Re: Accessible college websites

On 2014-05-07 21:45 (GMT+0100) Patrick H. Lauke composed:

> Felix Miata wrote:

>> Note that none of those images actually show what they are intended to
>> show unless either they are opened in a viewer which has adjusted their
>> size such that the embedded 1" images in fact measure 1" wide, or the
>> viewing system has a 144DPI display.

> Translated: unless you run this non-standard setup that I use, the
> images won't make the point that on my non-standard setup I'm not
> getting what I expect, which the vast majority of the web also doesn't do.

Invalid translation. It means display densities in actual use vary widely (much more 
widely than they did when the web was young, which was also a time when densities 
averaged considerably lower). Because physical size is an important component of 
perspective, viewing without adjustment taking into account density provides a 
constrained ability to comprehend what a bitmap image exemplifies.

There is an alternative viewing option, but it requires using math to apply. Measure 
how wide the one inch image actually is on your screen, divide by one, apply the 
result to your current viewing distance, and move the screen away from (or toward, if 
you screen is a higher density than 144) your eyes accordingly. This method employs 
the same principles incorporated in the 
http://dev.w3.org/csswg/css-values/#absolute-lengths reference px definition.

Maybe something more familiar will help you understand:
http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/SC/sc-patlau1405-220.png image
http://fm.no-ip.com/Tmp/sc-patlau1405.html setup

Same viewing instructions apply: either view in a viewer with the 1" image 1" wide, 
or adjust viewing distance according to the formula. This though is from a different 
"non-standard" setup. Instead of the 144DPI density of the images in my previous 
thread post, this has the 220DPI density of a high dollar Macbook Retina, which makes 
its http://redux.deviantart.com/ subject's 10px P text true scribble that even those 
with the best of vision, plus a magnifier, would have a tough time reading at all, 
much less with any semblance of comfort.

WRT "non-standard", the tyranny of the majority is showing in typical web sites. 
Stylists who use px units penalize those to dare to deviate from whatever "standard" 
might be, for no reason other than it may be easier to style that way. Have you never 
noticed that as the price of PC equipment goes up, that pixel density, on average, 
goes up too, meaning everything shrinks except the distance between screen borders 
and the space between keys?

>> In summary, an ideal foundation for any site requires (even though not
>> addressed in WCAG):

> Then try to address it in WCAG.

Hence my post here, to generate discussion.

>It does seem, though, that if this was
> indeed such a problem, there would be a far greater outcry about this
> apparent omission.

It's a problem similar to that from the ivory towers of the rich, born and raised in 
their mansions and penthouses full of servants high above the streets and crime 
below, divorced from mobile home parks and slum apartment complexes, and even farther 
from thatch huts on the savanna and in rain forests with the closest hospitals and 
doctors hundreds or thousands of km away. The rich might occasionally be exposed to 
their problems via various media, but it isn't the same as being there every day. 
Stylists limited to one or a few similar systems to do their work with, and a single 
pair of eyes, interacting with others with mostly similar characteristics, are 
limited by their relative microcosms in ability to comprehend, much less remain 
cognizant of, what others not similarly equipped or limited must endure.
-- 
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

  Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

Received on Thursday, 8 May 2014 00:05:48 UTC