Re: Warning: The Understanding Reflow gonly 200% text.

Here is my concern:
We have a new breakpoint based on low vision. It is the 320x180 or 320x200
point. This is for no mainstream market, so market pressure will not keep
developers honest.

I have worked with lots of middle-tier developers over the years. They do
take short cuts --usually innocently. I think that the current wording is
ambiguous.

"If text is reduced in size when people zoom in (or for small-screen
usage), it should still be possible to get to 200% enlargement." This does
not refer to running text in general, but that is not excluded. Also,
reduction to 10px (7 1/2 pt) is excessive. I assume that it was chosen
because 10x2=20, but it is a bad example for perception.

Suggestion: Discuss 1.4.4 for what it is. Even if the platform cannot
support reflow, 200% is required. That will address tablet and phone apps
that turn of zoom in the HEAD element.

The issue of reducing large print elements like for narrow screen display
should be a Technique. That shows that reducing headings a reasonable
amount is sufficient to meet the criterion without suggesting that reducing
the size of running text is a way to satisfy the criterion.

We need an LVTF Meeting to discuss this. It needs to be clear so that
developers know what to do.

Best, Wayne

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 5:47 AM Erich Manser <emanser@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> Hello LVTF,
> Hope everyone's been well.
>
> Some of my IBM colleagues have raised some considerations/concerns having
> to do with Windows High Contrast mode.
>
> How best to bring forward at the present time?
>
> Thanks for any info!
>
> <http://www.ibm.com/able> *Erich Manser*
> IBM Accessibility Design
> Littleton, MA / tel: 978-696-1810
> <http://www.linkedin.com/e/vgh/2419815/eml-grp-sub/>
> <http://www.facebook.com/IBMAccessibility> <http://twitter.com/IBMAccess>
> You don't need eyesight to have vision.
>
> [image: Inactive hide details for Alastair Campbell ---03/19/2019 06:28:21
> AM---Hi Wayne, This isn’t new, as I said we’ve been throug]Alastair
> Campbell ---03/19/2019 06:28:21 AM---Hi Wayne, This isn’t new, as I said
> we’ve been through this a couple of times:
>
> From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> To: Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>
> Cc: public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
> Date: 03/19/2019 06:28 AM
> Subject: Re: Warning: The Understanding Reflow gonly 200% text.
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> Hi Wayne,
>
> This isn’t new, as I said we’ve been through this a couple of times:
> *https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/391#issuecomment-401412278*
> <https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/391#issuecomment-401412278>
>
> You have previously commented that sites generally don’t reduce the
> text-size at higher zoom levels because it would be hard for everyone
> trying to read it on a small screen – which is true.
>
>
> > Did we mean that authors could make text small as the page was zoomed?
> The following language in Understand Reflow implies this.
>
> Not “small”, but not necessarily 400%.
>
> Enforcing a flat percentage increase for text of varying sizes is not
> helpful. Large text increased to 400% will create a lot more scrolling, and
> we would be incentivising designers to use smaller headings & text to start
> with.
>
> (Seeing that your style sheets make headings the same size as regular text
> helped my understanding here.)
>
> We had good information from the LVTF, and I think Jon will agree the SC
> wasn’t adjusted because we didn’t believe him or didn’t understand the
> requirement.
>
> It was adjusted because there has to be a reasonable balance between the
> user-requirement and the demand on authors. Plus the un-intended
> consequence of increasing large text to 400%.
>
> We currently have two related requirements:
>
>    1. Text size must be able to reach 200% of the default.
>          2. Reflow must work down to 320px.
>
>
> When you put those together, the easiest thing is to allow text to
> increase x4. That’s the default. You have to put work in to reduce text
> size as smaller screen sizes.
>
> We’ve done dozens of 2.1 audits since last summer, and I don’t think we’ve
> had an instance where a site failed 1.4.4 whilst passing 1.4.10. In the
> vast majority of cases text would be 400%, except where it started very
> large.
>
> To plug what **might** be a gap I think a min-text-size approach would be
> best, but we’d need evidence to show there is an issue given the current
> requirements.
>
> I.e. Are there sites which currently pass 1.4.4 + 1.4.10 *and* reduce the
> text size at higher zoom levels to the 200-300% level?
>
> In the code the site would have to set text at 16px and then reduce it to
> 9-12px at larger zoom levels.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>