E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 14 (In chronological order)

From: Rakesh P
Date: Tue, Sep 16 2014 2:24AM
Subject: WCAG 2.0 SC 1.4.4 - Text Zoom Vs Browser Zoom
No previous message | Next message →

Dear All,

We have a web application where content on the site is getting
restructured if we use global zoom to magnify the content.
In one of the page, there is a chart image with image hot spots
(functional links) as indicator of some chart value. When we do global
zoom, the entire chart (with image hot shots) is getting re-sized and
no distortion is happening. But with Text Zoom (using Text Zoom option
in Firefox browser), only the text is re-sizing and not the chart
image, so the position of image hot spots are getting distorted and
this will definitely create some difficulty for user using text zoom
(low vision user).
As per WCAG SC 1.4.4 (Text Re-size), the content of the page should
not be clipped, truncated or obscured with 200% Text Zoom.
We want to understand, in a scenario like this, where Global Zoom is
handled efficiently and doesn't cause any loss of information or
horizontal scroll, is it really required to handle distortion caused
by browser text zoom? Is the global zoom a sufficient way to execute
and test S.C 1.4.4?

Thanks & Regards
Rakesh Paladugula

From: Detlev Fischer
Date: Tue, Sep 16 2014 8:22AM
Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0 SC 1.4.4 - Text Zoom Vs Browser Zoom
← Previous message | Next message →

I believe the current WCAG working group position is that each of the possible resizing options (page zoom, text size settings, or custom elements / styleswitchers) on its own would be sufficient to meet SC 1.4.4 Resize text if text can be magnified to 200%.

The Failure F69 (F69: Failure of Success Criterion 1.4.4 when resizing visually rendered text up to 200 percent causes the text, image or controls to be clipped, truncated or obscured / http://www.w3.org/TR/2014/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20140408/F69 ) has been updated with a note to clarify that (this was necessary since the examples / screenshots included in F69 showed a text-only resizing scenario, inviting the interpretation that text-only resizing had to be supported).

Best, Detlev

--
Detlev Fischer
testkreis c/o feld.wald.wiese
Thedestr. 2, 22767 Hamburg

Mobil +49 (0)1577 170 73 84
Tel +49 (0)40 439 10 68-3
Fax +49 (0)40 439 10 68-5

http://www.testkreis.de
Beratung, Tests und Schulungen für barrierefreie Websites

Rakesh P schrieb am 16.09.2014 10:24:

> Dear All,
>
> We have a web application where content on the site is getting
> restructured if we use global zoom to magnify the content.
> In one of the page, there is a chart image with image hot spots
> (functional links) as indicator of some chart value. When we do global
> zoom, the entire chart (with image hot shots) is getting re-sized and
> no distortion is happening. But with Text Zoom (using Text Zoom option
> in Firefox browser), only the text is re-sizing and not the chart
> image, so the position of image hot spots are getting distorted and
> this will definitely create some difficulty for user using text zoom
> (low vision user).
> As per WCAG SC 1.4.4 (Text Re-size), the content of the page should
> not be clipped, truncated or obscured with 200% Text Zoom.
> We want to understand, in a scenario like this, where Global Zoom is
> handled efficiently and doesn't cause any loss of information or
> horizontal scroll, is it really required to handle distortion caused
> by browser text zoom? Is the global zoom a sufficient way to execute
> and test S.C 1.4.4?
>
> Thanks & Regards
> Rakesh Paladugula
> > > >

From: Karl Groves
Date: Tue, Sep 16 2014 9:05AM
Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0 SC 1.4.4 - Text Zoom Vs Browser Zoom
← Previous message | Next message →

Rakesh,

You might want to take a look at prior conversations on this list and
the WAI-IG list, as I recall two pretty informative discussions on
this topic.

Also, this comprehensive post by Denis Boudreau
http://www.denisboudreau.org/blog/2013/07/why-browser-zoom-testing-sucks-for-accessibility/


On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 4:24 AM, Rakesh P < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> We have a web application where content on the site is getting
> restructured if we use global zoom to magnify the content.
> In one of the page, there is a chart image with image hot spots
> (functional links) as indicator of some chart value. When we do global
> zoom, the entire chart (with image hot shots) is getting re-sized and
> no distortion is happening. But with Text Zoom (using Text Zoom option
> in Firefox browser), only the text is re-sizing and not the chart
> image, so the position of image hot spots are getting distorted and
> this will definitely create some difficulty for user using text zoom
> (low vision user).
> As per WCAG SC 1.4.4 (Text Re-size), the content of the page should
> not be clipped, truncated or obscured with 200% Text Zoom.
> We want to understand, in a scenario like this, where Global Zoom is
> handled efficiently and doesn't cause any loss of information or
> horizontal scroll, is it really required to handle distortion caused
> by browser text zoom? Is the global zoom a sufficient way to execute
> and test S.C 1.4.4?
>
> Thanks & Regards
> Rakesh Paladugula
> > > --

