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

I’ve replied on github:
https://github.com/w3c/low-vision-SC/issues/5#issuecomment-231975136 

But the basic points are:

- An SC needs to be a minimum, not a maximum (unless we take on the user-agent requirements as well),
- It needs to apply to things like Gmail, not just text-documents.
- There is a natural ‘new’ minimum re-sizability of around 300-400% that we should aim for.

I think version 4 of the proposed SC wordings is good, although I’m not sure about “zooming layout” compared to “text sizing”:
https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/Possible_wording_from_Jason/David_for_LVTF_re:_zoom_without_horizontal_scroll#Version_4 

Cheers,

-Alastair


On 12/07/2016, 09:18, "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote:

On 12/07/2016 08:04, Wayne Dick wrote:
[...]
> 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.

The main question, to me, is: what are you proposing? Is this something 
that web content authors need to cater for - provide a mechanism to 
enlarge text, making sure it wraps, up to 1100%? Is it a requirement for 
user agents - to go beyond their current zoom limit of around 500%, and 
to offer (like old Opera Mobile/Mini, and outliers like Dolphin on 
mobile) a means to enlarge text size and force rewrapping of text?

I don't think anybody is disputing that having that large print will be 
beneficial for certain users...the question is who this requirement is 
aimed at and what you're asking them to do in order to allow for 
it/achieve it.

P
-- 
Patrick H. Lauke

www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke

http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com

twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

Received on Tuesday, 12 July 2016 08:52:03 UTC