W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2016

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

From: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 18:49:29 +0000
To: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DM5PR03MB27802FEAAB11B00E5B75BAB99BA60@DM5PR03MB2780.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
> Keep in mind that not omitting content/functionality does not mean that things still need to all be on the same page when in small viewport mode. If a page is feature/content rich on a large screen, it's perfectly acceptable for things to be moved to separate views/screens when on a smaller viewport (i.e. it doesn't mean that everything now just needs to be stacked vertically).

It depends on what you mean by different page/screen.   If content is actually on a different web page I think that is different than the content being hidden and then displayed or overlaid, etc.

Jonathan


-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick H. Lauke [mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk] 
Sent: Monday, November 07, 2016 8:03 PM
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: How 1.4.4 Resize text applies when mobile templates kick in

On 08/11/2016 00:41, Phill Jenkins wrote:
> I think your point:
> "don't completely omit content/functionality at different breakpoints 
> as it will affect all users and particularly LV users with zoom"
>
> a. is not well understood by designers.
> b. is harder to do than we accessibility SME's think, otherwise if it 
> was easy then designers would be doing it.
> c. many actually think less is better, especially for simplicity and 
> ease of use, less cognitive load on the user, etc.
> in other words, that reducing the screen size and thereby reducing the 
> content & functionality is actually the goal for some designers.
> Have you noticed how much vertical scrolling that goes on these days 
> in newly designed sites?

Keep in mind that not omitting content/functionality does not mean that things still need to all be on the same page when in small viewport mode. If a page is feature/content rich on a large screen, it's perfectly acceptable for things to be moved to separate views/screens when on a smaller viewport (i.e. it doesn't mean that everything now just needs to be stacked vertically).

One of the reasons why some designers don't do this? The misguided idea of "mobile context" meaning "users on a small-screen device don't want to do the same things as on a large-screen device"...thinking that has been challenged quite vigorously now for the last few years (see for instance http://www.lukew.com/ff/entry.asp?1333).

As for it being hard? Yes, like most web development, it can be...

> Seems
> that some are incorrectly suggesting that the "responsive design" 
> should not loose content or functionality.  I don't recall us ever 
> demanding that mobile web sites (m dot's) have the same content and 
> functionality as desktop web sites, not as an accessibility requirement.  Why now?

Because we're not talking about two distinct websites that can be accessed separately (an m dot and a "regular" www site). This is the exact same URL which changes based on viewport size, and viewport size on desktop is determined by the combination of browser window itself and zoom factor. Whereas with the two separate sites a user can (usually) switch between them explicitly (by typing in different URL, or using any "go to mobile/desktop site" links provided by the site if present), here the switch happens based on factors that are separate.

In any case, this was debated at great length a few months ago on this list...

--
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

Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2016 18:50:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 8 November 2016 18:50:06 UTC