- From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
- Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2017 15:49:01 +0000
- To: "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org>, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- CC: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <C02CE87B-673A-499D-A9D0-EB5AE723AEA8@nomensa.com>
I appreciate the wish to off-load the explanation to a CSS definition, but when I read into it, then it got *more* complex.
(BTW, I’m drawing heavily on this: https://www.chenhuijing.com/blog/chinese-web-typography/<https://www.chenhuijing.com/blog/chinese-web-typography/)> thanks MikeG!)
The inline base direction is not the same as the way you read the characters, thus it is more confusing.
You have:
- Inline base direction: which way the characters go on a line (left to right here)
- Block flow: which way blocks flow, in this case top to bottom.
- Typographic mode: we don’t need this for western text, but it is whether the characters are rotated or not.
The existence of typographic mode means that using ‘inline base direction’ is counter-productive for the very audience we are trying to cater for.
What we actually want to prevent horizontal scrolling, is scrolling that does *not* follow the block flow.
So we could use something like:
“Content can be zoomed to an equivalent width of 320 CSS pixels without loss of content or functionality, and without requiring scrolling perpendicular to the block flow except for parts of the content which require two-dimensional layout for usage or meaning.”
However, that seems unnecessarily technical, is two-dimensional really that complex? I seem to remember that being covered in primary school (before age 11?). It is certainly well before qualification level exams (e.g. GCSEs, high school diploma).
Cheers,
-Alastair
From: "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org>
Date: Monday, 5 June 2017 at 16:19
To: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Zoom content updates Pt2
I support David’s point here, and his version of the proposal (with the definition) is an improvement compared with previous versions.
From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca]
Sent: Monday, June 5, 2017 11:09 AM
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: 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.
[atin-based writing mode]<https://www.w3.org/TR/css-writing-modes-3/diagrams/text-flow-vectors-tb.svg>
Latin-based writing mode
[ongolian-based writing mode]<https://www.w3.org/TR/css-writing-modes-3/diagrams/text-flow-vectors-lr-reverse.svg>
Mongolian-based writing mode
[an-based writing mode]<https://www.w3.org/TR/css-writing-modes-3/diagrams/text-flow-vectors-tb.svg>[an-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
CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
Tel: 613.235.4902
LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
twitter.com/davidmacd<http://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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
703.637.8957<tel: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<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
________________________________
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
Thank you for your compliance.
________________________________
Received on Monday, 5 June 2017 15:49:39 UTC