- From: Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 00:04:48 -0700
- To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
- Cc: 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>
- Message-ID: <CAJeQ8SCPYan7KqnheVRAGmN6nLdyXMwinhzPp_DbtOaGoWjzQw@mail.gmail.com>
I did it. I generated 1100% with word wrapping that was more efficient than a screen magnification interface. It is possible. People who are blind have braille. People with severe low vision also need a self paced medium. Large print is it. I love screen readers, but I also use large print when I need to study something difficult like the WAI-ARIA 1.1 document. It is long and difficult. The screen reader got me through the normal parts, and large print gave me the rest. I couldn't understand that accessible name calculation just listening. I had to look and ponder a lot. Gordon Legge showed that you could get 1000% enlargement on an iPad 3. He could have taken it higher but I had asked him to allow lines up to 15 character. He was trying to demonstrate that someone with 20/200 acuity could get a 1000% enlargement on an iPad 3 and still get 15 characters per line. It is in his letter to the U. S. Access Board regarding the 508 Refresh. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ATBCB-2015-0002-0019. Note with 15 characters per line and three or four lines per page you can get 6 to 10 words per page. That is a useful block of text. I'm not saying everyone needs extreme text resize. But many with severe low vision need it for a self paced medium. Extreme large print fills that need. On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden < gregg@raisingthefloor.org> wrote: > the horizontal scrolling is something to avoid as long as, and wherever > possible. > > But it is not something we can avoid at all levels of enlargement and for > all types of content. > > the hard part if finding the lines where it is required on this side and > not on that side….. > and finding when it is not practical — or help fun (e.g. spreadsheets > where you need to keep both horizontal and vertical comparison capability) > > *gregg* > > On Jul 11, 2016, at 11:46 AM, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> > wrote: > > Ø b) people need that much will want it without the additional benefits > of a screen enlarger > > I believe one of the challenges is that once you introduce an assistive > technology on top of the user agent you generally introduce horizontal > scrolling which is something we want to prevent. Some assistive > technologies have reader views that are like user agents. It might also be > possible to resize the viewport and use a screen magnifier but I think it > would be tricky to setup and having a window that takes up the width of the > screen for some users can prevent errors such as clicking outside of the > window and losing focus. > > Jonathan > > Jonathan Avila > Chief Accessibility Officer > SSB BART Group > jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com > 703.637.8957 (Office) > Visit us online: Website <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/> | Twitter > <https://twitter.com/SSBBARTGroup> | Facebook > <https://www.facebook.com/ssbbartgroup> | Linkedin > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/355266?trk=tyah> | Blog > <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/blog/> > > Check out our Digital Accessibility Webinars! > <http://www.ssbbartgroup.com/webinars/> > > *From:* Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org > <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>] > *Sent:* Wednesday, July 06, 2016 10:31 AM > *To:* David MacDonald > *Cc:* alands289; Alastair Campbell; Laura Carlson; Jonathan Avila; > public-mobile-a11y-tf@w3.org; GLWAI Guidelines WG org; > public-low-vision-a11y-tf > *Subject:* 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 > > *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 Tuesday, 12 July 2016 07:06:03 UTC