Re: 1.4.10 Reflow

The point about needing to apply to the whole world and not just the
richest is a good one. However, I don't think the statics support your
notion that smaller screens are used by those in third world countries.
Modern usage statistics from Worldwide Screen Resolution Stats shows that
5.8% of screens worldwide are 1280px. Usage of 1280px in the UK is 6%, USA
4.7%.

https://gs.statcounter.com/screen-resolution-stats/desktop/worldwide

I think a balance needs to be drawn between supporting a standard for a
very small percentage of accessible users using 400% on a 1280px res screen
and wider support and uptake by stakeholders.

Remembering that a failure of this SC means non-compliance with WCAG AA
standards, and remembering that 400% is a very significant zoom and one
used rarely on a tiny 1280px screen. I think what we will find is that the
these very small screens are being used in limited settings, such as novel
devices and mini devices for children.

I am wondering if a moderating of the standard to modern usage statics is
not unreasonable and would likely increase the worldwide volume of WCAG
complaint websites so is the more beneficial path.

On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 11:08 AM Marc Haunschild
<marc.haunschild@accessibility.consulting> wrote:

> I thought about this very questions many times. But as a user of a
> smartwatch I know, there are displays smaller than a smartphone.
> Also I’m a freund of sustainability and cheaper smartphones sold some
> years ago are still in use - and used bei people, that might at least have
> the possibility to zoom a little bit put to 133 or 150%.
>
> Also your assumptions of screen sizes are relying on your personal
> experience. 1% of the richest own half of the money. I think, you forget,
> what kind of computers you might find in less developed countries. WCAG is
> not a US standard or er EU guideline - and even in this areas we have poor
> people that use hardware they maybe found somewhere on the garbage. Also in
> hospitals, schools and other organisations (e.g. NGOs) with permanently
> lacking money support you will easily find hardware form the last two or
> three decades.
>
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/14/worlds-richest-wealth-credit-suisse
>
> --
> Mit freundlichen Grüßen
>
> Marc Haunschild - he / him - #gernPerDu
> Prüfstelle im BIK-BITV-Prüfverbund
>
> Marc Haunschild Accessibility Consulting
> Sonnenhof 32
> 53119 Bonn
>
> Telefon: 0170 8 64 00 63
> Web: https://Accessibility.Consulting https://mhis.de
> Email: Marc.Haunschild@Accessibility.Consulting
>
> Am 01.08.2023 um 07:32 schrieb Michael Livesey <mike.j.livesey@gmail.com>:
>
> I wonder, given the advancement of technology and the significant increase
> in pixel resolution on devices since SC 1.4.10 was first drafted, whether
> it is time for a modification of the requirements.
>
> The justification for 320px is stated to be because:
>
> "320 CSS pixels is equivalent to a starting viewport width of 1280 CSS
> pixels wide at 400% zoom."
>
> At the time this criterion first came into force, 1280px was a fairly
> standard laptop screen size. Also, 320px was a standard mobile resolution 7
> years ago. However, neither of the above now stands up to scrutiny.
>
> The standard monitor resolution is now 1920px and the lowest resolution
> one can find on a mobile device is 400px.
>
> 400% at 1920px is 480px.
>
> Requiring no reflow down to 320px is therefore out-of-date for today's
> devices and to encourage stakeholder support I wonder if we can increase
> this to either 400px or 480px?
>
>
>
>
>