W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-eo@w3.org > April to June 2008

Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Working Draft of December, 2007

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:21:11 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0804111021y5f90b02evbfc37b97a6c3fc5b@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Liam McGee" <liam.mcgee@communis.co.uk>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org, EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 4:32 AM, Liam McGee <liam.mcgee@communis.co.uk> wrote:
>
>  Loretta Guarino Reid wrote:
>
> > ----------------------------------------------------------
> > Comment 1: Screen width issue with reflow
> > Source:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007Dec/0052.html
> > (Issue ID: 2377)
> >
> > Status: VERIFIED / NOT ACCEPTED
> > ----------------------------
> > Original Comment:
> > ----------------------------
> >
> > (From responses to Issue 2356)
> > Problem 1:
> > ----------
> >
>  <--snip-->
>  This refers to the line 'text is resized without assistive technology up to
> 200 percent in a way that does not require the user to scroll horizontally
> to read a line of text'
>
>
> >
> > More critically, the need for horizontal scrolling depends on the
> > pixel-width of the viewport, and this is *impossible for the designer to
> > control*. A moderately long word (or a URL) on a PDA will easily fail
> > this - and some languages have a lot of long words.
> >
> > Proposed Change:
> > ----------------
> > Suggested change: replace "in a way that does not require the user
> > to scroll horizontally" with "while remaining readable to the user"
> >
> > Current comment:
> >
> > Is there any update about the screen width issue?
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------
> > Response from Working Group:
> > ---------------------------------------------
> >
> > We have clarified the last bullet of the success criterion by adding
> > "on a full screen window".
> >
> > So any URI would have to be longer than 1/2 of the screen in order to
> > cause a problem with this provision.
> >
>
>  Formal objection: but a URI could easily be longer than 1/2 of the screen
> on a small-screen browser (PDA, smartphone etc.) - I entirely accept the
> point for desktop browsing - but can we have an exception for small-screen
> browsers? Or name a pixel-width below which it doesn't apply? 320px? How
> about languages with long words e.g. German?
>
>  Example: The WAI home page on Opera Mini(http://tinyurl.com/2lsef7)
>
>  View the body text column. Would this fail the checkpoint as it stands
> because the list items 'Call for review: UAAG 2.0 Working Draft' requires
> horizontal scrolling (at 100%)? The concept of 'text is resized up to 200%'
> breaks down in any case on Opera Mini, iPhone Safari etc.
>
>  I think this is a platform-specific checkpoint, and should be so noted.
>
>
> > Note that the last bullet does not prohibit the use (or need to use) a
> > horizontal scroll bar. It just prohibits requiring its use to read a
> > single line of text in  a paragraph from the beginning to the end. We
> > have added information to Understanding 1.4.8 to help clarify this.
> >
>
>  Accept, thanks.
>
>
> > Any page with two columns of text on it would automatically conform
> > even if it did not reflow.  You could zoom the page and read either
> > column using only the vertical scrollbar once you had the column on
> > screen.
> >
>
>  Thanks for clarifying this.
>
>
> > Screen magnifiers such as Zoomtext are designed specifically to make
> > horizontal scrolling (or any kind of scolling) extremely easy, by
> > simply moving the mouse. Users who do not have the benefit of
> > assistive technology do not have this same advantage. At level AAA our
> > success critieria do not have the same requirement of AT on the part
> > of the user that we find at Level A and AA. People with cognitive
> > challenges do not require a screen magnifier to read, but they are
> > most certainly disoriented by having to scroll horizontally. This is
> > also true of low vision people who do not use AT.
> >
>
>  Interesting, I hadn't picked up the requirement of AT on the part of the
> user for AA and A. Seems like a sensible division.
>
>  So, generally accept but would like clarification for small-screen browsers
> and long words.
>
>  --
>  Liam McGee, Managing Director, Communis Ltd
>  www.communis.co.uk      +44 (0)1373 836 476
>
>

---------------------------------------------
Response from Working Group:
---------------------------------------------
It looks like you are only looking for additional information on the
first item dealing with reflow and screen width.

The provision only says that text needs to reflow.  And text is
defined as characters expressing something in human language.  A URL
is not human language.  As Tim Berners-Lee is often heard to say 'URLs
were never designed to be read by humans'.  This only applies to text
like this paragraph is written in.  The longest words in a language
would usually fit on half of a full size screen.  We  added the clause
"on a full screen window".  In understanding we explain that this
means "should ensure that content meets this requirement on standard
desktop/laptop displays with the browser window maximized."

If this is what you mean by platform (hardware) we agree with you.  We
have therefore added the following definition .


on a full-screen window
            on the most common sized desktop/laptop display with the
viewport maximized

We have also added to Understanding document:

Since people generally keep their computers for several years, it is
best not to rely on the latest desktop/laptop display resolutions but
to consider the common desktop/laptop display resolutions over the
course of several years when making this evaluation.


Thanks again for the interest that you have taken in these guidelines.
Could we ask you to let us know whether or not you are satisfied with
this response by Wed, April 16?

Loretta Guarino Reid, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Gregg Vanderheiden, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Michael Cooper, WCAG WG Staff Contact

On behalf of the WCAG Working Group
Received on Friday, 11 April 2008 17:21:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:55:57 UTC