Note, the original editor's draft content quoted below is for reference only. Option 4 is a result of edits proposed in Question 8 of the 30 May survey results and subsequent discussion on Friday, 31 May. These proposed changes have not been incorporated into the active PR, but will be once consensus is reached.

For comparison only: Original editor's draft content for 1.4.10 Reflow

1.4.10 Reflow - Some software on ICT with closed functionality does not support scrolling content or changing the viewport (examples include software for self-service transaction machines or kiosks). Therefore, there would be no content to which this success criterion applies, meaning the success criterion would be satisfied. Instead, other requirements exist outside of WCAG to address use by persons with low vision (including but not limited to using sufficiently large text and single screen designs).

Option 4: Updated 30 May survey proposal due to survey responses

1.4.10 Reflow - Some software on ICT with closed functionality does not support scrolling content, or zooming or changing the viewport (examples include software for self-service transaction machines or kiosks). Therefore, some other non-WCAG requirements would be needed for products with closed functionality to ensure that content is readable without scrolling in two directions.

Indicate whether Option 4 is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft. If edits are needed, provide the detailed edits in the survey or in the Google doc starting at Option 5: (add new proposals here).

Summary

Details

The Friday sub-group took as input the survey results from Question 9 in the survey that was due on 30 May, and further refined the proposed content into two options. The PR has not been updated to include these proposals since there are 2 options. Once consensus is reached the PR will be updated accordingly.

For comparison only: Original content for 2.1.1 Keyboard

2.1.1 Keyboard - Assumes operation via a keyboard interface which also allows for alternative input devices. When a product with closed functionality does not have a standard keyboard or an alternative input device cannot be connected, it may not be possible to satisfy this success criterion. It may be possible to address some user needs (such as offering input methods that support users with low vision, without vision, or limited manual dexterity).

Option 9c: Changed 2nd sentence (a or b)

2.1.1 Keyboard - Assumes operation via a keyboard interface which also allows for alternative input devices. It may not be possible to satisfy this success criterion when a) the ICT does not have a built-in keyboard, and b) it does not provide, or allow installation or connection of, an alternative input method (hardware or software) that provides keyboard-like functionality.

Option 10: Edits to address all concerns from the group (hopefully)

2.1.1 Keyboard - Assumes operation via a keyboard interface which also allows for alternative input devices. It is possible to satisfy this success criterion if a) the ICT has a built-in keyboard, or b) provides, or allows installation or connection of, an alternative input method (hardware or software) that provides keyboard-like functionality. A keypad that provides full access to functionality could be considered a keyboard.

Indicate which proposal you prefer, and whether the proposed changes are ready to merge into the editor's draft. If edits are needed, provide the detailed edits in the survey or in the Google doc starting at Option 11: add new proposals here

Summary

Details

This question is to review the first part of a proposed update to the general guidance for 1.4.10 Reflow Note 5. Microsoft expressed concerns with the existing note and suggested some changes in Issue 377.

You can read the proposal in-context (will appear as Note 5) in the Google doc section Applying SC 1.4.10 Reflow to Non-Web Documents and Software. NOTE: There is not yet a PR that has these proposed changes incorporated.

You can review the updated content in-context (will appear as Note 1) in Applying SC 2.4.11 Focus Not Obscured (Minimum) to Non-Web Documents and Software from PR 378.

For comparison, the original text

NOTE 5: The intent section refers to the ability for content to reflow when user agent zooming is used to scale content or when the viewport changes in width. For non-web software, this means that when users scale content, adjust the size of a window or dialog, or change the screen resolution, the content will reflow without loss of information or functionality, and without requiring scrolling in two dimensions; or that the application works with platform features to meet this success criterion.

Option 2: Microsoft’s Proposed Adjustment (with task force edits)

NOTE 5: The intent section refers to the ability for content to reflow (equivalent to 320 CSS pixels wide for vertical scrolling content or 256 CSS pixels tall for horizontal scrolling content) when user agent zooming is used to scale content or when the viewport changes in size. For non-web software, this means that when users scale content, adjust the size of a window or dialog, or change the screen resolution, the content will reflow meeting this success criterion without loss of information or functionality, and without requiring scrolling in two dimensions; or that the application works with platform features to meet this success criterion.

Indicate which proposal you prefer, as well as whether that proposal is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft. If any edits are needed, add them to the survey or Google doc starting at Option 3 - new proposals go here.

Summary

Details

This question is to review the second part of a proposed update to the general guidance for 1.4.10 Reflow Note 7. Microsoft expressed concerns with what we have in the editor's draft and suggested some changes in Issue 377.

You can read the proposals in-context (will appear as Note 7) in the Google doc section Applying SC 1.4.10 Reflow to Non-Web Documents and Software. NOTE: There is not yet a PR that has these changes incorporated since there are two choices.

Of note, the first and second paragraphs of Option 3 and 4 are unchanged from the existing editor's draft content. The change is the addition of the third paragraph.

Option 3: Restated Microsoft proposal

NOTE 7: As written, this success criterion can only be met by non-web documents or software where the underlying user agent or platform can present content at a width equivalent to 320 CSS pixels for vertical scrolling content and a height equivalent to 256 CSS pixels for horizontal scrolling content.

When the underlying user agent or platform does not support these dimensions for scrolling, reflow is encouraged as this capability is important to (people) with low vision. As a reasonable benchmark, evaluate at the nearest size to what the Reflow success criterion specifies.

When users modify zoom, scaling, and/or display resolution at the platform software level (e.g. Operating System), it impacts the size of all applications and the platform software itself. This can result in unwanted consequences for applications where exceptions to 1.4.10 Reflow apply, and could lead to a poor user experience.

Option 4: Edit of Option 3: tradeoffs, not just poor user experience

The proposed additions to Option 3's text are shown in bold below. Additionally, the last phrase of the last paragraph of Option 3 was edited out in this proposal.

NOTE 7: As written, this success criterion can only be met by non-web documents or software where the underlying user agent or platform can present content at a width equivalent to 320 CSS pixels for vertical scrolling content and a height equivalent to 256 CSS pixels for horizontal scrolling content.

When the underlying user agent or platform does not support these dimensions for scrolling, reflow is encouraged as this capability is important to (people) with low vision. As a reasonable benchmark, evaluate at the nearest size to what the Reflow success criterion specifies.

When users modify zoom, scaling, and/or display resolution at the platform software level (e.g. Operating System), it impacts the size of all applications and the platform software itself. This can result in improved readability in some applications but unwanted consequences in others, such as applications where exceptions to 1.4.10 Reflow apply.

Indicate which proposal you prefer, as well as whether that proposal is ready to incorporate into the editor's draft. If any edits are needed, add them to the survey or add them to the Google doc starting at Option 5 - new proposals go here.

Summary

(1 response didn't contain an answer to this question)

Details