Re: Issue 77 Resize Content SC - deadline - 6th May 18:00 EST.

Marc Johlic wrote:

> Sorry, I'm late to the party here - but I'm withholding my +1 for now because it looks like we have two points to clear up:

Given that we’ve had public comments, and plenty from the group, I think it is consideration of the draft response that is important now.

I’m not ignoring the new comments, but there are more substantial issues to address (agree a response to) from the previous comments.

I would summarise the substantial issues to get agreement on as:

1.    Difficulty of 400%

My draft response is essentially to say that is feasible except for certain types of content. I think that the exception for “fixed spatial layout is necessary to use or meaning” covers those, for which there is plenty to write about in the understanding.

Another aspect of showing it is feasible is to have a more robust test procedure, which the current 1.4.4 doesn’t provide, so having that basis in the understanding document is also something to agree (i.e. specifying a starting point for the increase, which in this case is a browser window of 1280px wide.)

2.    A vs AA.

A number of comments said that it didn’t make sense to have 400% (no-scrolling but with 2D exception) at A or AA, with a current criteria of 200% (allowing scrolling, no exception) at AA.

I think you could argue this one either way:

-       The need justifies 400%, and it has an exception so could be at level A with the current one as fall back.

-       WCAG 2.0 generally takes the approach of smaller requirement (200%) at a higher level, with a higher requirement at a lower level.

I think the two main options would be to put the new one at level A, or adjust the current one to be level A [Alastair ducks behind the bomb shelter].

The other issues listed can be dealt with by small editorial changes or in the Understanding material (I think).

More detail here:



Received on Monday, 8 May 2017 08:23:06 UTC