- From: Liam McGee <liam.mcgee@communis.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 11:32:04 +0000
- To: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
- CC: EOWG <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
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
Received on Friday, 14 March 2008 11:33:03 UTC