Re: 1.4.10 Reflow

Yes this is my feeling too, that 400px is a reasonable value with respect
to the specific aim of this SC to eliminate two way scroll, pinch zoom on
mobiles being excluded.

Global usage shows a huge decline in both 1280px and 1024px monitors since
2008.

https://www.teoalida.com/webdesign/screen-resolution/

1366px is probably the smallest screen in common use today.

Albeit, there are some variances, 1024px screen size is still commonly used
in Somalia and Pakistan, more so than 1280px.

On Tuesday, August 1, 2023, Chase, DJ <dchase@necc.mass.edu> wrote:
>> Bear in mind that this SC only relates to the minimum width that will
not result in a two way scroll. It doesn't prevent users from using
websites. However, having a SC that is arbitrary will certainly have a
serious detriment.
>>
>> Zooming on 400px width is not in the SC for reflow because mobile
devices are specifically excluded and handle scroll differently. This SC is
for laptop and desktop zoom.
>
> Ah, I did not realize that. In that case, I think 400px is entirely
reasonable. Thank you for clarifying.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> DJ Chase
> Digital Accessibility Specialist, NECC
> They, Them, Theirs
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Michael Livesey <mike.j.livesey@gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 13:57
> To: Chase, DJ
> Cc: Marc Haunschild; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: 1.4.10 Reflow
>
> ATTENTION: This email is from an external source. Do Not click on any
links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe. To report a suspicious email, please use the new phishing
alert button in outlook
>>>I'd argue that increasing the number of WCAG-compliant sites by making
compliance easier is not beneficial.
>
> If that was the case we would support 400% at 1024px widths. There are
almost as many users on 1024px as there are 1280px in certain locations. So
by that rationale the SC should be changed to 256px width.
>
> Bear in mind that this SC only relates to the minimum width that will not
result in a two way scroll. It doesn't prevent users from using websites.
However, having a SC that is arbitrary will certainly have a serious
detriment.
>
> Zooming on 400px width is not in the SC for reflow because mobile devices
are specifically excluded and handle scroll differently. This SC is for
laptop and desktop zoom.
>
> On Tuesday, August 1, 2023, Chase, DJ <dchase@necc.mass.edu<mailto:
dchase@necc.mass.edu>> wrote:
>> I'd argue that increasing the number of WCAG-compliant sites by making
compliance easier is not beneficial. Compliant but inaccessible sites is
just as harmful to users with disabilities as incompliant and inaccessible
sites.
>>
>> I would also add that supporting 320px allows for zooming in on 400px
screens.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> --
>> DJ Chase
>> Digital Accessibility Specialist, NECC
>> They, Them, Theirs
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Michael Livesey <mike.j.livesey@gmail.com<mailto:
mike.j.livesey@gmail.com>>
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 12:17
>> To: Marc Haunschild
>> Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
>> Subject: Re: 1.4.10 Reflow
>>
>> ATTENTION: This email is from an external source. Do Not click on any
links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
content is safe. To report a suspicious email, please use the new phishing
alert button in outlook
>> 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<
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgs.statcounter.com%2Fscreen-resolution-stats%2Fdesktop%2Fworldwide&data=05%7C01%7Cdchase%40necc.mass.edu%7Ca3c3ddfa68aa491a4d3808db92b8bd17%7C7677add701ff46edbd905d390ae43592%7C0%7C0%7C638265094379460443%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=26nhneUQIQXQc79utHOwo5yev70Sru9ISBDe%2Bzqsomo%3D&reserved=0
><
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgs.statcounter.com%2Fscreen-resolution-stats%2Fdesktop%2Fworldwide&data=05%7C01%7Cdchase%40necc.mass.edu%7Cd4c05fc1f809468009c208db92ab9f9f%7C7677add701ff46edbd905d390ae43592%7C0%7C0%7C638265038068178364%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=v8VME33mXCk%2FAOPxJcruFTy7tnpiCKmx1gVvDjQye8Q%3D&reserved=0
