E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 9 (In chronological order)

From: Gopinathan Natesan
Date: Wed, Apr 19 2023 3:31AM
Subject: Testing 1.4.4 Resize and 1.4.10 Reflow
No previous message | Next message →

Hi Team,

I have few queries regarding Reflow and Resize.

*1.4.4 Resize:*
In SC 1.4.10, we have specific resolution defined as 1280 and 1024,
similarly is there any specific resolution defined to test SC 1.4.4?
Can we test only by zooming the web page to 200% alone(without bothering
about the resolution of the display)?

*1.4.10 Reflow:*
In 1.4.10, I am aware of two methodologies to test the page:

1. Open system settings. Change resolution to 1280x1024. Open the web
page in the browser. Zoom to 400% and test.
2. Do not bother about system settings. Open web page. Open developer
tools. Change the responsive to 320 and 256. Test the page.

Whether both the above methodologies are same in testing SC1.4.10?
Also in methodology 1, should we need to set the scale percentage(in system
display settings) to default or 100%?


Thanks,
Gopi.
+91 90421 89481

From: Mark Magennis
Date: Wed, Apr 19 2023 3:42AM
Subject: Re: Testing 1.4.4 Resize and 1.4.10 Reflow
← Previous message | Next message →

For SC 1.4.4 Resize there is no specified 'starting' viewport size so you have to test at what is 'reasonable'. I like to test down to 640px width because 200% zoom makes this equivalent to the 320px width required by 1.4.10 and I think it's reasonable to expect pages to work down to that level.

I say "down to 640px", not "at 640px" because in practise, issues may appear and disappear as you change the width or zoom, so you may have issues at, say 1020px and 200% zoom that don't appear at 640px and 200% zoom. Similarly, you might have issues that appear when you zoom to 150% and then disappear when you get to 200%. So you ideally want to test the whole range. I like to grab the right side of the window with the mouse and gradually shrink it to see if anything nasty happens on the way, then investigate further if I see anything.

Also bear in mind that if you have a responsive design which changes the layout and/or content at specific breakpoints, you need to text each different layout/content. So make sure you test just below each breakpoint.

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Wed, Apr 19 2023 3:50AM
Subject: Re: Testing 1.4.4 Resize and 1.4.10 Reflow
← Previous message | Next message →

Possibly relevant: a (lengthy!) back and forth on 1.4.4 Resize Text, how
in theory it applies at all possible viewport sizes, and the potential
need to have at least a "sensible" lower bound
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/704

P
--
Patrick H. Lauke

https://www.splintered.co.uk/ / https://github.com/patrickhlauke /
https://codepen.io/patrickhlauke
https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ / https://www.deviantart.com/redux
https://mastodon.social/@patrick_h_lauke


------ Original Message ------
From "Mark Magennis" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To "WebAIM Discussion List" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Date 19/04/2023 10:42:31
Subject Re: [WebAIM] [EXTERNAL] Testing 1.4.4 Resize and 1.4.10 Reflow

>For SC 1.4.4 Resize there is no specified 'starting' viewport size so you have to test at what is 'reasonable'. I like to test down to 640px width because 200% zoom makes this equivalent to the 320px width required by 1.4.10 and I think it's reasonable to expect pages to work down to that level.
>
>I say "down to 640px", not "at 640px" because in practise, issues may appear and disappear as you change the width or zoom, so you may have issues at, say 1020px and 200% zoom that don't appear at 640px and 200% zoom. Similarly, you might have issues that appear when you zoom to 150% and then disappear when you get to 200%. So you ideally want to test the whole range. I like to grab the right side of the window with the mouse and gradually shrink it to see if anything nasty happens on the way, then investigate further if I see anything.
>
>Also bear in mind that if you have a responsive design which changes the layout and/or content at specific breakpoints, you need to text each different layout/content. So make sure you test just below each breakpoint.
>
>
>

From: Steve Green
Date: Wed, Apr 19 2023 4:50AM
Subject: Re: Testing 1.4.4 Resize and 1.4.10 Reflow
← Previous message | Next message →

For SC 1.4.10, the resolution is not "defined as 1280 and 1024". It is defined as either 1280 CSS pixels wide or 1024 CSS pixels high at 400% zoom, depending on whether the content is designed to scroll vertically or horizontally. The other dimension is not specified in either case.

I don't think that testing SC 1.4.10 at 100% zoom in a 320px wide window is valid because the Understanding page refers to "the goal of allowing people to zoom in to 400%." And there are numerous other references to 400% zoom.

