- From: Wayne Dick <waynedick@knowbility.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 10:32:15 -0800
- To: Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>
- Cc: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAC9gL7549xZWjuyEjz+c+Px4Y0qM+tagwQWwY016aYCWtv+BCA@mail.gmail.com>
This has really been a clarifying discussion. Thank You Oscar for kicking this off. Wayne On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 6:46 AM, Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu> wrote: > Phil > LP = Large Print > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Wayne Dick <waynedick@knowbility.org> > wrote: > >> I think it is time to be realistic about the timeline of standards. If we >> set standards for what is routine today then in 3-5 years when the standard >> becomes established, the technology we proposed will be obsolete. That is >> why we can be a little on the edge when it comes to proposed requirements. >> >> Today responsive design is a little new, but worked enough to be >> reliable. In 3-5 years it will be routine, and some better methodology will >> emerge. Today we have progressive enhancement – completely established >> and guaranteed to revert to one column format. Responsive design is >> moderately new (5 years old) and tested. We can write requirements >> today that insist a page must be linearizable to one column to enable >> limitless text enlargement (level A). We can make a level AA requirement of >> responsive. It can be done today, and in 3-5 years when the standard is out >> in the world it will be easy to implement. >> >> As far as enlargement is concerned, it should be defined in EMs. One >> media query case should look for screens with 10-20 EMs. That gives about >> 12-14 letters per screen. On a 13in screen that translates to 72 point, 1 >> inch letters. If one selects the (word-break, break-word) option entire >> words stay on the screen even if they break. This is better than >> magnification that forces the first part of long words to be out of the >> visual space once the person moves right. It is linear. On a 26 inch >> monitor, 10 EM screen width means 144 point font, and the formatting would >> be very usable. >> >> God is in the details. Conversion to responsive is difficult, but adding >> a few extra queries for low vision is not. Don’t kid yourself. It isn’t >> some people who have a hard time with screen magnification, it is almost >> everyone, like 20 to 1. Having sufficiently large font with word wrapping >> will change the entire world for people with low vision resulting from >> reduced visual acuity. It did for me. >> >> I have read 10 times as many books since CSS 2 as I did in the preceding >> 40 years. I could not participate in this discussion without that access. >> Well-structured content changed my life. After eight years of research I >> know it will do the same for the overwhelming majority of people with low >> vision. The question is this. We have the technology to do this for >> everyone, should we hold it back. Is that ethical? >> >> >> >> Wayne >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Jim Allan, Accessibility Coordinator > Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired > 1100 W. 45th St., Austin, Texas 78756 > voice 512.206.9315 fax: 512.206.9264 http://www.tsbvi.edu/ > "We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." McLuhan, 1964 >
Received on Wednesday, 20 January 2016 18:32:46 UTC