Re: Problem with WAI Site

Hi Wayne,

I think that this is related to GitHub Issue #850: "Are Reflow, Text
Size and Orientation cumulative?"
https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/850

It was discussed at the May 1 AG meeting.
https://www.w3.org/2018/05/01-ag-minutes.html#item02

It seems the issue hasn't been resolved yet.

Kindest Regards,
Laura

On 6/28/18, Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Group,
> I would like to keep this within LVTF until we resolve the problem. I think
> there is a very subtle technique here.
>
> The WAI site fails at 320 CSS px. It over flows the pate. Her is how it
> works. The page works with no adjustment to letter-spacing, but with 0.12em
> letter spacing at 320 CSS px it fails.
>
> The experiment was conducted as follows. I used a user stylesheet on
> Chrome, Firefox and Safari.  * {letter-spacing: 0.12em !important}. I used
> Stylish for Chrome and Firefox and the preferences > advanced > stylesheet
> option for Safari. I tried Edge as well but it failed for other reasons, so
> I've left it out.
>
> Here is how I produced 320 CSS px (341 CSS px for Safari).
>
> Chrome allows enlargement up to 500%. So on my iMac with 1600x900 this
> gives 320 CSS px. The site fails.
>
> Safari only gives 300% enlargement. When I lower the resolution 1024x768 I
> get 341 CSS px. The site failed. (I used my Macbook Air for this last test.
> the iMac is hard to set resolution smaller than 1600x900.)
>
> Firefox gives up to 300% enlargement standard, but you can change this in
> the About:Config file. I set the last 3 enlargement values to 300%, 400%,
> 500%. With these settings I applied 500% to my iMac at 1600x900 giving 320
> CSS px. The page failed.
>
> All three browsers failed at anything smaller than 341 CSS px. The 320
> cases were worse.
>
> The only deficient browser was Edge. It just failed to split two column
> regions 300% with 1280 width.
>
> The main finding is this. When the WAI site is given 341CSS px or less, it
> fails when letter-spacing is 0.12em. The same browsers perform well on
> other sites.
>
> Alastair stated worry on this issue during our discussions. So, I think
> this problem is significant. Eric is a good programmer. That means the
> issue must be subtle. When we do, it will be a technique.
>
> I want to emphasize that Eric has worked hard on this site; he is an
> excellent developer, and he couldn't anticipate this issue. I don't want
> this to go on the general list until we have a reason why the failure
> occurred. It would be unfair to Eric.
>
> Best to All, Wayne
>


-- 
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Thursday, 28 June 2018 20:02:05 UTC