search

w3c / wcag

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
https://w3c.github.io/wcag/guidelines/22/
Other
1.13k stars 256 forks source link

G206 seems to be allowing a failure to exist #656

Open mbgower opened 5 years ago

mbgower commented 5 years ago

The words of the technique title for G206 are:

Providing options within the content to switch to a layout that does not require the user to scroll horizontally to read a line of text

However, an author should not be allowing text to exceed the viewport width in order to meet Reflow. The exception for reflow states:

Except for parts of the content which require two-dimensional layout for usage or meaning.

That is, if a map requires 2-dimensional layout that exceeds the viewport, the map alone is the exception to the requirement to reflow. Any accompanying text on the page must still meet Reflow's requirements. Therefore, G206 appears to allow too broad an exception. Although Reflow just says "content can be presented," I feel like the mention of "text" in particular in this technique is worrying.

Does the working group feel this technique needs to be constrained or reworded? Or maybe the examples could illuminate best practices.

awkawk commented 5 years ago

This seems like a "conforming alternate version" option for 1.4.10.

detlevhfischer commented 5 years ago

A related discussion with @patrickhlauke took place here: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/issues/668 It may be down to deciding whether content is truly continuous (a map as continuous surface, or an unbroken long line of text) or discrete, i.e. chunks of content that can be brought into view. Since these are bitty, I'd argue that they do not "require two-dimensional layout for usage or meaning" and should thus reflow. (Someone might argue, however, that slider content, once reached by vertical scrolling of the page, then requires scrolling only in one (horizontal) direction - you do not need both scrolling dimensions at any given time.) I still find it difficult to untangle 1.4.10 Reflow from the separate requirements of 2.5.1 and 2.1.1 especially if different OS/UA combinations may pass/fail these latter criteria (e.g. buttons offered on desktop, not on mobile).