Re: Update to zoom content

I'm OK with this direction... we may want to further word smith it, but I
think its an improvement.

How would we test for 960 high?

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, Oct 6, 2017 at 1:18 PM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> I’d just like to draw people’s attention to a thread on github [1] that
> has resulted in an alternative approach to the zoom-content SC.
>
>
>
> To summarise, the current text is:
>
> “Content can be zoomed to an equivalent width of 320 CSS pixels without
> loss of content or functionality, and without requiring scrolling on more
> than one axis, except for parts of the content which require
> two-dimensional layout for usage or meaning.”
>
>
>
> The comments (including other people’s on the thread) brought up that:
>
>    - The 320px aspect is testable, but implies that you can pass at 101%
>    if it fits into 320px. It may lead to people not testing the in-between
>    aspects.
>    - The language is difficult to understand.
>    - You can pass with scrolling in 1 direction even if that impacts
>    reading (which I think Jason brought up previously).
>
>
>
> About 30 comments later
> <https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/335#issuecomment-334468667>, we got
> to this longer alternative:
>
>
>
> “For content with horizontal lines of text, content can be zoomed up to
> 400% from a starting width of 1280 CSS pixels without loss of content or
> functionality, and without requiring horizontal scrolling to read
> horizontal lines of text.
>
>
>
> For content with vertical lines of text, content can be zoomed up to 300%
> from a starting height of 960 CSS pixels without loss of content or
> functionality, and without requiring vertical scrolling to read vertical
> lines of text.
>
>
>
> Parts of the content that require two-dimensional layout for usage or
> meaning are excepted.”
>
>
>
> The advantages are:
>
>    - Simpler language (we think, but new eyes would help);
>    - Uses a starting point + zoom, so stronger implication of the method;
>    - Captures the requirement that you shouldn’t have to scroll to read
>    better.
>
>
>
> I assume we’ll need to do a CFC, but before that would anyone else like to
> comment on the thread?
>
>
>
> 1] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/335
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> www.nomensa.com / @alastc
>