E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 5 (In chronological order)

From: Steve Green
Date: Wed, Sep 13 2023 5:51PM
Subject: WCAG SC 1.4.10 (Reflow) and intentionally hidden content
No previous message | Next message →

Is it a violation of WCAG SC 1.4.10 (Reflow) if content is intentionally hidden at zoom levels below 400%? I am increasingly encountering this where designers do not want content to exceed a certain height, invariably for no good reason.

For instance, I am testing a website where the last item in the breadcrumb is intentionally hidden using "display:none" at window widths below 576px, which equates to about 250% zoom in a 1280px wide window. On other websites, I have seen all except the first item in the breadcrumb disappear. I am inclined to regard this as "loss of information" even though it's intentional. Is that a correct interpretation of the success criterion?

Regards,
Steve Green
Managing Director
Test Partners Ltd
020 3002 4176 (direct)
0800 612 2780 (switchboard)
07957 246 276 (mobile)
020 7692 5517 (fax)
Skype: testpartners
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
www.testpartners.co.uk
 
Connect to me on LinkedIn - http://uk.linkedin.com/in/stevegreen2

From: glen walker
Date: Wed, Sep 13 2023 6:31PM
Subject: Re: WCAG SC 1.4.10 (Reflow) and intentionally hidden content
← Previous message | Next message →

It might depend on how nit-picky you want to get. Technically, 1.4.4
(which you didn't ask about) says zooming up to 200%. So anything between
100% and 200% is fair game. If something fails at exactly 173% but works
at all other percentages, then it fails 1.4.4. Now, how you'd stumble upon
that exact percentage without inspecting the CSS breakpoints, I don't know.

But 1.4.10 doesn't give you a range of percentages. It says if you lose
content at 400%, then it fails. It doesn't say "up to 400%". So if you lose
content between 200% and 399%, it technically doesn't fail 1.4.10.

Your example said 250%. That's beyond 1.4.4 so it doesn't apply, and it's
not exactly 400% so 1.4.10 doesn't apply. But I'm guessing the missing
breadcrumb items don't magically all appear at 400%? If the breadcrumb
items are removed at 250% and remain hidden up to 400%, then I'd fail it.
The guideline doesn't say whether the "loss of information" is intentional
or not.

From: Steve Green
Date: Wed, Sep 13 2023 8:09PM
Subject: Re: WCAG SC 1.4.10 (Reflow) and intentionally hidden content
← Previous message | Next message →

Thanks Glen,

The breadcrumb items are missing at 250% and all higher zoom levels. I was feeling uncharacteristically generous to our client earlier, but I agree with your viewpoint and have upgraded it to a non-conformance. I prefer to think we seek to be "accurate" rather than nit-picky or pedantic.

However, I have concerns about ignoring the author's intentions in this way. For instance, it is not uncommon for the mobile layout of a website to lack features or content that are present in the desktop layout. If this has been done to simplify the user experience, should we really insist they put all those features and content back in? It could make the accessibility better in theory, but worse in practice.

Steve



-----Original Message-----
From: WebAIM-Forum < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > On Behalf Of glen walker
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2023 1:31 AM
To: WebAIM Discussion List < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] WCAG SC 1.4.10 (Reflow) and intentionally hidden content

It might depend on how nit-picky you want to get. Technically, 1.4.4 (which you didn't ask about) says zooming up to 200%. So anything between 100% and 200% is fair game. If something fails at exactly 173% but works at all other percentages, then it fails 1.4.4. Now, how you'd stumble upon that exact percentage without inspecting the CSS breakpoints, I don't know.

But 1.4.10 doesn't give you a range of percentages. It says if you lose content at 400%, then it fails. It doesn't say "up to 400%". So if you lose content between 200% and 399%, it technically doesn't fail 1.4.10.

Your example said 250%. That's beyond 1.4.4 so it doesn't apply, and it's not exactly 400% so 1.4.10 doesn't apply. But I'm guessing the missing breadcrumb items don't magically all appear at 400%? If the breadcrumb items are removed at 250% and remain hidden up to 400%, then I'd fail it.
The guideline doesn't say whether the "loss of information" is intentional or not.

From: glen walker
Date: Thu, Sep 14 2023 7:31AM
Subject: Re: WCAG SC 1.4.10 (Reflow) and intentionally hidden content
← Previous message | Next message →

Yes, that's a tough call. Essentially "progressive enhancement" but in
reverse. If you start with mobile, or the smallest footprint first, and
have just the most essential information, then as you get bigger and bigger
screen sizes (tablet, laptop, desktop), you get more content (and
features?), that's considered "progressive enhancement". But what if you
go backwards, from a desktop to laptop to tablet to mobile? You can either
shrink your browser window or bump up your font to hit the breakpoints.
You'll gradually lose information, intentionally. Progressive diminishment?

Neither 1.4.4 nor 1.4.10 say anything about losing "essential"
information. They say "without loss of content" or "without loss of
information", respectively. Does that mean *any* information? Perhaps
that's a judgement call.

They both say without loss of functionality. If functional parts of the
breadcrumb are lost, perhaps that makes it fail? Or would 2.4.5 Multiple
Ways make up for that in this specific case? That is, as long as there is
another way to jump back to different parts of the breadcrumb, then it
doesn't fail 1.4.4 and 1.4.10.

However, I have concerns about ignoring the author's intentions in this
> way. For instance, it is not uncommon for the mobile layout of a website to
> lack features or content that are present in the desktop layout. If this
> has been done to simplify the user experience, should we really insist they
> put all those features and content back in? It could make the accessibility
> better in theory, but worse in practice.
>
>
>

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Sun, Sep 17 2023 3:22AM
Subject: Re: WCAG SC 1.4.10 (Reflow) and intentionally hidden content
← Previous message | No next message

On 14/09/2023 00:51, Steve Green wrote:
> Is it a violation of WCAG SC 1.4.10 (Reflow) if content is intentionally hidden at zoom levels below 400%? I am increasingly encountering this where designers do not want content to exceed a certain height, invariably for no good reason.
>
> For instance, I am testing a website where the last item in the breadcrumb is intentionally hidden using "display:none" at window widths below 576px, which equates to about 250% zoom in a 1280px wide window. On other websites, I have seen all except the first item in the breadcrumb disappear. I am inclined to regard this as "loss of information" even though it's intentional. Is that a correct interpretation of the success criterion?

Coming in late on this, I'd make a value judgement here of "even if the
thing is hidden, is there some equivalent/other way for the user to get
the same information/have the same functionality". Arguably, the
breadcrumb to me is not essential if the user can still get the same
info ("where am I, roughly, within the hierarchy of the site") and
functionality ("am I able to navigate one level up from the current
page/view").

P
--
Patrick H. Lauke

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