- From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
- Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2009 22:10:23 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
- CC: 'W Reagan' <wreagan1@yahoo.com>
Jonathan Avila wrote: > Perhaps there is a bug in Opera? My thinking regarding browser support > for Zoom is similar to the requirements for “supported by assistive > technology” which requires that there be a cross section of support w/ > AT for the web page but doesn’t require that it work with all forms of > AT. All information technology products have bugs/defects. I would say > that if the zoom feature works correctly across several major browsers > that would be a good argument for conformance to this checkpoint. Noting that I think Opera should acknowledge this is a bug, before one accepts it as a bug, I believe there is a principle in statistical quality control that if you get one failure in a small sample, you need to use a much larger sample than would be acceptable for no failures, before you can have reasonable confidence that failure was a statistical fluke. The situation here isn't quite the same, and the total population is rather small, but I would suggest if you fail on two browsers, you test on all the browser engine families that support zooming, before you accept it as an outlier. -- David Woolley Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want. RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam, that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Thursday, 6 August 2009 21:11:06 UTC