- From: Sailesh Panchang <spanchang02@yahoo.com>
- Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 17:01:51 -0500
- To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
- Cc: Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>, Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Thanks Alastair and Jonathan Sailesh. ...Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 7, 2017, at 4:37 PM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> wrote: > > Sailesh wrote: >> If that's the reading-order expectation, is the content not marked up incorrectly? > > Hi Sailesh, sort of, Linearise is intended to allow users to override the layout, lineraising it to one column and fitting within the viewport. > > There are several ways of accomplishing that, including simply removing CSS, or using an extension/script to linearise the page whilst retaining some styling. (Example [1]) > > >> I am assuming users who require significant magnification are using the necessary AT. > > It is important to understand the different between magnification and zoom+reflow. Magnification leads to lots of horizontal scrolling, which makes reading several magnitudes harder (Wayne has been researching this.) > > So necessary AT in this scenario is a script or extension to adapt the page layout. > > >> If all content on the page is properly marked up so as to expose structure and semantics will that not be sufficient? > > It hasn't been, according to pretty much everyone on the LVTF! > > Once the principle (i.e. the SC) is in place, there is work to do during the draft stages to test with scripts and flesh out the techniques & failures. > > I'm expecting complications like flexbox ordering (a programatic order different from source order) to come into play. > > Cheers, > > -Alastair > > 1] https://alastairc.ac/tests/layouts/percentages-rwd.html
Received on Tuesday, 7 February 2017 22:02:28 UTC