Feedback on Reflow

[PAFaieta]

The standard hasn't included pixel-dense viewports when considering things such as target size and responsive view vs native mobile.

It may be worth extending that to a baseline native viewport resolution (and DPI) or just specifying a baseline minimum magnification (say 200%) as a satisfactory technique in either case.

[patrickhlauke]

The standard references CSS pixels, which are density-independent

[PAFaieta]

With all due respect, that's exactly my point. I'm hoping to at least extend on that language to reduce the level of interpretation externally or liberties people take with that. I've felt that the standards language has historically had a huge problem with that from a compliance standpoint.

[patrickhlauke]

With all due respect, that's exactly my point

are you suggesting that the guidelines should somehow address the different use cases (say for target size) of, for instance, people running very high dpi displays at native resolution, and make the targets bigger? in that case, the reason why this ISN'T done is that authors cannot predict or test the actual resolution and physical dimensions that users run their devices at. so can't have a guideline that introduces variability on things that authors have no control over. the only safe assumption is using the ideal CSS pixel, and handing off the responsibility for the rest (e.g. that a user has their display properly configured, based on its physical size, their viewing distance, etc, their ability to confidently operate a pointer, etc) to the browser/OS and user

[PAFaieta]

Are you suggesting that there shouldn't be some provisions for that?

I'm not trying to be combative, but I am trying to insire some discussion from what I've seen at the ground level. It would be worth examining at least the baseline zoom for research purposes. Regardless, it seems that such a discussion isn't exactly welcome, so I'm going to leave this to the group.

Have a nice day.

[patrickhlauke]

if a user is running their system at a very high resolution, on a physically small monitor (which authors can't test for), they're doing it consciously - it's not the place of authors to infer from that that this means the users are likely to struggle and that target sizes should be made bigger to counteract this. that decision belongs to the user (to adapt their resolution/device to their need)

[patrickhlauke]

it seems that such a discussion isn't exactly welcome

you wanted to inspire a discussion, and i'm discussing the rationale behind the current state. not sure where you get the "such a discussion isn't welcome" part when one (!) single person provides a counterpoint, but sure...

[alastc]

I'm hoping to at least extend on that language to reduce the level of interpretation externally or liberties people take with that.

In WCAG 3 we are trying to avoid technology specific language at the top level (e.g. in reflow). We'll need some kind of metric, but hopefully lower down in tech-specific methods.

I've felt that the standards language has historically had a huge problem with that from a compliance standpoint... I am trying to insire some discussion from what I've seen at the ground level. It would be worth examining at least the baseline zoom for research purposes.

In what way, and for which platforms? The WCAG2ICT update has been looking at this and could still reference the CSS pixel in things like reflow.

Discussion here is welcome, please don't be put off by the lack of (or unfamiliar) expressiveness in text communications.

What would be useful is some scenarios or examples of what you mean by "liberties" or what you've seen at the ground level.