The issue of the scale percentage (in system display settings) is interesting because I have not seen that discussed previously, yet it is relevant to many people who work on laptops. All my machines are set to 100% so it's not an issue for me, but I am aware that 125% or 150% are common default settings for physically small displays with high resolution. My view is that they must be set to 100% for testing purposes.

Steve Green
Managing Director
Test Partners Ltd

From: Mark Magennis
Date: Wed, Apr 19 2023 5:30AM
Subject: Re: Testing 1.4.4 Resize and 1.4.10 Reflow
← Previous message | Next message →

So Steve, what is the difference between testing at 1280px wide at 400% zoom versus 320px wide at 100% that makes the latter not valid?

My understanding is they are functionally equivalent, although I've noticed small differences and I don't understand how they occur. It's not to do with confusion between window size and viewport size, so I'm a little unsure about the whole thing.

I have noticed issues to do with zooming or resizing after having loaded the page so I always change the display first or reload the page. I'd welcome more advice though because I don't feel I have a proper handle on this.

Thanks,
Mark

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Wed, Apr 19 2023 5:40AM
Subject: Re: Testing 1.4.4 Resize and 1.4.10 Reflow
← Previous message | Next message →

> The issue of the scale percentage (in system display settings) is
interesting because
> have not seen that discussed previously, yet it is relevant to many
people who work
> on laptops. All my machines are set to 100% so it's not an issue for
me, but I am
> aware that 125% or 150% are common default settings for physically
small displays
> with high resolution. My view is that they must be set to 100% for
testing purposes.

Just on that point, note that changing the scale percentage also changes
the effective resolution itself. So if you use, say, display resolution
of 1280x1024 but scale set to 150%, your actual resolution (and the CSS
pixels in the browser window that's maximised - leaving browser chrome
aside for simplicity) is approximately 853x682

P
--
Patrick H. Lauke

https://www.splintered.co.uk/ / https://github.com/patrickhlauke /
https://codepen.io/patrickhlauke
https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ / https://www.deviantart.com/redux
https://mastodon.social/@patrick_h_lauke


------ Original Message ------
From "Steve Green" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To "Patrick H. Lauke" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "WebAIM Discussion List"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Date 19/04/2023 11:50:01
Subject RE: [WebAIM] [EXTERNAL] Testing 1.4.4 Resize and 1.4.10 Reflow

>For SC 1.4.10, the resolution is not "defined as 1280 and 1024". It is defined as either 1280 CSS pixels wide or 1024 CSS pixels high at 400% zoom, depending on whether the content is designed to scroll vertically or horizontally. The other dimension is not specified in either case.
>
>I don't think that testing SC 1.4.10 at 100% zoom in a 320px wide window is valid because the Understanding page refers to "the goal of allowing people to zoom in to 400%." And there are numerous other references to 400% zoom.
>
>The issue of the scale percentage (in system display settings) is interesting because I have not seen that discussed previously, yet it is relevant to many people who work on laptops. All my machines are set to 100% so it's not an issue for me, but I am aware that 125% or 150% are common default settings for physically small displays with high resolution. My view is that they must be set to 100% for testing purposes.
>
>Steve Green
>Managing Director
>Test Partners Ltd
>
>
>

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Wed, Apr 19 2023 5:43AM
Subject: Re: Testing 1.4.4 Resize and 1.4.10 Reflow
← Previous message | Next message →

> So Steve, what is the difference between testing at 1280px wide at
400% zoom
> versus 320px wide at 100% that makes the latter not valid?

I believe the point here is that you won't experience it the same way as
the intended "users on a desktop with high magnification/zoom" target
audience, as your height will be likely markedly higher than the
equivalent height (and that can then lead to differences in things
overlapping or not, extra scrollbars appearing or not, things that bleed
off the bottom of the screen without any way to scroll to them not
exhibiting that behaviour when there's more height available, etc)

P
--
Patrick H. Lauke

https://www.splintered.co.uk/ / https://github.com/patrickhlauke /
https://codepen.io/patrickhlauke
https://flickr.com/photos/redux/ / https://www.deviantart.com/redux
https://mastodon.social/@patrick_h_lauke

From: Steve Green
Date: Wed, Apr 19 2023 5:59AM
Subject: Re: Testing 1.4.4 Resize and 1.4.10 Reflow
← Previous message | Next message →

That's exactly what I meant. Yesterday I posted a question about exactly such a case where a "sticky" date picker was truncated vertically at 400% zoom in a 1280px wide window, but you would not see this at 100% zoom in a 320px wide window because the height is 4 times greater.

Steve

From: Mark Magennis
Date: Wed, Apr 19 2023 6:20AM
Subject: Re: Testing 1.4.4 Resize and 1.4.10 Reflow
← Previous message | No next message

Ah I see now. Point taken. Thanks.