Karl Groves
www.karlgroves.com
@karlgroves
http://www.linkedin.com/in/karlgroves
Phone: +1 410.541.6829

Modern Web Toolsets and Accessibility
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uq6Db47-Ks

www.tenon.io

From: Jared Smith
Date: Tue, Sep 16 2014 9:31AM
Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0 SC 1.4.4 - Text Zoom Vs Browser Zoom
← Previous message | Next message →

Rakesh P wrote:

> Is the global zoom a sufficient way to execute and test S.C 1.4.4?

Regardless of what WCAG allows, you have identified an issue that can
have a significant issue on users of your site (many users increase
text size only for improved readability). I'd hope that you'd favor
addressing significant accessibility issues over meeting the nuances
of WCAG conformance.

Jared

From: Denis Boudreau
Date: Tue, Sep 16 2014 9:35AM
Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0 SC 1.4.4 - Text Zoom Vs Browser Zoom
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Rakesh,

I think it boils down to three important things:

1. Most users would probably struggle more with the lack of word wrapping in browser zoom, than they would with images not scaling up in text resize.
2. Users could still do a combination of both text resizing and browser zoom, and bump the size of images up, if they really wanted to. Pixelation is unavoidable.
3. SC 1.4.4 basically says that browser zoom is sufficient to comply, which I still think is a mistake and creates a huge disservice to low vision users.

Over a year later, I still stand by the blog post Karl mentioned a few minutes ago. Except for the caveat brought up by Alastair on Responsive websites.

/Denis


On Sep 16, 2014, at 11:05 AM, Karl Groves < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> Rakesh,
>
> You might want to take a look at prior conversations on this list and
> the WAI-IG list, as I recall two pretty informative discussions on
> this topic.
>
> Also, this comprehensive post by Denis Boudreau
> http://www.denisboudreau.org/blog/2013/07/why-browser-zoom-testing-sucks-for-accessibility/
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 4:24 AM, Rakesh P < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>> Dear All,
>>
>> We have a web application where content on the site is getting
>> restructured if we use global zoom to magnify the content.
>> In one of the page, there is a chart image with image hot spots
>> (functional links) as indicator of some chart value. When we do global
>> zoom, the entire chart (with image hot shots) is getting re-sized and
>> no distortion is happening. But with Text Zoom (using Text Zoom option
>> in Firefox browser), only the text is re-sizing and not the chart
>> image, so the position of image hot spots are getting distorted and
>> this will definitely create some difficulty for user using text zoom
>> (low vision user).
>> As per WCAG SC 1.4.4 (Text Re-size), the content of the page should
>> not be clipped, truncated or obscured with 200% Text Zoom.
>> We want to understand, in a scenario like this, where Global Zoom is
>> handled efficiently and doesn't cause any loss of information or
>> horizontal scroll, is it really required to handle distortion caused
>> by browser text zoom? Is the global zoom a sufficient way to execute
>> and test S.C 1.4.4?
>>
>> Thanks & Regards
>> Rakesh Paladugula
>> >> >> >
>
>
> --
>
> Karl Groves
> www.karlgroves.com
> @karlgroves
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/karlgroves
> Phone: +1 410.541.6829
>
> Modern Web Toolsets and Accessibility
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uq6Db47-Ks
>
> www.tenon.io
> > >

From: Denis Boudreau
Date: Tue, Sep 16 2014 9:35AM
Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0 SC 1.4.4 - Text Zoom Vs Browser Zoom
← Previous message | Next message →

Jared, I think I love you.

/Denis


On Sep 16, 2014, at 11:31 AM, Jared Smith < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> Rakesh P wrote:
>
>> Is the global zoom a sufficient way to execute and test S.C 1.4.4?
>
> Regardless of what WCAG allows, you have identified an issue that can
> have a significant issue on users of your site (many users increase
> text size only for improved readability). I'd hope that you'd favor
> addressing significant accessibility issues over meeting the nuances
> of WCAG conformance.
>
> Jared
> > >

From: Stanzel, Susan - FSA, Kansas City, MO
Date: Tue, Sep 16 2014 9:43AM
Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0 SC 1.4.4 - Text Zoom Vs Browser Zoom
← Previous message | Next message →

What does text zoom do to the images on the page which could be important?

