RE: Resize content - questions remaining

A few comments inline below…

Steve

From: Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 10:56 AM
To: Repsher, Stephen J <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Resize content - questions remaining

Hi Stephen,

You won’t get much argument from me on combining the SCs, but previous discussion pretty much went along the lines of: We can’t change anything about current WCAG 2.0 SCs. (See the thread on “Discussion on SC numbering” from December.)
[Steve] Yes, I remember and I was very opposed to it.  I think the proposed change to Sensory Characteristics may begin to open that door.

So we’ve been working within that constraint, at least until we get enough public comments the other way perhaps?
[Steve] My prediction is that the public understanding is certainly going to trump concerns about numbering in the end.

I do think we need a two level requirement however it is done. I.e. a high base requirement with a 2D exception, and a lower level for things (text) which fall into the exception.

That could be two SCs, or one with a caveat. I’d be happy to work on it if it could go somewhere, but I’d want some reassurance it isn’t a waste of time. That’s why I thought it good to bring up on the call.
[Steve] Agree, just seems safer to put in one SC where the test is to zoom to 400%, and then make sure only elements with fixed spatial layout require scrolling.


> Only 200% is required at the moment because this falls back to 1.4.4.  I’d like to see the zoom level fixed, and the difference be only the scrolling.

There was some careful comma placement regarding that! For current technology I don’t think it makes much difference, the zoom level is under user control, it is just whether it scrolls or not that is controlled by content.
[Steve] Careful with comments like that… You’re making a case that 1.4.4 is completely obsolete if authors never need to do anything to meet it.

> folks were having trouble resolving the content expectations between this SC and Linearization.

I didn’t pick that up (as much), but it’s something I can make very clear from a content point of view. I had a discussion with that with Gregg, have a look here: https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/281#issuecomment-300256180


The ‘linearise’ SC means the user is completely overriding the layout with a user-stylesheet or script/extension. The content requirements for that is to not prevent the user from doing it. (E.g. applying some layout through scripts or inline CSS.)
[Steve] Agreed.  Best strategy would be simply to ask folks to evaluate this SC on its own merit and have that discussion to cross the bridge when Linearization comes up, otherwise it’s a moot point

Resize content is entirely within the authors control, the user is applying standard browser controls.

Cheers,

-Alastair


From: "Repsher, Stephen J" <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com<mailto:stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>>
Date: Thursday, 18 May 2017 at 15:39
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: RE: Resize content - questions remaining

Hi Alastair,

Ultimately, I think it is in the best interest of the LV community to combine this SC with 1.4.4 because public confusion is likely to continue unless there is a clear distinction in the normative text.  I’m not opposed to that new SC being at either A or AA.  It would also be in the best interest of auditors to avoid an unnecessary extra test.

Separating them, at least with the current wording, also I think has a problem, or at least a lack of clarity that the LVTF needs to agree on.  Right now, the fixed spatial layout is worded to be a full exception of the SC, but do we mean it to be only an exception for the horizontal scrolling?  In other words, should a data table be able to be zoomed to 400% with 2D scrolling allowed in the test?  Only 200% is required at the moment because this falls back to 1.4.4.  I’d like to see the zoom level fixed, and the difference be only the scrolling.

Perhaps I missed where this was addressed, but my other big takeaway  from Tuesday’s meeting was that folks were having trouble resolving the content expectations between this SC and Linearization.  Personally, I’m happy to boot dealing with that until after August, and it seems like the commenters about that wouldn’t stop approval because of it.

Steve

From: Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2017 9:10 AM
To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: Resize content - questions remaining

Hi everyone,

To make the most of the time in the call, I suggest focusing on a couple of key questions that are blocking progress:


1.      The level of Resize content vs the current Resize text
The Resize content SC has a broad exception for content which needs to be two dimensional, such as data tables. Due to the exception it useful to still have an SC like 1.4.4 which requires 200% but no prohibition on scrolling. Personally, I would like to adjust the current 1.4.4 to align with the new SC so that:


a)      Level A: Cater for a 200% increase in text-size and allow horizontal scrolling (current SC at different level).

b)      Level AA: Cater for 400% increase in content without horizontal scrolling, with exception for 2D content (new SC)

Could people live with increasing the level of 1.4.4, or should we (confusingly) make them both AA?


2.      Testability on it’s face.

Currently the test process includes: Start with a browser width of 1280px and increase with zoom to 400%.  If you take any arbitary width of browser window you will get different results due to the inclusion on no-horizontal scrolling compared with 1.4.4.

I’m surprised no-one has asked about this until Jake this week, but the other option is to rephrase it to something like:
“Content can be resized to fit 320 CSS pixels wide without loss of content or functionality, and without requiring scrolling in the direction of text except for parts of the content where fixed spatial layout is necessary to use or meaning.”

Ironically that *looks* more technology specific, although the effect is exactly the same.

Are people concerned about specifying the exact test criterial in the understanding document?


Other issues, just so people know I’m not ignoring things:

-          I’ve answered most comments here: https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/low-vision-a11y-tf/wiki/Resize_content_issues_review


-          I need to create a definition for “fixed spacial layout” for the SC.

-          GregL brought up a point about single-line edit controls that I’m considering that at the moment.

Kind regards,

-Alastair

--

www.nomensa.com<http://www.nomensa.com/>
tel: +44 (0)117 929 7333 / 07970 879 653
follow us: @we_are_nomensa or me: @alastc
Nomensa Ltd. King William House, 13 Queen Square, Bristol BS1 4NT

Company number: 4214477 | UK VAT registration: GB 771727411