<
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgs.statcounter.com%2Fscreen-resolution-stats%2Fdesktop%2Fworldwide&data=05%7C01%7Cdchase%40necc.mass.edu%7Ca3c3ddfa68aa491a4d3808db92b8bd17%7C7677add701ff46edbd905d390ae43592%7C0%7C0%7C638265094379460443%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=26nhneUQIQXQc79utHOwo5yev70Sru9ISBDe%2Bzqsomo%3D&reserved=0
>>
>>
>> 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
<
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Finequality%2F2017%2Fnov%2F14%2Fworlds-richest-wealth-credit-suisse&data=05%7C01%7Cdchase%40necc.mass.edu%7Ca3c3ddfa68aa491a4d3808db92b8bd17%7C7677add701ff46edbd905d390ae43592%7C0%7C0%7C638265094379460443%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=%2BpdeQOx9vOGUA6ljHBiyB6OFuENcIb7sziu1a04UJ%2Fk%3D&reserved=0
><
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Finequality%2F2017%2Fnov%2F14%2Fworlds-richest-wealth-credit-suisse&data=05%7C01%7Cdchase%40necc.mass.edu%7Cd4c05fc1f809468009c208db92ab9f9f%7C7677add701ff46edbd905d390ae43592%7C0%7C0%7C638265038068178364%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=s9pWanKrd6JJhImIy7%2FhhEK%2B3RrbvOZJRaJum9TBv%2BQ%3D&reserved=0
<
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Finequality%2F2017%2Fnov%2F14%2Fworlds-richest-wealth-credit-suisse&data=05%7C01%7Cdchase%40necc.mass.edu%7Ca3c3ddfa68aa491a4d3808db92b8bd17%7C7677add701ff46edbd905d390ae43592%7C0%7C0%7C638265094379616680%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=NJVZ1NdxJn3e1kb%2FNP1vhZVYzr16krHK%2BImh92xVHfk%3D&reserved=0
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faccessibility.consulting%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cdchase%40necc.mass.edu%7Ca3c3ddfa68aa491a4d3808db92b8bd17%7C7677add701ff46edbd905d390ae43592%7C0%7C0%7C638265094379616680%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xb7cJpnBkjALOmJFrLdT6yRpdtxF8Uxk0OimM4a3YHE%3D&reserved=0
><
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faccessibility.consulting%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cdchase%40necc.mass.edu%7Cd4c05fc1f809468009c208db92ab9f9f%7C7677add701ff46edbd905d390ae43592%7C0%7C0%7C638265038068178364%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=jaIW5KAMbbQIk8RbppOOapdIHBE4yTu7cnDNDNMzytY%3D&reserved=0
<
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Faccessibility.consulting%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cdchase%40necc.mass.edu%7Ca3c3ddfa68aa491a4d3808db92b8bd17%7C7677add701ff46edbd905d390ae43592%7C0%7C0%7C638265094379616680%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=xb7cJpnBkjALOmJFrLdT6yRpdtxF8Uxk0OimM4a3YHE%3D&reserved=0>>
https://mhis.de<
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmhis.de%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cdchase%40necc.mass.edu%7Ca3c3ddfa68aa491a4d3808db92b8bd17%7C7677add701ff46edbd905d390ae43592%7C0%7C0%7C638265094379616680%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ZlWGK4MnFbG1%2BEX3Kif%2B00bX3z9GaVI1Y3o5e8nngaE%3D&reserved=0
><
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmhis.de%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cdchase%40necc.mass.edu%7Cd4c05fc1f809468009c208db92ab9f9f%7C7677add701ff46edbd905d390ae43592%7C0%7C0%7C638265038068178364%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FdznM1RCIQMrOCRvrCm1d5F32IxOtm40fi1P9%2F0SfC4%3D&reserved=0
<
https://nam10.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmhis.de%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cdchase%40necc.mass.edu%7Ca3c3ddfa68aa491a4d3808db92b8bd17%7C7677add701ff46edbd905d390ae43592%7C0%7C0%7C638265094379616680%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=ZlWGK4MnFbG1%2BEX3Kif%2B00bX3z9GaVI1Y3o5e8nngaE%3D&reserved=0
>>
>> Email: Marc.Haunschild@Accessibility.Consulting
>>
>> Am 01.08.2023 um 07:32 schrieb Michael Livesey <mike.j.livesey@gmail.com
<mailto:mike.j.livesey@gmail.com><mailto:mike.j.livesey@gmail.com<mailto:
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?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>