Re: 1.4.10 Reflow

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>
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 12:17
To: Marc Haunschild
Cc: 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%7Cd4c05fc1f809468009c208db92ab9f9f%7C7677add701ff46edbd905d390ae43592%7C0%7C0%7C638265038068178364%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=v8VME33mXCk%2FAOPxJcruFTy7tnpiCKmx1gVvDjQye8Q%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%7Cd4c05fc1f809468009c208db92ab9f9f%7C7677add701ff46edbd905d390ae43592%7C0%7C0%7C638265038068178364%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=s9pWanKrd6JJhImIy7%2FhhEK%2B3RrbvOZJRaJum9TBv%2BQ%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%7Cd4c05fc1f809468009c208db92ab9f9f%7C7677add701ff46edbd905d390ae43592%7C0%7C0%7C638265038068178364%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=jaIW5KAMbbQIk8RbppOOapdIHBE4yTu7cnDNDNMzytY%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%7Cd4c05fc1f809468009c208db92ab9f9f%7C7677add701ff46edbd905d390ae43592%7C0%7C0%7C638265038068178364%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=FdznM1RCIQMrOCRvrCm1d5F32IxOtm40fi1P9%2F0SfC4%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>>:

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?

Received on Wednesday, 2 August 2023 12:10:00 UTC