RE: Resize text: how to ensure success criteria WCAG 1.4.4

Ø  I asked the community (via Facebook and Twitter) what screen sizes, resolutions and zoom levels people are using. The most interesting insight that I hadn't realized before is that several respondents use a system zoom coupled with a browser zoom.

I’m not on facebook and I had no idea the thread was on Twitter.  I would suggest that other avenues be available to us in the community to respond to this question.  I use 800x600 resolution as do several other people I know.  Occasionally I have to zoom in more or out based on the font/font size used on the page.  For example, this page (http://www-03.ibm.com/able/guidelines/ci162/accessibility_checklist.html) uses 10.4px on the standards text which even at that resolution I find too small.  For other pages the text size is plenty big – sometimes too big or the whitespace is so great that I zoom out so more content fits on the screen.  So there are many complicating factors.  There is a sweet-spot where the text is large enough to read without being too big and this is also affected by font family, contrast, etc.

Jonathan

From: Wendy Chisholm [mailto:chisholm.wendy@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 1:25 PM
To: Kiran Gundiyal; Phill Jenkins
Cc: Gregg C Vanderheiden; Herin Hentry; IG - WAI Interest Group List list; Mitchell Evan; Patrick H. Lauke
Subject: Re: Resize text: how to ensure success criteria WCAG 1.4.4

We've also seen this fail on one screen size/resolution combination but pass on another combination. We're investigating what our test criteria should be. I asked the community (via Facebook and Twitter) what screen sizes, resolutions and zoom levels people are using. The most interesting insight that I hadn't realized before is that several respondents use a system zoom coupled with a browser zoom.

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 8:15 AM Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com<mailto:pjenkins@us.ibm.com>> wrote:
Please remember that although there are two failures listed in the WCAG techniques, those two are not the ONLY two failures that could occur, just the first two that have reached consensus as valid failures and published:

WCAG explicitly says there are 2 failures related to this success criteria. We need to make sure these are not the barriers.

  *   F69: Failure of Success Criterion 1.4.4 when resizing visually rendered text up to 200 percent causes the text, image or controls to be clipped, truncated or obscured<http://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20161007/F69>
  *   F80: Failure of Success Criterion 1.4.4 when text-based form controls do not resize when visually rendered text is resized up to 200%<http://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20161007/F80>
  *
For example,
I've logged failures against functionality for
        1.4.4 Resize text: . . . text<https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#textdef> can be resized without assistive technology<https://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#atdef> up to 200 percent without loss of content or functionality. (Level AA)
because the keyboard operability functionality that was working before the 200%, but failed to continue work after when the page dynamically loaded a new responsive design that did not include the proper keyboard operability for some of its new responsive widgets.  The user could no longer check the checkbox, the visual focus indicator was removed, the focus order was incorrect, and there was no longer a way with the keyboard to even activate the widget like one could with a mouse click.

I bring up these valid functional issue becasue F69 and F80 seem limited to "visual" issues only, while the success criteria specifially mentions "functionality".

Perhaps I or someone should submit more candidate "Failure of Success Criteria 1.4.4" for review and consensus.
 ___________
Regards,
Phill Jenkins
pjenkins@us.ibm.com<mailto:pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
Senior Engineer & Accessibility Executive
IBM Research Accessibility
linkedin.com/in/philljenkins/<https://www.linkedin.com/in/philljenkins/>
ibm.com/able<http://www.ibm.com/able>
facebook.com/IBMAccessibility<http://www.facebook.com/IBMAccessibility>
twitter.com/IBMAccess<https://twitter.com/IBMAccess>
ageandability.com<http://ageandability.com>



From:        Kiran Gundiyal <kiranph@gmail.com<mailto:kiranph@gmail.com>>
To:        Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu<mailto:greggvan@umd.edu>>
Cc:        Mitchell Evan <mtchllvn@gmail.com<mailto:mtchllvn@gmail.com>>, Herin Hentry <herinhentry@gmail.com<mailto:herinhentry@gmail.com>>, "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk<mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk>>, IG - WAI Interest Group List list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>>
Date:        05/24/2017 09:25 AM
Subject:        Re: Resize text: how to ensure success criteria WCAG 1.4.4



Thank you all your comments and clarification. appreciated !

