E-mail List Archives
Re: Does 1.4.10 essentially replace 1.4.4?
From: Birkir R. Gunnarsson
Date: Sep 4, 2021 8:42AM
- Next message: Patrick H. Lauke: "Re: Does 1.4.10 essentially replace 1.4.4?"
- Previous message: glen walker: "Does 1.4.10 essentially replace 1.4.4?"
- Next message in Thread: Patrick H. Lauke: "Re: Does 1.4.10 essentially replace 1.4.4?"
- Previous message in Thread: glen walker: "Does 1.4.10 essentially replace 1.4.4?"
- View all messages in this Thread
This is my understanding too.
I find this article from Knowbility helpful in trying to make sense of 1.4.10
https://knowbility.org/blog/2018/WCAG21-1410Reflow
On 9/4/21, glen walker < <EMAIL REMOVED> > wrote:
> 1.4.4 requires zooming to 200% "without loss of content or functionality".
> 1.4.10 requires zooming to 400% "without loss of information or
> functionality"
>
> I'm not sure why the wording is different between "loss of *content*" vs
> "loss of *information*". I suppose the latter could lose DOM elements
> (which I consider content) but the general gist of information is still
> there so it might pass. But that's a side topic. For all intents and
> purposes, they're both talking about not losing stuff when zoomed.
>
> 1.4.4 doesn't care what size your browser window is so in theory you could
> zoom to 200% and lose content if your browser is small but if you maximize
> the browser and you have a large monitor, you might not lose any content so
> it could pass.
>
> 1.4.10 says to test with a 1280 width browser (for vertical content).
>
> So when testing, do you really need to test for 1.4.4 if you're trying to
> pass WCAG 2.1 AA conformance? Can't you just test for 1.4.10 and if that
> passes, you also pass 1.4.4?
>
> I suppose, in theory again, you might have different CSS breakpoints and
> the breakpoint for 400% zoom might look good but the breakpoint for 200%
> might not. I've never had that happen but it is possible so testing at
> both 200% and 400% is probably wise.
>
> I'm just tossing a discussion topic out there. If you're in a hurry to do
> a quick scan, you might be able to test for 400% and check off both success
> criteria. Of course, when pressing Ctrl++, you have to go through 200%
> before 400% (unless you've modified your browser zoom to jump right to
> 400%) so it's only a few seconds extra to pause at 200%, scroll the page to
> see if it looks good, then continue up to 400%.
>
> I've also glossed over the scrollbar requirement for 1.4.10.
>
> What I typically do is zoom to 200%, see if it looks good at my current
> browser size, then continue up to 400% and resize my browser to 1280 (using
> responsive view from the code inspector [both firefox and chrome], which
> makes it easy to set the browser width) and see if it looks good and no
> horizontal scrollbar appears.
> > > > >
--
Work hard. Have fun. Make history.
- Next message: Patrick H. Lauke: "Re: Does 1.4.10 essentially replace 1.4.4?"
- Previous message: glen walker: "Does 1.4.10 essentially replace 1.4.4?"
- Next message in Thread: Patrick H. Lauke: "Re: Does 1.4.10 essentially replace 1.4.4?"
- Previous message in Thread: glen walker: "Does 1.4.10 essentially replace 1.4.4?"
- View all messages in this Thread