I agree with Sorcha that the readers still might ask a question why 
 200%, not 175% or 190%. It'll be much better that we could explain the 
 rationale in more detail. 

 - Makoto