RE: How 1.4.4 Resize text applies when mobile templates kick in

> . . . That?s where in my opinion there could be a potential issue.  For 
example, because I use zoom or low resolution my page is often thrown into 
a responsive view where content or functionality may be hidden and not 
reachable in that view. . . "

I agree there is a potential issue.  I think we need to establish if it is 
a potential accessibility when the zoom if preformed by the end user, or 
if it is also when the view width is narrowed, and/or both.  Zooming is a 
common accessibility feature used by many individuals.  However, I'm not 
sure that narrowing the browser width view is an accessibility feature or 
function.  Why would a person with a disability need to make the browser 
view width more narrow for an accessibility reason? I'm not thinking of 
any other than when the user is wanting to force the responsive design to 
render the mobile phone narrow view because it is in fact the more 
accessible (more simple, more conforming, etc.) than the wider desktop 
view of the responsive design.

I also think this is an example of a potential issue where when the 
feature is "built in" to the browser for everyone,  everyone may not use 
it in the same way.  The web site designer is thinking that the better 
experience is for the end user to see the site be more responsive and 
render the narrow phone breakpoint view, while the low vision user is just 
trying to zoom in to see the site better.  Isn't this really a requirement 
for the user agent (browser) to handle (not the web designer) because each 
user is different and may want a different reaction to the zooming?  As we 
say, one size does not fit all.  In other words, some users will want the 
zooming to NOT trigger the responsive design to kick-in, other users WILL 
want it to respond at the same zoom and width.  Users may want the 
experience on some site and not on others BECAUSE it may depend on that 
site's particular design vs always having the zoom feature trigger it. 
___________
Regards,
Phill Jenkins
pjenkins@us.ibm.com





From:   Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
To:     IG - WAI Interest Group List list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Date:   11/05/2016 02:17 PM
Subject:        RE: How 1.4.4 Resize text applies when mobile templates 
kick in



Ø  There just have to be WCAG Conforming versions (of mobile and desktop) 
that have all the content and functionality. 
 
Gregg, yes, and any conforming versions must pass the conformance 
requirements for alternatives to ensure the alternative page can be 
accessed.  That?s where in my opinion there could be a potential issue. 
For example, because I use zoom or low resolution my page is often thrown 
into a responsive view where content or functionality may be hidden and 
not reachable in that view.  But the only way to get back to the content 
is to zoom out as there is no other link to view the other content. Thus, 
I am prevented from using browser zoom on a page if I want access to all 
the same content.  In most cases responsive sites have all the same 
content and functionality ? but it?s not a guarantee.  So, my 
recommendation would be that we provide a note to explain this.
 
Jonathan
 
Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
SSB BART Group 
jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com
703.637.8957 (Office)
 
Visit us online: Website | Twitter | Facebook | Linkedin | Blog
Join SSB at Accessing Higher Ground This Month!
 
From: Gregg C Vanderheiden [mailto:greggvan@umd.edu] 
Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2016 11:22 AM
To: Jonathan Avila
Cc: IG - WAI Interest Group List list
Subject: Re: How 1.4.4 Resize text applies when mobile templates kick in
 
it is OK to have different version for the mobile and the desktop version. 

 
It is also OK to have different versions of the desktop that have 
different content. 
 
There just have to be WCAG Conforming versions (of mobile and desktop) 
that have all the content and functionality. 
 
An interesting question - and one that I think is unanswered - is if you 
have a complicated web page (say for a desktop) that is fully WCAG 
conforming,  does the page conform if there is a SIMPLER version (for the 
desktop) that does not fully conform to WCAG ?    I think the answer is 
yes.    One would hope the simpler one would ALSO conform - but it is not 
required.  And one cannot require that ALL FORMS of a page conform or else 
you eliminate many technologies. 
 
 
 
(Note that I did not use the word  ?accessible? in the text above.     No 
website is ?accessible? to all.   They can conform to WCAG or to 508 
standards or something else ? and we tend to call them accessible - but 
they are not accessible to all.   Just like a ramp that meets ADA is 
called accessible even though there are many who cannot push a wheelchair 
up it.   Same for all accessibility standards.  They are minimum standards 
for accessibility. ) 
 
Gregg C Vanderheiden
greggvan@umd.edu
 
 
 
On Nov 4, 2016, at 11:09 PM, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> 
wrote:
 
An equivalent alternative here would be to provide a link to the feed on 
twitter.com itself. It means an extra click/tap, but users on small 
viewport would still be able to get to those tweets (just not directly 
embedded in the page itself).

In order to satisfy the requirement for the alternative to be on the same 
page I wonder if a pop-up on the same page containing only the twitter 
feeds with the other content aria-hidden would be a better solution.

Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
SSB BART Group 
jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com
703.637.8957 (Office)

Visit us online: Website | Twitter | Facebook | Linkedin | Blog
Join SSB at Accessing Higher Ground This Month!

-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick H. Lauke [mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk] 
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2016 5:31 AM
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: How 1.4.4 Resize text applies when mobile templates kick in

On 03/11/2016 02:36, Matthew Putland wrote:


Something like an embedded twitter feed could be removed on mobile to 
prevent touch-screen users from getting stuck in a massive list of 
tweets. Sure, the twitter feed could fit in the mobile viewport, but 
it may not work too well on mobile, so they remove it. I never liked 
those horrible huge embedded twitter feeds anyway!

An equivalent alternative here would be to provide a link to the feed on 
twitter.com itself. It means an extra click/tap, but users on small 
viewport would still be able to get to those tweets (just not directly 
embedded in the page itself).

P
--
Patrick H. Lauke

www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke 
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke