W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2014

Re: text 'truncation' at normal scaling

From: Wayne Dick <waynedick@knowbility.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 09:20:12 -0800
Message-ID: <5464E84C.4020601@knowbility.org>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
I am always surprised by the low level of professional competence we 
expect from authors regarding accessibility. Today responsiveness is 
just part of normal web authoring competence. Why not use that skill to 
serve very large print instead of just very small screens?

When WCAG 2 was approved in 2008 few people could perceive the barrier 
zoom created for reading. Today everyone knows because they have 
experienced the issue on their mobile devices.  It is time to extend the 
rules to include what is rapidly becoming standard technology, 
responsive content.

Nobody would consider an author professional who did not keep up with 
technology forsecurity or performance. Accessibility is justone of those 
important pieces of technology that authors need to practice in order to 
be professional. The level of competence has just moved because we can 
do it a lot better.  Theneed for word wrapping has always existed, but 
now we can fix it with standard tools. So, there is no excuse to leave 
this barrier out there to block people from reading. Guideline 1.4 has 
been overcome by events.

Wayne


chaals@yandex-team.ru wrote:
> 13.11.2014, 06:00, "James Nurthen" <james@nurthen.com>:
>> There is no lost content here no matter the zoom. The user can
>> activate the input component and scroll within it to reach all of the
>> text.
> As Wayne points out, that has a cognitive cost which is effectively a loss of content, although technically the content is still there.
>
> I think we should be looking for some kind of requirement that means the user is only required to move in one dimension in order to get all the content.
>
>> On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Adam Cooper <cooperad@bigpond.com> wrote:
> [...]
>>>   For example:
>>>
>>>   #css-width {width: 11em;}
>>>   <input id="css-width" type="text" value="123456789012345678901234567890"
>>>   /><br />
> [...]
>>>   Can ‘up to 200%’ be interpreted as ‘100% to 200%’ legitimately?  (an earlier
>>>   draft of the guidelines had 50% to 200%)
> The normal english meaning of "up to 200%" would be "from 0 to 200%"... but the key text here is "without loss of content or functionality".
>
>>>   That is, are the examples above failures of success criterion 1.4.4?
> I don't think so. There isn't content or functionality lost under zoom at 100% - it wasn't there.
>
> On the other hand it is unfriendly design that poses a barrier for users. To a certain extent whether this is acceptable depends on th actual content - it it's a long filename with lots of apparently random characters, there may be no real issue, if it is text you want the user to actually read, there is.
>
> Cheers
>
> --
> Charles McCathie Nevile - web standards - CTO Office, Yandex
> chaals@yandex-team.ru - - - Find more at http://yandex.com
>
Received on Thursday, 13 November 2014 17:20:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:53 UTC