W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2017

Re: What accessibility support exists for low vision?

From: Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 07:59:23 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJeQ8SACb5z=rnSo=axsrj4Eoj2BQv6QzCYgGYHaifaLq8AfwA@mail.gmail.com>
To: michiel.list@moiety.me
Cc: GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
​Hi Micheal,

Keep in mind, this is not for changing the direction of 2.1. It is an
observation for silver.

Responsive design was not developed with content enlargement in mind. It
was meant to accommodate changes in display size.

Currently an author who creates a break point for 320px width has a
portrait mobile device in mine.  They are thinking of a logical resolution
of 360 by something like 568. This means authors set fixed size and
position items at the top and bottom of a page. That burns up a lot of
space, top and bottom, but in portrait mode the room is still there for the
main content.

The logical space for large print has resolution 320 by 180. There is
literally no room for banners. or they must flow out of the was.

That is what I mean. I originally used symmetric to emphasize keeping more
than hardware uses in mind when designing break points. Designing for
enlargement creates different cases that are not covered in many cases.

I am sorry that I cannot give the url, but Alastair and Steve R have
collected a lot of cases.

Responsive design with disability in mind is different than responsive
design with hardware in mind.

Does that answer?


Received on Wednesday, 19 July 2017 15:00:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:15 UTC