@David M. It could be an editorial (clarification) note in the actual SC. (examples today include SC 1.3.3, SC 1.4.1 & 1.4.2, SC 1.4.5, SC 1.4.7, ...and more) ??? JF On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 6:30 PM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote: > Notes can't be used to create new requirements. If the vertical issue is > not in the SC, it can't be freshly introduced in a note as an additional > requirement. > > Cheers, > David MacDonald > > > > *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.* > > Tel: 613.235.4902 <(613)%20235-4902> > > 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 Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 4:07 PM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> > wrote: > >> > Since there seems to be agreement this is primarily future proofing, >> can we cover it with a note? >> >> >> >> That would be my preference, and it’s already there! >> >> >> >> “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.” >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> >> -Alastair >> >> >> > > -- John Foliot Principal Accessibility Strategist Deque Systems Inc. john.foliot@deque.com Advancing the mission of digital accessibility and inclusion
Received on Friday, 24 November 2017 15:51:57 UTC