- From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 09:42:43 -0400
- To: ALAN SMITH <alands289@gmail.com>
- CC: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>, "public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org" <public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, Low Vision Task Force <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <BLU436-SMTP700DD4E5CDF17FF45D1C3FFE3A0@phx.gbl>
I've been teaching people with low vision transitioning to blindness for a number of years. Usually, by the time they are at 400-500% (4x to 5x on zoomtext), I'm saying something like this "Ok, let's have that conversation about a dedicated screen reader again" I had one student who was very attached to Zoom and hung on until 20x (which allows about 5 characters wide on a 27" screen), but when I finally convinced her to switch to a Screen Reader she said "I can't believe I waited so long, this is sooooo much better." I think for a user agent zoom we can't realistically be looking at more than 300-400% ... and that will require significant testing and mockups as a proof of concept... The thinking in WCAG 2 was that people needing more than 200% generally have assistive technology but I (cautiously) think we could increase that to perhaps 400%. Cheers, David MacDonald *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.* Tel: 613.235.4902 LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100> twitter.com/davidmacd GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/> * Adapting the web to all users* * Including those with disabilities* If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html> On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 8:20 AM, ALAN SMITH <alands289@gmail.com> wrote: > Laura, et al. > > > > I’m concerned with the wording from the GitHub link for the latest > proposal, > > > > It starts out with the statement by allanj-uaaag > > Current: Text can be resized without assistive technology up to 200 > percent in a way *that does not require the user to scroll horizontally* > to read a line of text on a full-screen window. > > > > This is an inaccurate statement. > > The current 1.4.4 allows for scrolling if necessary in the Examples for > Success: > > “A user uses a zoom function in his user agent to change the scale of the > content. All the content scales uniformly, *and the user agent provides > scroll bars, if necessary*.” > > > > I also think it is physically impossible to increase to 1100% without > horizontal scrolling. > > > > Is their an actual font size that the 1100% value is trying to achieve? > > > > 1100% creates a totally different end resultant font size on a 10” > tablet as it does on a 15” laptop or a 24” monitor. What the user gets with > 1100% on a larger monitor would not be nearly what they get on a smaller > monitor/screen size. > > > > Should we state that it needs to be 1100% for 15” monitors but something > like 1800” for 10” screens and 2200% for 6” smart phones. > > > > Would we also need to make sure that touch target sizes for buttons and > icons need to be scalable to some value at a similar percentage as well for > low vision and users with dexterity and motor skill issues? > > > > > > Alan Smith, CSTE, CQA > > Sent from Mail for Windows 10 > > > > *From: *Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> > *Sent: *Wednesday, July 6, 2016 6:11 AM > *To: *Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>; Jonathan Avila > <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> > *Cc: *public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; Low Vision > Task Force <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org> > *Subject: *Re: Jonathan's concern: Zoom in responsive drops content > > > > Laura wrote: > > The latest LVTF proposal for an SC is 1100% based on Gordon Leege's > studies. > > https://github.com/w3c/low-vision-SC/issues/5 > > > > Thanks for the heads up, I don’t think that’s realistic so I’ve commented > there. > > > > -Alastair > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 6 July 2016 13:43:17 UTC