Re: 30 Jan 2007 Team B Meeting

Thanks, Bruce. I thought that older screen magnifiers started at 2X,
and it is good to have confirmation of that. I think we might add that
to the rationale for why 200%.

Also, do you think we should be using 2X rather than 200% in the
success criteria? Will that we clearer? Can you suggest phrasing?

Loretta

On 1/31/07, Bailey, Bruce <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov> wrote:
>
>
> 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

Received on Wednesday, 31 January 2007 14:47:22 UTC