Re: 1.4.10 Reflow

Yes, I appreciate that it is a very late stage.

The potential legal issue is that the justification for 320px is stated as

"This value lines up with the reported viewport width of small displays of
common mobile devices ... and 400% at 1280px desktops."

Neither of the above two statements is currently true.


Also, if I may ask a question that has confused me with respect to 1.4.10
versus 1.4.4?

1.4.4 states that 200% zoom is reasonable because "Above 200%, zoom (which
resizes text, images, and layout regions and creates a larger canvas that
may require both horizontal and vertical scrolling)", but 1.4.10 then seems
to contradict the above and states there must be no horizontal and vertical
scrolling at 400%. Is 400% reasonable or not?

Whilst the purpose of 1.4.4 is text size only (not truncating or being
obscured), it does allude that reflow causing horizontal and vertical
scroll above 200% is reasonable. I feel this is how it will be interpreted
in a legal setting should the 400% 320px rule get challenged.




On Tuesday, August 1, 2023, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote:
> Just mentioning here that since the measurements in CSS pixels are part
of the normative wording, they're going to be unlikely to be changed now or
for any potential WCAG 2.x in future. Something for WCAG 3.0 at this
stage....
>
> --
> Patrick H. Lauke
>
> https://www.splintered.co.uk/ | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
> https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | https://www.deviantart.com/redux
> https://mastodon.social/@patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>
>