Re: 1100% may be physically impossible and still not achieve the results on smaller monitors

you are right

we need to thoroughly test something that high - and be sure that  

a) it is doable on most pages (all pages we scope it for)  
 -  redoing it  with that much enlargement is a lot.   

b) people need that much will want it without the additional benefits of a screen enlarger    
400% without all the tracking etc (that comes with a screen enlarger) might be tricky.
and how do they need 400% on the web content but not the browser itself or anything else on the desktop?    how do they use those? 



gregg

> On Jul 6, 2016, at 8:42 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> 
> 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
>  
> CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
> Tel:  613.235.4902
> LinkedIn 
>  <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
> twitter.com/davidmacd <http://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 <mailto: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 <mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2016 6:11 AM
> To: Laura Carlson <mailto:laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>; Jonathan Avila <mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
> Cc: public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org <mailto:public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org>; WCAG <mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>; Low Vision Task Force <mailto: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 <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
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>