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

Re: Interaction of "zoom content" and vertical writing modes

From: Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 07:03:38 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJeQ8SDs4SOvJ29APitkWMtzR3BPHoddqY7X59qDytJrQHzXbg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Cc: "White, Jason J" <jjwhite@ets.org>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I did think about this one a little when I did my operational analysis.
Operational difficulty is equivalent in both orientations. The issue is
screen orientation. Landscape orientation to shallow because the height of
a landscape screen at 320px can be as small as 180px. That is an aspect
ratio of 9/16. So can we fit enough vertical block characters in 180 pixels
or must we reorient the screen.

In either case I think the 320 line length suffices.


On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 5:39 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>

> Hi Jason,
> The current zoom SC in the draft does include the following note:
> “320 CSS pixels is equivalent to a starting viewport width of 1280 CSS
> pixels wide at 400% zoom. For web pages which are designed to scroll
> horizontally, the 320px should be taken as the height rather than width.”
> Talking to Richard Ishida, vertical text is becoming better supported and
> should become more common.
> However, as far as I can tell, horizontally scrolling pages (for vertical
> text) are still very rare. I’ve found a demo which needed JavaScript to
> achieve it properly, I don’t think regular browser support is there yet.
> Do you think it is worth complicating the SC text to account for
> horizontally scrolling pages?
> Cheers,
> -Alastair
> Apologies for typos, sent from a mobile.
> ------------------------------
> *From:* White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 21, 2017 8:35:53 PM
> *To:* WCAG
> *Subject:* Interaction of "zoom content" and vertical writing modes
> The latest version of the “zoom content” proposal specifies that “content
> can be presented at a width equivalent to 320 CSS pixels…”. In the case of
> a vertical writing mode, however, it seems that the proposal would not
> prevent a user with low vision who enlarges the text within appropriate
> limits from having to engage in vertical scrolling to read the lines.
> I’m not familiar with the details of how vertical scripts are used, but if
> the whole or a significant portion of a page is presented in such a writing
> mode, then the current version of “zoom content” doesn’t appear to address
> the needs of low vision users of such writing systems.
> If this issue doesn’t have a straightforward answer, I can open it
> formally on GitHub.
> ------------------------------
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or
> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom
> it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail
> in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or
> take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete
> it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
> Thank you for your compliance.
> ------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 22 November 2017 15:04:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:18 UTC