- From: Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 07:59:23 -0700
- To: michiel.list@moiety.me
- Cc: GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAJeQ8SACb5z=rnSo=axsrj4Eoj2BQv6QzCYgGYHaifaLq8AfwA@mail.gmail.com>
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? Wayne
Received on Wednesday, 19 July 2017 15:00:25 UTC