- From: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce_Bailey@ed.gov>
- Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 11:47:20 -0400
- To: "'Leonard R. Kasday'" <kasday@acm.org>, "'WAI GL'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Cc: "'GV@trace.wisc.edu'" <GV@trace.wisc.edu>, "'mcooper@cast.org'" <mcooper@cast.org>, "'dickb@microsoft.com'" <dickb@microsoft.com>, "'paciello@webable.com'" <paciello@webable.com>
Len, I would like to express my personal opinion that you've brought up a legitimate concern. My experience is that many people with very significant visual impairment eschew the use of "real" screen magnification (even when something reasonable is free and part of the operating systems, as is the modern case). As you say, this is not for reasons that third parties have excuse to dismiss. Modern OS and applications are fairly adaptive in this regard and have significant accommodations built it. I would guess that most of this list know someone whose vision is poor enough that, for example, they cannot drive, but can work Windows fine just using one of the larger font schemes and a 17" or 21" monitor set to 640x480 resolution. When browsing (or using a word processor) things are even better (or should be) since the major product have (for years now) included the ability to enlarge the base font. When compared with the features incorporated into the OS and applications, the additional cost overhead of using screen magnification (i.e., losing fast access to the whole screen) is just not worth the minor perceived benefit. Text-as-graphics do not scale. Defeating the scalability of a page is a major obstacle to accessibility. This effectively disables the "text size" feature of the browser. It is, of course, ridiculous to expect someone to use screen magnification software (even the freebie built into 98+) when a text is hard to read -- especially when the browsers have a "larger font" feature built in. All the Guideline 3 checkpoints are P2 (as is 11.2 which mentions explicitly mentions the FONT element). It is extremely appropriate that using a graphic-of-text (for non-logo applications) is a P2 violation. I don't see why people are arguing around this. Why should exceptions be made for menus and tabs? Why else have this checkpoint? The complaint seems to be, "Well, that makes AA compliance too hard!" I have been trying to point out for some time that achieving all P2 items is a VERY high standard. I don't, however, think this justifies moving the bar down! I would love to hear from some of the disability oriented sites that violate 3.1. I outed them on my last post on this thread. (1) Did you think about this checkpoint as applying to your site design? Could the checkpoint be stated better? Now that it has come to your attention, please explain: (2a) Why Checkpoint 3.1 doesn't apply to using images to represent text in menus (or image maps). OR (2b) Why Checkpoint 3.1 doesn't apply to your site (maybe you are using 11.4 as an out). OR (2c) Why you don't claim nor try for full AA compliance. OR (2d) Your plans to make corrections ASAP. Thanks.
Received on Wednesday, 27 September 2000 11:47:58 UTC