W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-silver@w3.org > January 2019

Re: Prohibiting authors from disabling Pinch Zoom as failure for Reflow 1.4.10

From: Shawn Lauriat <lauriat@google.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 15:29:02 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGQw2hmn5ByVPWgyn7MjHCmjuYeQQEuzCJ67S3b5U8sbucd9WQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Luis Garcia <w3c@garcialo.com>
Cc: Silver TF <public-silver@w3.org>
Would it make a difference if all user agents had this feature? What if
they all had it enabled by default?

According to WCAG conformance, I agree and would still mark this as a
failure. In the context of our conversation for Silver conformance, though,
would/could we instead use this as a way to nudge other user agents into
adding thing kind of support.

Thanks,

Shawn

On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 3:19 PM Luis Garcia <w3c@garcialo.com> wrote:

> If you use a user agent that ensures you can zoom, then it doesn't create
> a barrier for you...while you're using that user agent. And while one user
> agent having that ability implies that you could have it in another user
> agent, it doesn't guarantee that you would (or even should) have it in
> another user agent. While the barrier wouldn't exist for you, it would
> still exist either until that functionality became guaranteed in all user
> agents or the web page that disabled zooming stopped disabling it.
>
> I would say, it's still a failure and that the responsibility is with the
> site developer.
>
> Perhaps in the same way that we would provide a method for ensuring a
> contrast minimum for text, we could provide a method for ensuring zoomable
> text/content.
>
> "Ensure that users can always zoom the page" and then gives guidance for
> how to avoid building a page that creates this barrier.
>
> As an aside, the methods I've seen for disabling zooming has typically
> been done via <meta name="viewport"...> elements with user-scalable="no" or
> some value set for maximum-scale.
>
> luis
>
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 9:13 AM Shawn Lauriat <lauriat@google.com> wrote:
>
>> Forwarding a question from Josh on the main working group list that I'd
>> like to expand on, given the conversation we had around conformance and
>> user agent requirements.
>>
>> Flipping the question of how to express usability failure in terms of
>> user agent / assistive tech / platform gaps around to the other case:
>> currently, Chrome (Android) offers a setting to enable the user to remove
>> the ability of a site to disable pinch zoom (Settings > Accessibility >
>> Force enable zoom), but Chrome for iOS doesn't offer this (that I can find,
>> at least). If I use a user agent that ensures I can zoom no matter what the
>> content specifies, implying other user agents could very well offer the
>> same feature, does this still constitute a failure? Does that failure's
>> responsibility sit with the user agent or the CSS of the site?
>>
>> Given our current direction of only having methods and not having
>> "Failure techniques", I think this example would pass, as the user has ways
>> to still zoom as needed, given that a cognitive walkthrough would take into
>> account the user agent ability to override the zoom behavior of the site
>> (just like user stylesheets can override site CSS).
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> -Shawn
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 9:26 AM Joshue O Connor - InterAccess <
>> josh@interaccess.ie> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> In the failures section there are 'draft' failures listed. This one with
>>> health warnings.
>>>
>>>
>>>    - @@ "Interfering with a user agent's ability to zoom" i.e., author
>>>    using: maximum-scale or minimum-scale or user-scalable=no or
>>>    user-scalable=0 in the meta element ?? @@ Note: In Pinch zoom thread
>>>    on the WCAG list
>>>    <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2016AprJun/0502.html>
>>>     people did not seem to be in favor of this as a failure.
>>>
>>>
>>> While it would make a tidy failure if we could say - 'do not disable
>>> pinch zoom'. If that's not a runner it should be removed as a failure as
>>> its currently confusing to see it there. I see Jon and Patricks comments
>>> after David posed the question.
>>>
>>> Any good reason for keeping it?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> --
>>> Joshue O Connor
>>> Director | InterAccess.ie
>>>
>>
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2019 20:29:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:23:57 UTC