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

I am in agreement with Wayne. Using 200% is for some us not always
possible, and reduction of font size as discussed negates what we achieve
with the larger zoom. I look forward to the discussion!

JoAnne C. Juett. PhD
Sr. Accessibility Specialist
B2C UX Product Design & Engineering
Salesforce.com <http://salesforce.com/>
Mobile: 317.410.8784



<http://smart.salesforce.com/sig/iheyveld//us_mb/default/link.html>



On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 3:16 PM Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>>