[csswg-drafts] [css-fonts-5] Text Fitting: Default scaling limit (#12886)

kizu has just created a new issue for https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts:

== [css-fonts-5] Text Fitting: Default scaling limit ==
In the [original issue](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2528) we received [valuable feedback](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2528#issuecomment-2769947094) that a native fit-to-width solution can potentially introduce a simple way for authors to violate [Success Criterion 1.4.4 Resize Text](https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#resize-text), in the same way many existing fit-to-text and other responsive typography approaches already do.

My [proposed solution](https://blog.kizu.dev/fit-to-width-discussions-and-feedback/#limiting-the-size-range) involves introducing a default limit equal to 200% of the original font-size. This, with all major browsers being able to provide at least 400% full-page zoom, will allow to scale any text that uses fit-to-width without overriding this limit.

This limit is just a default, allowing authors to control it, and increase/decrease based on their design goals: there are cases where the absence of the limit won't cause the SC 1.4.4 violations, and we shouldn't limit authors there. And, realistically, we can't — but we should do what we can and introduce basic safeguards to the spec, so it won't be _easy_ to violate WCAG with the new property.

In Google Chrome team's [feedback](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/2528#issuecomment-3336857019) they mention this about this proposal:

> - **Accessibility**: If the width of a container with `text-grow` or `text-shrink` depends on the viewport width, changing the page zoom level might not alter the physical text size in that container because its physical width remains unchanged.  
    We currently do not have a solution for this issue, and are not sure if the "200% size limit" solution discussed in this issue will work well.

I would be interested to know reasons why Chrome's team thinks why this limit won't work well.

But without any alternative proposals to safeguard against violating SC 1.4.4, I believe the built-in default limit is the way to go.

So far, I did not read any other proposals that would cover this issue, but if there are any — please, post them in this issue.

Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/12886 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2025 13:22:20 UTC