horizontal scrolling -> uni-directional scrolling ?

[CC: EOWG, LVTF -- fyi, some recent coverage <https://www.w3.org/TR/css-writing-modes-3/>]

Hi Richard,

We could use help with wording of an accessibility issue in a way that addresses internationalization situations - specifically, different writing-modes/scripts.

First, if it is best for me to send this to a list &/or if you have suggestions for other individuals to check with, please let me know. :-)

Summary: We talk about not making users scroll horizontally to read blocks of text -- particularly when users increase text size. However, I think that phrasing applies for right-to-left and left-to-right scripts/writing-modes, but not to top-to-bottom.

Would you be able to suggest wording that covers all writing-modes -- and is not more complex than needed to be appropriate for the situation? Note that different levels of technical accuracy and comprehensiveness are needed below.

Issue in context:

1. "When text is changed, no information or functionality should be lost, the text should re-flow, and users shouldn't have to scroll horizontally to read sentences."
<https://www.w3.org/WAI/perspectives/customizable.html>
* This is an informative resources, *not* any kinds of specification, and simplicity is much more important than technical accuracy to cover all situations.
* Perhaps it is OK as is, or with minor addition?

2. "For many people, with and without disabilities, it is difficult to read when they have to scroll back and forth to read a line of text. When people with low vision increase the text size and the text doesn't “reflow”, they sometimes have to scroll horizontally several screens to read a single line of text. Additionally, the scrollbar and cursor is harder to find for some. Getting from the end of a line of text, scrolling back left, and then finding the beginning of the next line can take considerable attention. This degrades reading flow and comprehension, sometimes significantly enough that effective reading is not possible when horizontal scrolling is required.
User Need - Rewrap: Blocks of text rewrap so that only one direction of scrolling is needed, e.g., for left-right and right-left scripts (languages), usually vertical scrolling and not horizontal scrolling."
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-low-vision-needs-20160317/#rewrap-for-one-direction-scrolling>
* This is a User Needs document planned to be a Note, not a specification. It doesn't need to be technical accurate to cover all situations -- although it would be good to generally cover most cases.
* Maybe this is OK as is since the first paragraph is just an example, and the actual "User Need" covers both with "only one direction of scrolling is needed"?

3. "For many people, with and without disabilities, it is more difficult to read when they have to scroll from the bottom of a column of text to the top of another column. For some people with low vision, with multiple columns, they have to scroll up several screens to get from the bottom of one column to the top of the next. Additionally, the scrollbar and cursor is harder to find for some. Getting from the bottom of a column and finding the top of the next column can take considerable attention. This degrades reading flow and comprehension, sometimes significantly.
User Need - Reflow: Users can set blocks of text in one continuous block, instead of in multiple columns."
<https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/WD-low-vision-needs-20160317/#reflow-to-single-column>
*[same as #2]

4. "Text can be 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 on a full-screen window."
<https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#visual-audio-contrast-visual-presentation>
* We plan to propose new wording to better address this issue in an upcoming version of WCAG.
* This is in a /TR/ and needs to be technical accurate to cover all situations.
* Maybe we can say: "does not require users to scroll both horizontally and vertically to read a block of text"?

Thanks for any input you can provide!

Best,
~Shawn

Received on Tuesday, 2 August 2016 21:42:47 UTC