Quote:
Originally Posted by MarjaE
Except that people may need to enlarge text to read it. It's harder to do that if we can't reflow text. Yes, some people can use zoom and pan, but not everyone.
|
Yes, but that was precisely my POINT. They're saying that our "pages" (in an ePUB, mind you) don't "fit" their page size. What the holy hell does that mean? It's
ridiculous. If we were discussing a PDF, yes, I'd agree; pan-scan, tap-zoom, etc., is onerous, but we're not.
Quote:
WCAG standards are better than the web as it is, but they aren't enough.
For example, they permit flashing and scrolling text under certain circumstances. For example, for very important alerts, or if it flashes less than 3 times per second, for less than 5 seconds. Such important alerts that it's alright to make people sick and leave people unable to read the actual alert.
https://www.w3.org/WAI/test-evaluate...minary/#moving
For another, they don't address smooth scrolling. A lot of sites override browser settings, and impose smooth scrolling regardless of user preferences and accessibility needs.
|
We recently had to remake a huge file--over 1200 pages when laid for ePDF--3 times, because the "university" that insisted that it had to meet their accessibility standards just slapped some items on there that aren't included in anyone else's. Suffice to say that I was livid, as the things that they wanted don't come easily, when you're exporting an ePUB, to text/Word, thence to PDF. (For example, if you export a Word file to HTML, the alt-text doesn't go with!).
It's one thing to be asked to meet accessibility standards. It's another to be required to meet someone's arbitrary, undocumented accessibility standards.
In this instance, Redshelf has NO documented standards, for accessibility or anything else. At least they are EEObnoxious.
Hitch