Sent from my iPhone

On May 23, 2017, at 9:34 PM, Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu<mailto:greggvan@umd.edu>> wrote:

ah very good point Mitchell

I answered what is REQUIRED

but there is so much more that is GOOD PRACTICE,    REALLY HELPFUL to some,   and ESSENTIAL to others  that is beyond the SC requirements.


g

Gregg C Vanderheiden
greggvan@umd.edu<mailto:greggvan@umd.edu>




On May 23, 2017, at 9:38 PM, Mitchell Evan <mtchllvn@gmail.com<mailto:mtchllvn@gmail.com>> wrote:

Kiran,

Gregg V's concise answer is correct, for this specific question: "What are the requirements to pass WCAG 2.0 1.4.4?"

Additional factors are also important for a good user experience. Which of these are the most important? That depends on your content, which users you ask, what device and software they're using, and which accessibility expert is most persuasive.

- Avoid horizontal scrolling

- Work well both with full zoom and with text-only enlargement (not just one or the other)

- Make the content look good (not just avoiding "clipped, truncated or obscured")

- Support enlargement beyond 200%

Mobile-responsive designs (RWD) often satisfy 1.4.4 and beyond, as long as the design doesn't omit content at the smaller breakpoints.

Mitchell Evan

@mitchellrevan

On Wed, May 17, 2017, 6:01 PM Herin Hentry <herinhentry@gmail.com<mailto:herinhentry@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi Kiran,

WCAG explicitly says there are 2 failures related to this success criteria. We need to make sure these are not the barriers.

  *   F69: Failure of Success Criterion 1.4.4 when resizing visually rendered text up to 200 percent causes the text, image or controls to be clipped, truncated or obscured<http://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20161007/F69>
  *   F80: Failure of Success Criterion 1.4.4 when text-based form controls do not resize when visually rendered text is resized up to 200%<http://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20161007/F80>

Testing Resize Text with IE:

1)     From the IE Menu, select View > Text Size > Largest

2)     Check if all the text, input controls and containers have resized

3)     Make sure there is no major overlap and the display is not obscured

4)     Make sure there is no content trimming



Testing Resize Text with Chrome
Chrome browser > Settings > Show Advanced Settings > Web content
Click on Customize fonts. This opens the Fonts Dialog. The standard font size is 16. As per WCAG, we need to increase the font size to 200% and make sure the functionality is not broken and the containers also resize. Change the Standard font to 32 (200% of 16). Check if the container resizes and the content is not trimmed.

The issue with Ctrl ++ (zoom) is it adds horizontal scroll bars to the pages at 200%.
As per WCAG 1.4.4 Resize Text :The author's responsibility is to create Web content that does not prevent the user agent from scaling the content effectively.
Thanks and Regards,
Herin

On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk<mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk>> wrote:
On 17/05/2017 23:43, Userite wrote:
[...]
If you only check with one particular assistive tool for Zooming

note that WCAG 2 explicitly says "text can be resized without assistive technology", so only the zoom functionality built into the user agent can be used to test this.

P
--
Patrick H. Lauke

www.splintered.co.uk<http://www.splintered.co.uk/>| https://github.com/patrickhlauke

http://flickr.com/photos/redux/| http://redux.deviantart.com<http://redux.deviantart.com/>
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke


--

Mitchell Evan
mtchllvn@gmail.com<mailto:mtchllvn@gmail.com>
+1 (510) 375-6104


--
Wendy Chisholm
Universal Design Evangelist
http://sp1ral.com/about/

twitter: wendyabc