Zoom Content

Potential SC change

335: Concern that zooming isn’t always required and that was a core idea.

Proposed Response to #335

Thank you for your comment. The working Group discussed your concerns and while it is not able to fully address your points, they were helpful in moving the discussion forward. While the goal is to allow users to increase the size of content and have it fit within the viewport, there are some significant complications in testing and feasibility when trying to enable that across all screens. For example, sites often reduce the text size for smaller screens (e.g. BBC homepage, Apple homepage) for legitimate usability reasons. Therefore the formulation of text requiring 400% increase in content does not work. What has now been proposed is that this SC focuses on reflow, and we rely on the current text-resize SC to ensure that text does actually increase in size.

The new wording is:

Reflow: Content can be presented at a width equivalent to 320 CSS pixels without loss of information or functionality, and without requiring scrolling in two dimensions, except for parts of the content which require two-dimensional layout for usage or meaning.

We recognize that some concepts are not simple to understand (equivalent width, and two dimensions), but this phrasing is being used to be precise in the SC text. So, we will explain this clearly in the Understanding document."

Proposed responses to 415/414

415: Concerns about support in PDF. 414: Concerns about testing in PDF.

We do need to conduct implementation testing and it would be great to have some example documents to include in that process, are there any you are able to share? We will keep your concerns in mind as we conduct the implementation testing.

We are tagging this issue with the "Implementation Follow-up" label to ensure that it is re-reviewed at that point in our process.

Proposed response to 548

548: key concept is reflow, not zoom. Prefers 400%. Perhaps should be blocks of text?

After discussion at TPAC the SC has been focused to reflow, and renamed to that, the SC text is now:

Reflow: Content can be presented at a width equivalent to 320 CSS pixels without loss of information or functionality, and without requiring scrolling in two dimensions, except for parts of the content which require two-dimensional layout for usage or meaning.

We did explore a version of the SC that used 400% zoom (see issue #335), but there are significant issues with requiring all content to resize by 400%, so we are using the combination of Text-size (1.4.4) and this to achieve the goal.

Content such as dashboards have been considered, there are good examples available that meet the guideline and we haven't found a content-intrinsic reason that such functionality could not meet the SC (noting the exception for editing interfaces which manipulate content). It is also worth noting that while reading blocks of text is a big issue, but another significant issue is missing content which is off the screen (horizontally in western languages).

Proposed response to 488

488: seems to require responsive design, will be costly to implement in older apps that are still being maintained.

We agree that it can be difficult to implement for legacy applications, or web content created before mobile devices were prevalent. However, there is significant benefit to users with low vision. For legacy systems we anticipate that WCAG 2.0 will continue to be the standard which they aim for.

Proposed response to 343

343: Implementability concerns

There have been some changes to the SC with implementability in mind. The working group will be going through the CR implementation process to demonstrate the implementability of all the new SC. The W3C (and I think most of the WG) have been using responsive design and should have little difficulty meeting the SC.

Proposed response to 467

467: Not realistic for complex applications to fit on a tiny screen.

The working group will be going through the implementation process and demonstrating the implementability of all the new SC. If you know of an application where it would not be possible to meet the SC (not covered by the exceptions), please do add that to this issue.

We are tagging this issue with the "Implementation Follow-up" label to ensure that it is re-reviewed at that point in our process.

Proposed response to 434

434: Concern that this isn’t technology neutral.

Mike Gower was in the discussion and expects to close this issue.

Proposed response to 433

433: SC wording is cumbersome to read and understand The working group has made changes to the SC text that we hope makes it easier to read and understand.