Susie Stanzel

From: Lewis Phillips
Date: Tue, Sep 16 2014 9:57AM
Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0 SC 1.4.4 - Text Zoom Vs Browser Zoom
← Previous message | Next message →

Susie,

Text zoom only increases the text size and doesn't change the image size.
If there is an important information in the image (text, chart) this is not
enlarged with text zoom.

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Stanzel, Susan - FSA, Kansas City, MO <
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> What does text zoom do to the images on the page which could be important?
>
> Susie Stanzel
>
>

From: Stanzel, Susan - FSA, Kansas City, MO
Date: Tue, Sep 16 2014 10:25AM
Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0 SC 1.4.4 - Text Zoom Vs Browser Zoom
← Previous message | Next message →

Then for testing wouldn't we have to do both types of testing? I use JAWS, but we always have to give meaning to the images if it is more than decoration. It seems to me if the person can't enlarge the image something will be missed.

Susie

From: Detlev Fischer
Date: Tue, Sep 16 2014 12:05PM
Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0 SC 1.4.4 - Text Zoom Vs Browser Zoom
← Previous message | Next message →

Just to clarify, I was only answering Rakesh's initial question ("Is the global zoom a sufficient way to execute and test S.C 1.4.4?") by rendering what I believe is still the current WCAG working group position. And the answer is: Yes, it is. But clearly, if it is possible to support text resizing as well that would be better (it might be hard to implement in the scenario Rakesh has described, though).

I agree with Denis and Jared that it is good to support text resizing wherever possible - I have seen that in many LV user tests now and have argued in favour of making text-only resizing a WCAG requirement (but only up to 150% - a position which is in synch with what Jared suggested in "WCAG next"). The WCAG WG thought otherwise, and responsive web design and the growth of the mobile web have changed the situation anyway (as Alastair has pointed out).

I have tried to render the entire argument about text and zoom resizing in an article a while ago:

"Text resizing: Why page zoom is not good enough - or is it?" http://www.bitvtest.eu/articles/article/lesen/zoom-and-text-resizing.html

Just for those who would enjoy a recap...

Best,
Detlev

On 16 Sep 2014, at 18:25, "Stanzel, Susan - FSA, Kansas City, MO" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> Then for testing wouldn't we have to do both types of testing? I use JAWS, but we always have to give meaning to the images if it is more than decoration. It seems to me if the person can't enlarge the image something will be missed.
>
> Susie
>
>

From: Pooja.Nahata
Date: Tue, Sep 16 2014 3:44PM
Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0 SC 1.4.4 - Text Zoom Vs Browser Zoom
← Previous message | Next message →

Jared,

I read through your comments on Alastairc article from 2013 where you very clearly articulated an acceptable solution for text resizing:

Level AA
- Zoom at 200%
- Text sizing at 150%

Now, what authors of RWD website want to lean towards is if its RWD then test for only text with zoom at 200% (no text resize) and for non-responsive text resize at 200%.

I find it hard ti digest that when designing for RWD wouldn't HTML/CSS technologies provide support to resize text?

Do you'll have examples of RWD sites that support text resize? I know WCAG's S.C 1.4.4 accepts Page zoom but I cant and is true for most of us as we believe Accessibility is about user and beyond guidelines.

Pooja Nahata
Practice Lead - Accessibility CoE
Mobile: 1-623-419-3582 | 1-678-294-4742
Digital Accessibility Blog

From: Sean Curtis
Date: Tue, Sep 16 2014 4:06PM
Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0 SC 1.4.4 - Text Zoom Vs Browser Zoom
← Previous message | Next message →

Forgive me if I'm way off base here - I haven't read the entire conversation, but did you try specifying the height of the image backing the image map in EMs or REMs rather than pixels? Doing that should scale it with the text size increases as well as zooming.

It might not be maintainable to do constantly unless you use JavaScript.

