Re: Mechanism Disclaimer

I would also agree that there are a large number of people with a wide
variety low vision symptoms using small mobile devices.

On a side note I know a low vision user who gave up on dedicated magnifiers
and users her iPad to magnify things, with the camera.

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 Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com
> wrote:

> > In the low-vision context most people don’t use small mobile devices
> simply because they don’t provide a usable interface for them, at least on
> the more moderate-to-severe end of the scale. (There are of course
> exceptions & exceptional people!)
>
> I disagree with this.  My experiences have been that they are used.  Do
> you have any research on the topic?  What do you define as small size?  I
> see people with low vision using cell phones and tablets all of the time.
> Perhaps your experiences are with a particular demographic such as people
> over a certain age that confounds the data.
>
> 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
> See you at CSUN in March!
>
> 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: Friday, January 20, 2017 7:19 AM
> To: Patrick H. Lauke; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Mechanism Disclaimer
>
> Patrick wrote:
> > I'm wondering what the relationship to, say, native apps would be,
> > where the OS likely doesn't provide mechanism, and authors WOULD have
> > to code something up themselves - or were these exempt even in the
> > current wording?)
>
> Well, we’re covering web-content rather than native apps, but I think the
> point stands because extensions are not commonly supported on mobile
> browsers. (NB: Bookmarklets work on mobile, except for sites with CSP.)
>
> There’s been a lot of discussion about that, with some justifiable
> resistance to including exceptions for user agents.
>
> My view is that if the author tests their *content* for handling
> font-family changes, it doesn’t matter if some user-agents don’t support
> doing. It is a content guideline, and it is up to the user to have an agent
> that supports their needs.
> I think the proposed wording fits with that?
>
> In the low-vision context most people don’t use small mobile devices
> simply because they don’t provide a usable interface for them, at least on
> the more moderate-to-severe end of the scale. (There are of course
> exceptions & exceptional people!)
>
> However, I’m keen to translate user-requirements to content guidelines,
> and this seems like a necessary step to overcome the “OMG Widgets!”
> response. (That’s not a criticism, that’s the reaction I had initially to.)
>
> Just because something isn’t supported on mobile doesn’t mean we shouldn’t
> improve things on desktop, assuming that it doesn’t make the mobile
> experience worse for everyone else. I think that applies to Resize content
> and several other SCs as well.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Alastair
>
>