"Zoomed text node is not clipped with CSS overflow": "link to a full version": source unclear

[dan-tripp-siteimprove]

Passed Example 2 passes because it has a "link to a full version".

The problem is that I don't see where a "link to a full version" is mentioned in the applicability, expectations, or assumptions.

The closest thing I have found are these shaky references in one of the corresponding SC's sufficient techniques:

• "The mechanism may include links or buttons that will switch the visual presentation..."
  • Maybe a link to a full version on a separate page, like Passed Example 2 has, could be considered similar to this.
• "This technique can be used in combination with a style switching technique to present a page that is a conforming alternate version for non-conforming content"
  • This idea of a 'conforming alternate version' is something I don't know a lot about. It seems to apply to all SCs implicitly. I don't know what an ACT rule is supposed to do with this.

I'm looking forward to people's views on this.

[dan-tripp-siteimprove]

Some notes from the 2024-04-11 meeting:

• This question also applies to Passed Example 3.
• It was pointed out that in Passed Examples 2 and 3, the unclipped text does not contain the full text of the poem. This gives it a stronger argument to pass, similar in spirit to the "ambiguous to users in general" wording of SC 2.4.4.

[dan-tripp-siteimprove]

What I wrote above - that "Passed Example 2 passes because it has a "link to a full version"." - is now in doubt. Maybe it passes because it uses ellipsis. This comment supports that.

[dan-tripp-siteimprove]

Similarly, maybe Passed Example 3 passes not because it has a link to a full version, but rather because it uses line-height that way and hence passes the "except" clause of Expectation 2.

[dan-tripp-siteimprove]

I opened an issue at WCAG.

[mbgower]

I have drafted a response to the WCAG issue. However, this may speak to a lack of context in the ACT template.

I believe one of the ways rules are created is that tests in 2.x techniques are reviewed and incorporated into test cases. That is, where the working group has reviewed a sufficient technique and confirmed that meeting it meets the success criterion, by inference a test rule that produces the same outcome using the test seems to be a valid test for a pass or fail (depending on the kind of technique).

Adding some explanation to the Assumptions section about truncation and ways it can meet may help to address.

[dan-tripp-siteimprove]

That makes sense to me. I'll work towards that.