Re: text 'truncation' at normal scaling

13.11.2014, 06:00, "James Nurthen" <james@nurthen.com>:
> There is no lost content here no matter the zoom. The user can
> activate the input component and scroll within it to reach all of the
> text.

As Wayne points out, that has a cognitive cost which is effectively a loss of content, although technically the content is still there.

I think we should be looking for some kind of requirement that means the user is only required to move in one dimension in order to get all the content.

> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Adam Cooper <cooperad@bigpond.com> wrote:
[...]
>>  For example:
>>
>>  #css-width {width: 11em;}
>>  <input id="css-width" type="text" value="123456789012345678901234567890"
>>  /><br />
[...]
>>  Can ‘up to 200%’ be interpreted as ‘100% to 200%’ legitimately?  (an earlier
>>  draft of the guidelines had 50% to 200%)

The normal english meaning of "up to 200%" would be "from 0 to 200%"... but the key text here is "without loss of content or functionality".

>>  That is, are the examples above failures of success criterion 1.4.4?

I don't think so. There isn't content or functionality lost under zoom at 100% - it wasn't there.

On the other hand it is unfriendly design that poses a barrier for users. To a certain extent whether this is acceptable depends on th actual content - it it's a long filename with lots of apparently random characters, there may be no real issue, if it is text you want the user to actually read, there is.

Cheers

--
Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com

Received on Thursday, 13 November 2014 12:32:52 UTC