- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2021 16:29:28 +0000
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On 02/03/2021 16:08, Chris O'Brien wrote: > Question regarding the above: in your opinion what is the threshold? > This pattern presents significant challenges during reflow, and works > directly against those who need this accommodation (as you know). I find > this one particularly frustrating because it is clearly an anti-pattern > yet is it relegated to advisory status. One follows from the other really: there's no easy-to-agree-on hard cut-off point where you can say "if it covers X% of the content, this is a fail, otherwise a pass", unless we make up an arbitrary number (which makes little sense, since it would then lack any kind of nuance ... what if something only covers a very tiny amount of content, but THAT particular bit of content is actually really (subjectively) important to the user? Because it's not a simple binary value that can be agreed on, it's much tougher to make it a hard fail condition. Arguably, when things like this have been decided in the past (say, the cut-off for what is good vs bad color contrast), there's always edge cases where failing/passing just seems very arbitrary... 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
Received on Tuesday, 2 March 2021 16:29:42 UTC