- From: Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 10:42:41 -0800
- To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
- Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Received on Thursday, 23 November 2017 18:43:16 UTC
Since there seems to be agreement this is primarily future proofing, can we cover it with a note? Note: For languages where characters are read vertically instead of horizontally, the 320 pixel restriction would be to height, not width. Michael Gower IBM Accessibility Research 1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC V8T 5C3 gowerm@ca.ibm.com voice: (250) 220-1146 * cel: (250) 661-0098 * fax: (250) 220-8034 From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> To: Michael Gower <michael.gower@ca.ibm.com> Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> Date: 2017-11-23 06:53 AM Subject: Re: Interaction of "zoom content" and vertical writing modes > “Content can be zoomed to an equivalent width of 320 CSS pixels without loss of content or functionality, and without requiring both horizontal and vertical scrolling. That looks the same to me, it expands ‘one dimensional’, but it is the “equivalent width” aspect in the first part that would need to be width or height (in some way). -Alastair
Received on Thursday, 23 November 2017 18:43:16 UTC