- From: Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2016 18:15:27 +0100
- To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Cc: alands289 <alands289@gmail.com>, 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>, GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
On 06/07/2016 15:31, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote: > 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. I suggest we also need to have conversations with browser vendors to see if they're willing to implement the functionality. I believe Chrome allows for the greatest amount of zoom presently - and that's up to 500%. It's a long way from there to 1100%. > > b) people need that much will want it without the additional > benefits of a screen enlarger Where did the 1100% target come from? Sorry if I've missed it, but I'm assuming there is some research/evidence behind this choice - at least that gives us this figure as a starting point for further research/testing? Léonie. -- @LeonieWatson tink.uk Carpe diem.
Received on Wednesday, 6 July 2016 17:16:31 UTC