RE: Reflow updates follow up

Hi Alastair,

I too was able to gather some feedback from the  WCAG 2.2 community I started at Microsoft. Members include developers (web, platform, software, desktop, etc.) legal, regulatory, designers, accessibility testing tool engineers, etc., etc. Specific to this reflow ask, here is some feedback:


  1.  The group felt like the intent was always meant to be "down to," and not only "at" 320 pixels. So it favored changing it everywhere possible in the SC in order to avoid confusion.


  1.  As for clarifying the exception piece, the group was not sure the proposed language change clearly captured the intent. It therefore proposed the following alternative language
"Except for parts of the content which require two-dimensional layout for usage or meaning," such content is not required to reflow or scroll in only one dimension, but must remain usable and perceivable down to 320 horizontal pixels while scrolling in two dimensions."

Thx,

ND



From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 4:58 PM
To: WCAG list (w3c-wai-gl@w3.org) <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Reflow updates follow up

Hi everyone,

A couple of weeks ago we discussed the potential reflow updates:
https://www.w3.org/2020/07/07-ag-minutes.html#item02<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2020%2F07%2F07-ag-minutes.html%23item02&data=02%7C01%7Cnidogbo%40microsoft.com%7C1852d8a2af6444ae82cd08d82851daa0%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637303679319136208&sdata=PqTQuBJrT2RVfh5b5n55ydi4xyNL5s%2F6iyMMayJkNpI%3D&reserved=0>

That was basically left as: Can we find out what issues (if any) changing reflow to "down to" would cause.

Just trying to summarise the discussion:


  *   "Down to" was the original intent and aligns with the user-need.
  *   It appears most sites do that anyway (which cuts both ways, why change, why not change?)
  *   It would catch bugs / odd cases where mistake have been made.
  *   It requires more effort to test.

We discussed whether we could apply the change and ask for feedback as part of a wider review. There was some pushback on that, saying we should find out before review.

We discussed gathering feedback about the change, so (taking chair hat off) I'll kick this off:

Across our client-base (mostly national & regional organisations, private & public sector) for accessibility testing and design/development work, we're already design/coding/testing for this. Not per-pixel testing, but definitely per 50% zoom increase and watch for discrepancies.

I also asked on twitter:
https://twitter.com/alastc/status/1280535723561623552?s=20<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Falastc%2Fstatus%2F1280535723561623552%3Fs%3D20&data=02%7C01%7Cnidogbo%40microsoft.com%7C1852d8a2af6444ae82cd08d82851daa0%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637303679319136208&sdata=iM9D1COW0pNoPCNp5kwrbpzuxwgKan%2FSEdDfiG5pdvA%3D&reserved=0>

Comments included:

  *   It fixes a gap, doesn't affect testing effort, better for users.
  *   The only time (this person) hits limitations is with legacy in-house systems.
[AC: Which wouldn't aim for WCAG 2.2, and would have trouble with "at 320px" as well.]
  *   Testing will be more time consuming as you have to test for way more different width for every page.

I don't have a great reach on twitter, but our client base is pretty wide and includes organisations with small custom builds up to 'enterprise' tech, such as that provided by some larger W3C members. CRMs, CMSs etc.

I'm starting to come to the conclusion that unless we can find problematic instances (that would be aiming for 2.2), we don't have a better opportunity to gather this sort of feedback except via a wide review...

Kind regards,

-Alastair

--

www.nomensa.com<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nomensa.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7Cnidogbo%40microsoft.com%7C1852d8a2af6444ae82cd08d82851daa0%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637303679319146197&sdata=f%2FZcZfRNOD1yJ38172AZUSYzWbAr6R7uhESqvWkfq%2Fs%3D&reserved=0> / @alastc