Re: Current Problems with Reflow

Hi Patrick and Wayne,

You're both right. We already have failure techniques, and these test
procedures confirm the failure of the DailyMail.co.uk earlier in this
thread.

   - 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
   <https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/failures/F69>
   - Failure of Success Criterion 1.4.10 due to content disappearing and
   not being available when content has reflowed
   <https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/failures/F102>


>> No new SC or formal fail case is needed.
>
> If not even providing a formal fail case, I find it difficult to say
> that auditors should fail these situations though.

Cheers,
Mitchell

Mitchell Evan, CPWA
linkedin.com/in/mitchellrevan <https://www.linkedin.com/in/mitchellrevan>
Twitter @mitchellrevan <https://twitter.com/mitchellrevan>
+49 1525 8950540
+1 510 375 6104


On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 3:19 AM Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 22/09/2020 20:29, Wayne Dick wrote:
> > Finally, I think accessibility auditors should call this out as a
> > failure of 1.4.10. I don't think that this needs to be done in a heavy
> > handed way.
>
> There's no "light touch" way of saying something fails. It either passes
> or fails. Auditors should really only fail something if it fails the
> normative wording of an SC. If this is a case of "we always intended it
> to mean this/apply to this/fail this", then that probably needs to be
> discussed as a substantive change/errata? Or at the very least needs to
> be fully explained in the understanding document?
>
> > No new SC or formal fail case is needed.
>
> If not even providing a formal fail case, I find it difficult to say
> that auditors should fail these situations though.
>
> Unless what you mean is that these situations would nominally pass, but
> you're suggesting that auditors should nonetheless advise (above and
> beyond the normative requirements of WCAG)
>
> > All we need is a
> > clear technique that helps developers do the right thing.
>
> Positive techniques are only informative, of course. Good to have, but
> NOT adhering to a technique is not grounds for a fail. So if the
> intention is indeed to fail things, this needs to be made clear I'd say.
>
> P
> --
> Patrick H. Lauke
>
> https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
> https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux
> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
> --
> Inclusive Design 24 (#id24) https://inclusivedesign24.org
>
>