Re: Questions about SC 1.4.11 - Resize content

I’m a little late to the party, but I’d like to raise concerns about the proposed SC for 1.4.11 - Resize content (https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#resize-content<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FTR%2FWCAG21%2F%23resize-content&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ccf4293bbbeb84e760c6908d4705defbb%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636256996136456308&sdata=rRnGPyp9XJ8YbzUm%2BWFtnUnKmViklKCh0%2FjPlUt0HIg%3D&reserved=0>).

The proposed SC reads: “Content can be resized to 400% without loss of content or functionality, and without requiring two-dimensional scrolling except for parts of the content where fixed spatial layout is necessary to use or meaning. While I believe that the wording of the success criterion meets the goals expressed by the AGWG as to what constitutes "an acceptable SC", I am questioning the relevancy of the words “two-dimensional scrolling”. Why not simply say “horizontal and vertical scrolling” instead?

AWK: Probably a good edit.

Furthermore, I have a problem with the test case proposed in issue #77 (https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/77<https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fw3c%2Fwcag21%2Fissues%2F77&data=02%7C01%7C%7Ccf4293bbbeb84e760c6908d4705defbb%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636256996136456308&sdata=NUED1UhVNRkJQzdysIjAYSk%2FMvrtaBGgb6NT94H3Ff0%3D&reserved=0>), where we are suggesting that testing for content resize be operated by first displaying content in a user agent with a window width of 1280px. Why should the windows width matter at all? I read the arguments defining 1280px as the most common resolution out there, but I hardly see how the window size is relevant to the goal itself. Content should be resizable to 400% regardless of screen width and/or resolution. My concern is that people might interpret this to say “oh well, we’re developing for higher resolutions that 1280px, therefore this criterion doesn’t apply to us”.

AWK: This wouldn’t be part of the SC text, and would be a little too specific for a technique test also. We haven’t gotten to that part yet, but good point.

Finally, how can we justify that the requirements for 1.4.11 (level A) will, in fact, be harder to achieve than the requirements for SC 1.4.4 (level AA)? I understand the need expressed by the LVTF to address something that was missed in WCAG 2.0, but how can it make sense to ask for 400% on content at level A, and only 200% on text at lvl AA?

AWK: That part is easier. If you are meeting WCAG 2.0 then the 1.4.4 SC applies alone. If you are going to WCAG 2.1 then both 1.4.x And 1.4.4 apply, and assuming that you meet 1.4.x you will automatically meet 1.4.4. We need to answer the question that has been out there for a while about whether to change existing SC or to add new ones. If this was the only change then it would probably be easier to decide to change 1.4.4 to level A and bump up the percentage, but there’s also the argument that tools that need to support 2.0 and 2.1 need to differentially report on the results and that having different versions of any one SC creates confusion.

AWK