Cheers,

Sean

> On 17 Sep 2014, at 7:44 am, < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
> Jared,
>
> I read through your comments on Alastairc article from 2013 where you very clearly articulated an acceptable solution for text resizing:
>
> Level AA
> - Zoom at 200%
> - Text sizing at 150%
>
> Now, what authors of RWD website want to lean towards is if its RWD then test for only text with zoom at 200% (no text resize) and for non-responsive text resize at 200%.
>
> I find it hard ti digest that when designing for RWD wouldn't HTML/CSS technologies provide support to resize text?
>
> Do you'll have examples of RWD sites that support text resize? I know WCAG's S.C 1.4.4 accepts Page zoom but I cant and is true for most of us as we believe Accessibility is about user and beyond guidelines.
>
> Pooja Nahata
> Practice Lead - Accessibility CoE
> Mobile: 1-623-419-3582 | 1-678-294-4742
> Digital Accessibility Blog
>
>
>
>
>

From: Rakesh P
Date: Fri, Sep 19 2014 5:29AM
Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0 SC 1.4.4 - Text Zoom Vs Browser Zoom
← Previous message | Next message →

Dear All,

Thank you for your inputs.

Thanks,
Rakesh

On 9/17/14, Sean Curtis < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> Forgive me if I'm way off base here - I haven't read the entire
> conversation, but did you try specifying the height of the image backing the
> image map in EMs or REMs rather than pixels? Doing that should scale it with
> the text size increases as well as zooming.
>
> It might not be maintainable to do constantly unless you use JavaScript.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Sean
>
>> On 17 Sep 2014, at 7:44 am, < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>>
>> Jared,
>>
>> I read through your comments on Alastairc article from 2013 where you very
>> clearly articulated an acceptable solution for text resizing:
>>
>> Level AA
>> - Zoom at 200%
>> - Text sizing at 150%
>>
>> Now, what authors of RWD website want to lean towards is if its RWD then
>> test for only text with zoom at 200% (no text resize) and for
>> non-responsive text resize at 200%.
>>
>> I find it hard ti digest that when designing for RWD wouldn't HTML/CSS
>> technologies provide support to resize text?
>>
>> Do you'll have examples of RWD sites that support text resize? I know
>> WCAG's S.C 1.4.4 accepts Page zoom but I cant and is true for most of us
>> as we believe Accessibility is about user and beyond guidelines.
>>
>> Pooja Nahata
>> Practice Lead - Accessibility CoE
>> Mobile: 1-623-419-3582 | 1-678-294-4742
>> Digital Accessibility Blog
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

From: Hans Hillen
Date: Fri, Sep 19 2014 4:14PM
Subject: Re: WCAG 2.0 SC 1.4.4 - Text Zoom Vs Browser Zoom
← Previous message | No next message

As others have mentioned: with a proper responsive design, browser zooming
will yield the best results; It will cause the responsive break points to
kick in, leading to a neat easy to read, word wrapped, large text, large
image, vertical column of content that does not require any horizontal
scrolling.

These responsive breakpoints won't trigger when using text-only zoom,
although it shouldn't be to difficult to manually script this behavior.

It's also a lot easier to convince a design / dev team to invest in the
responsive approach and easier for them to implement than it is to fully
support text resizing in their original design, especially in complex
layouts.

Having said that, if the design is clean and fully responsive it's
relatively easy to also have it support text sizing up to 200%.






On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:29 PM, Rakesh P < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> Thank you for your inputs.
>
> Thanks,
> Rakesh
>
> On 9/17/14, Sean Curtis < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> > Forgive me if I'm way off base here - I haven't read the entire
> > conversation, but did you try specifying the height of the image backing
> the
> > image map in EMs or REMs rather than pixels? Doing that should scale it
> with
> > the text size increases as well as zooming.
> >
> > It might not be maintainable to do constantly unless you use JavaScript.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Sean
> >
> >> On 17 Sep 2014, at 7:44 am, < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> >>
> >> Jared,
> >>
> >> I read through your comments on Alastairc article from 2013 where you
> very
> >> clearly articulated an acceptable solution for text resizing:
> >>
> >> Level AA
> >> - Zoom at 200%
> >> - Text sizing at 150%
> >>
> >> Now, what authors of RWD website want to lean towards is if its RWD then
> >> test for only text with zoom at 200% (no text resize) and for
> >> non-responsive text resize at 200%.
> >>
> >> I find it hard ti digest that when designing for RWD wouldn't HTML/CSS
> >> technologies provide support to resize text?
> >>
> >> Do you'll have examples of RWD sites that support text resize? I know
> >> WCAG's S.C 1.4.4 accepts Page zoom but I cant and is true for most of us
> >> as we believe Accessibility is about user and beyond guidelines.
> >>
> >> Pooja Nahata
> >> Practice Lead - Accessibility CoE
> >> Mobile: 1-623-419-3582 | 1-678-294-4742
> >> Digital Accessibility Blog
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>