Re: Sizing SCs

Katie wrote:

“I agree with Wayne on the 500 % need. Part of having real user-needed requirements identified is to push innovation. If mobile UAs and devices can't meet this real user need today, some will strive to do so. So I agree with the 500%.”



Isn’t feasibility part of the approval process though? If no mobile device supports 200% zooming without horizontal scrolling, no author can make a site that meets the criteria of 500%.



I would rather get an improved SC through than an ideal SC dropped.



There are a few options here though:

-          Desktop zoom support (for 300 and probably 400%) without horizontal scrolling is feasible and I agree with that.

-          Mobile support for zoom without horizontal scrolling is non-existent, and a major platform does not include a text-sizing support either. That has to be excluded, and/or a reduced text-sizing could be SC included for mobiles. (Plus pressure for the user-agent side).

-          We could focus on the reflow to 1 column SC, and perhaps include something so that mobile devices are more likely to provide a ‘reader’ view.



Regarding 500%, my logic is that many sites will break (layout wise) and may not be able to support that without an extreme ‘turn off styles’ approach, which I think should be covered in a difference SC (the reflow one).



I started at 300 because there are certain defaults in web development. Most sites default to desktop layouts of around 1000-1200px wide, and responsive ones work down to about 320px (original iPhone size).



So 300% (maybe 400%) is straightforward, but if you have a starting point of a 1024px wide desktop browser, a 500% zoom level means the layout must fit within a width of 204px without scrolling.



Many sites have a header with logo, menu (button) and search in the header, which is unlikely to fit in 200px.

Just as an example, our site only has logo & menu button at would break at under 250px wide.



Getting people to work with smaller widths than 300px will be very difficult, to the point of rejection.



If we get to over 400% zoom (which is much greater than in WCAG 2.0), I think user-agent aspects have to come into play, and there should be a more extreme change where the author-styles are dropped and the user has greater control of the display (like the ‘reader’ view in iOS).



Then the focus shifts to making sure that correct structure is used, and the order of the content (without author styles) makes sense.



Cheers,



-Alastair