Re: Resize content (#77)

“Content can be resized to 400% without loss of content, functionality or
two-dimensional scrolling, except for parts of the content where fixed
spatial layout is essential to use or meaning.”

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/>



*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Mike commented on Github with some good word-smithing, but there is
> another question for the group:
>
>
>
> Can the test be at the content level?
>
>
>
> I.e. for this updated wording:
>
> “Content can be resized to 400% without loss of content, functionality or
> two-dimensional scrolling, except where fixed spatial layout is essential
> to use or meaning.”
>
>
>
> If a data table is added that expands out of the viewport, that is fine,
> but does it mean the rest of the page is exempt as well?
>
>
>
> If we can tackle that in the Understanding docs I’m happy with that, but
> if that exemption means the whole page is then exempt we’ll have to go back
> to the previous wording for that aspect.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/77
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, 24 January 2017 at 10:18
> *To: *WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Resize content (#77)
> *Resent-From: *WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> *Resent-Date: *Tuesday, 24 January 2017 at 10:19
>
>
>
> Hi everyone,
>
>
>
> I can’t make the meeting today, but I’ll like to get issues 77 ‘done’ (as
> far as possible for FPWD). This is a status update + specific things to
> agree or disagree with at the bottom.
>
>
>
> The current proposal for SC text is:
>
>  “The content of the Web page can be increased up to 400% without loss of
> content, functionality or two-dimensional scrolling, except where spatial
> layout of some the content is essential to that content's use, that part of
> the content is exempt.”
>
>
>
> NB: The second exception for mobile-style zooming was removed on the basis
> that it is not a factor of the content, but it will need to be noted in the
> Understanding doc, especially for testing.
>
>
>
> There is an overview to compare this SC with “Reflow to single column”
> (now “Linearise”) and the (now defunct) Line length SC:
>
> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017JanMar/0202.html
>
>
>
> There has been considerable discussion on the issue:
>
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/77
>
>
>
> All of the comments have been answered, but there are specific issues to
> consider and agree:
>
>
>
> 1. There is a clear divide between how mobile & desktop browsers deal with
> layout and zooming, we have avoided referencing UAs in the SC text, but
> does the SC text need to acknowledge it?
>
>
>
> As it stands, authors are required to ensure the **content** can be
> re-sized upto 400%, which in practice means testing on desktop-style
> browsers. Most mobile UAs don’t support zoom + reflow, but that isn’t the
> authors problem to change. We have been through iterations which call out
> that difference (see the description on Github), but came to the point of
> removing it.
>
>
>
> Also note that it is the uptick of mobile & responsive design that *
> *enables** us to go for 400% without horizontal scrolling, on capable
> browsers.
>
>
>
> 2. 400% was chosen as it is the upper end of the practical limit for web
> development (1280px / 4 = 320px, which is the typical small mobile screen
> size so what developers already test with), does anyone have good reason to
> reduce that to 300%?
>
>
>
> 3. Should we set a starting point for window size when testing? I am
> inclined to, and use the width 1280px.
>
>
>
> 4. Level A was chosen by LVTF due to the impact 2D scrolling has on people
> with LVTF, and I didn’t argue with that as it is relatively easy to do, is
> that appropriate?
>
>
>
> Speak now or forever hold your peace… (well, until the next round anyway).
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> -Alastair
>
> --
>
>
>
> www.nomensa.com <http://www.nomensa.com/>
>
> tel: +44 (0)117 929 7333 <+44%20117%20929%207333> / 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
>