search

w3c / wcag

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
https://w3c.github.io/wcag/guidelines/22/
Other
1.14k stars 256 forks source link

Change 1.4.4 related mentions of "at least 200%" to "up to 200%" #3986

Closed patrickhlauke closed 3 months ago

patrickhlauke commented 4 months ago

Closes https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/2923

netlify[bot] commented 4 months ago

Deploy Preview for wcag2 ready!

Name Link
Latest commit 4100e4b21b54628a3acbaf28aa6d4265e9121677
Latest deploy log https://app.netlify.com/sites/wcag2/deploys/669ed2ab3801e300086ddc62
Deploy Preview https://deploy-preview-3986--wcag2.netlify.app
Preview on mobile
Toggle QR Code...

QR Code

Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

detlevhfischer commented 3 months ago

Hmm - I have my doubt that all readers will parse "up to 200%" correctly. It could be understood as meaning: "resize should have an effect, and you should be able to enlarge text to a maximum value of 200% (but not more)" - implying that resizing to 150% would be sufficient as well. I would just scrap the "up" for clarity.

GreggVan commented 3 months ago

I think "up to" is perfectly understandable. I don't think anyone in any position of authority to judge would think that something must be "adjustable up to 200%" would be satisfied by something that stopped at 150%. And also no such judge would think it should be capped at 200% unless you said "up to a max of 200%" or even "up to a max of 200% and not more". This is not to say that "all readers" would say this because it is not possible to say that "all readers" will read anything correctly. But that should not be our goal. We should make it as understandable as possible. So if you have alternate wording that you think would be better -- it is always great to hear it.

patrickhlauke commented 3 months ago

I have my doubt that all readers will parse "up to 200%" correctly.

it's the exact wording used in the normative SC text. not disagreeing, just pointing out that if there's confusion, it already starts with the actual SC itself

detlevhfischer commented 3 months ago

@GreggVan I just gave my take as a non-native speaker with a good grasp of English. The guidance is read by all kinds of people (not just native speakers) who implement stuff, often without a deep understanding of accessibility - so that "position of authority to judge" thing strikes me as odd. Anyway, if others think there is no problem, that's fine. Personally I am more comfortable with "at least 200%" - that wording clearly says, "the minimum is 200%, more is better".

@patrickhlauke good point. But:

SC: "text can be resized without assistive technology up to 200 percent"

Understanding: "text resizes ... and can be resized up to 200% of the default"

Arguably not the exact wording. There is a subtle difference in the wording that makes the understanding text (to my eyes) more ambiguous than the SC text. Am I the only one perceiving the difference? Then all is well... In my eyes, the change remains what I would call a "Verschlimmbesserung" ( a change to the worse).

alastc commented 3 months ago

From the meeting: It's in the SC, the understanding document is quite consistent on "up to", so we think the test-procedure should reflect the SC text.