- From: Alastair Campbell via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2022 23:08:18 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I'd like to +1 @cookiecrook's comment above: > I’m a little worried that adding a relative unit associated with zoom would give a misguided developer a way to hijack the zoom behavior. The expectation is that zooming in makes things bigger, and with responsive design things can shift around as you zoom. (Although in practice if you need >200% zoom, your default is probably over 200% so you may not zoom in/out much on a site). The issue with text shrinking at smaller viewport sizes is a problem, but I would say _that_ is what is hijacking the expected behaviour. (In the WCAG 2.1 timeframe the AGWG created a [failure technique](https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/failures/F94) for that.) I think that's the source of Sara's frustration. Also, I acknowledge that [1.4.4 Resize text](https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/resize-text) can cause a false-positive when you have a massive headline that doesn't expand to 200%. (More in the [WCAG thread](https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/1671) you referenced.) My company tests a lot of sites (for accessibility) from a range of organisations and this type of issue has been rare so far. I'm not sure if using `font-size: calc(4vw * zoom)` would have the desired effect. I see what you're going for, it is like an escape clause for viewport units when zooming. However, I'm not sure that having a different behaviour between zoom and smaller screens is overall a good thing. I can see a lot of unintentional layout issues occurring with that as text expands out of containers because developer 2 didn't realise that developer 1 had added this escape clause. > Existing `1rem/16` also comes close to proposed zoom I'm confused about that, under zoom wouldn't that always be 1 unless the user also adjusts the default text size? -- GitHub Notification of comment by alastc Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6869#issuecomment-1011533560 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 12 January 2022 23:08:20 UTC