Re: Zoom content updates Pt2

I think "scrolling in multiple directions" is confusing. Would rather use
the CSS definition which accounts for what Alastair is referring to.
"inline base direction of the text"

“Content can be zoomed to an equivalent width of 320 CSS pixels without
loss of content or functionality, and without requiring scrolling along the
<a>inline base direction of the text</a> except for parts of the content
which require two-dimensional layout for usage or meaning.
[image: Latin-based writing mode]
<https://www.w3.org/TR/css-writing-modes-3/diagrams/text-flow-vectors-tb.svg>

Latin-based writing mode
[image: Mongolian-based writing mode]
<https://www.w3.org/TR/css-writing-modes-3/diagrams/text-flow-vectors-lr-reverse.svg>

Mongolian-based writing mode
[image: Han-based writing mode]
<https://www.w3.org/TR/css-writing-modes-3/diagrams/text-flow-vectors-tb.svg>[image:
Han-based writing mode]
<https://www.w3.org/TR/css-writing-modes-3/diagrams/text-flow-vectors-rl.svg>

Han-based writing

Definition adapted from CSS

*inline base direction of the text: * the primary direction in which
content is ordered on a line and defines where the “start” and “end” of a
line is. The inherent directionality of any text content, determines the
ordering of content within a line.

Example 1: Latin based language letters are horizontal but stacked
vertically, the inline base direction would be top to bottom.

Example 2: Latin based language letters are turned 90% to form words
vertically the inline base direction would be top to bottom.

More examples...

I'm not going to fall on my sword over it but it seems prudent to leverage
CSS language which has thought long and hard about this stuff before coming
to definitions.

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 Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 8:01 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Hi Everyone,
>
> Based on the follow-up comments for ‘zoom content’, there is a new version
> [1]:
> ----------------
> “Content can be zoomed to an equivalent width of 320 CSS pixels without
> loss of content or functionality, and without requiring scrolling in
> multiple directions except for parts of the content which require
> two-dimensional layout for usage or meaning.
>
> Note: 320 CSS pixels is equivalent to a starting viewport width of 1280
> CSS pixels wide at 400% zoom. For web pages which are designed to scroll
> horizontally, the 320px should be taken as the height rather than width.
>
> Note: Examples of content which require two-dimensional layout are images,
> maps, diagrams, video, games, presentations, data tables, and interfaces
> where it is necessary to keep toolbars in view while manipulating content.
> ----------------
>
> There main changes are:
>
> 1. Based on Jonathan’s comment, using “can be zoomed to an equivalent
> width of 320 CSS pixels”. That implies you zoom through the range, rather
> than just make it work at that size (although a fixed-width of 320px would
> pass, which is fine, if an odd thing to do).
>
> 2. Still using “width of”, but adding to the note that for a page laid out
> horizontally it mean test the vertical equivalent. I haven’t found any
> examples of that in the wild (apart from a demo), but it would be a good
> one to put out for wider feedback.
>
> 3. Replacing “in the direction of text” with “in multiple directions”.
> When you get into the detail of text-directions it is really confusing and
> actually makes it harder to understand. For example, characters can be
> vertically laid out, but the characters themselves can be horizontally or
> vertically oriented (e.g. https://alastairc.ac/tmp/word-example.png ).
> The page itself would expand downwards, but the text could be L/R or Top to
> Bottom. Hopefully using “multiple directions” makes sense to everyone? Or
> is at least the best alternative?
>
> Is there anything people can’t live with there?
>
> The comments made and addressed on github since then start about here:
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/77#issuecomment-304215360
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Alastair
>
> 1] https://rawgit.com/w3c/wcag21/resize-content_ISSUE-77/
> guidelines/sc/21/resize-content.html
>
>
>
> On 26/05/2017, 13:58, "Jonathan Avila" <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> wrote:
>
>     > Content can be displayed at a minimum width
>
>     My concern is over the term "minimum".  It could be read that
> supporting something over the minimum passes.  Could it be removed?
>
>     Jonathan
>
>     Jonathan Avila
>     Chief Accessibility Officer
>     SSB BART Group
>     jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com
>     703.637.8957 (Office)
>
>     Visit us online: Website | Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn | Blog
>     Download our CSUN Presentations Here!
>
>     The information contained in this transmission may be attorney
> privileged and/or confidential information intended for the use of the
> individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the
> intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination,
> distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com]
>     Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 7:45 PM
>     To: WCAG
>     Subject: Zoom content updates
>
>     Hi everyone,
>
>     Based on the call earlier I've made some updates to the SC text:
>     https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/77
>
>     The main change is to switch from saying "allow for this much zoom",
> to saying "ensure it works at this width".
>
>     The main reason for this is for testability, as soon as you say it
> should not create horizontal scrolling then you need to define either:
>     - The starting size (e.g. 1280px) and the zoom factor (400%), or
>     - The end size (e.g. 320px).
>
>     None of these values were in the SC text, so for testability we'd have
> to include either:
>     "Starting at 1280px zoom content by 400% without loss of...", or
> "Content can be displayed at a minimum width of 320 CSS pixels without loss
> of..."
>
>     I think the second approach is more effective, and if it starts with
> "Zoom content", it still has a connection to the user-requirement. It also
> side-steps the (perceived) issue of how you test on smaller screens.
>
>     So the SC text is now:
>     ------------------
>     Content can be displayed at a minimum width of 320 CSS pixels without
> loss of content or functionality, and without requiring scrolling in the
> direction of text except for parts of the content which require
> two-dimensional layout for usage or meaning.
>
>     Note: The width of 320 CSS pixels is equivalent to a browser width of
> 1280 pixels wide at 400% zoom.
>
>     Note: Examples of content which require two-dimensional layout are
> images, maps, diagrams, video, games, presentations, data tables, and
> interfaces where it is necessary to keep toolbars in view while
> manipulating content.
>     ------------------
>
>     I just added the first note, I'm not wedded to it, do you think we
> need it or can we explain that in the understanding?
>
>     Any comments here please:
>     https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/77
>
>     Cheers,
>
>     -Alastair
>
>
>
>