On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 06:43:26PM -0800, Norman Rasmussen wrote: > I'm not sure how much switching to svg would help overall. Removing the > 100% width would probably help the most. Refreshing the images at a > higher resolution wouldn't hurt either. Both are easier than trying to > change the image format.
I guess in this case a HTML "screenshot" is really the best as there are no fancy graphics you would need to catch the shape of but all glyphs found in a font – which in SVG would usually need to be converted to shapes which can be scaled, but do not have hinting and such (although that might lead to differences between screenshot and reality if the renderer chooses to perform different hinting, ligatures or whatever). I think this document can be rendered in other formats than HTML though, so you might need something for that case, too. Also, the second screenshot on the example given in the bugreport with the opened menu is probably not that understandable if a screenreader would read that out, so screenshots will probably still need an explainer even if they can be technically read… I am not blind though, so I can't really judge that with certainty. Anyway, the 100% was probably chosen for displays smaller than the screenshot as the user would need to do horizontal scrolling then. I guess I would use the equivalent of ```css .screenshot { text-align: center; } .screenshot img { width: 100%; max-width: max-content; } ``` in the document so that the screenshot isn't scaled into oblivion on (very) width screens. This still allows users to zoom the page which will also zoom the images. Meanwhile on small screens no horizontal scrolling is needed and on wide screens no scaling is performed by default (and due to the first line the image is centered on the page because I personally prefer that style…). Best regards David Kalnischkies
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature