- From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 10:01:22 +0000
- To: "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org>
- CC: "w3c-waI-gl@w3. org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Jason wrote: > when all of the non-working UAs happen to be the mobile versions, and when the working ones aren't, it somewhat curtails the user's opportunities. Perhaps, but the physics of the smaller screen means that expanding text and/or other content is more constrained. That’s a good reason to keep 1.4.4 at a lower threshold without a 2D scrolling prohibition. The whole concept is enabled by media queries, which were designed to enable reformatting for mobile devices. Would you rather not have an SC that effectively works on desktop? > I'm finding it hard to separate those issues in this case. What is it about an underlying format that would prevent the Adapting Text requirements from being supported, even if they aren't already? For HTML, PDF it is not an issue, but if we were including Flash/Silverlight it would be different (which is why I’ve been asking that question). The plugin ‘formats’ are essentially black-boxes to the browser, so over-riding styles wouldn’t work, any mechanism would have to be author provided. > If we take the contingent facts about what user agents currently support out of consideration for the moment, then it seems to me that any format or combination of formats that have a chance of being used to conform to WCAG in other ways can meet the Adapting Text requirements, even if it entails adding new user agent features. > Thus it ultimately isn't, in practice, a question about the content formats. There are two questions, one is about formats (until we agree to disregard the plugin formats of Flash/Sliverlight), the other is about UA support/features. Cheers, -Alastair
Received on Tuesday, 25 April 2017 10:02:05 UTC