Open
Description
Changing styles for Mars demo works fine: https://dequeuniversity.com/demo/mars/
When I do change styles the contrast fails though, See the "Mars map" and "help" text
Now I have followed discussions in the past about stacking SC (specially with reflow), but not sure if this is a fail...
(I don't see a note in Text spacing or Contrast about the interrelationship)
Activity
patrickhlauke commentedon Nov 16, 2020
Personally, I'd flag that as a mild failure here under Text Spacing - while not fully "loss of content" it does result in content that's potentially illegible
jake-abma commentedon Nov 24, 2020
I get where you come from but do we have 'mild failures'? or will it end up in the 'recommendation' / supplemental part of an audit?
Can we say its "loss of content" or is it just collateral damage and flag it as a best practice?
If we are supposed to 'stack' SCs, it's 1.4.3 Contrast for sure... (making it clear what the issue is)
patrickhlauke commentedon Nov 24, 2020
1.4.12 feels a bit special because it's a case where user has willfully/actively modified the author's intended styles, and it feels odd penalising an author for not foreseeing that if a user messed with their CSS, there might be situations where their content fails for various other SCs. but then, 1.4.12 is still something authors must check (at least for the baseline spacings mentioned in the requirement). so yeh, i'm a bit torn here. but from a philosophical principle, i'd agree that SCs should stack, as these are just variations of the same page (and yes this increases testing, same way that the whole "different media query breakpoints need to be tested" aspect increases testing, but them's the realities of modern web where pages do adapt to different scenarios, and should still pass other SCs even in those cases).
JAWS-test commentedon Nov 24, 2020
If the text adjusted according to SC 1.4.12 suddenly runs into an area where text and background color are identical, the font would no longer be readable and SC 1.4.12 would not be fulfilled. However, if the font and background color differ, the question would be what the contrast requirements are. And I would assume that all other WCAG SC still apply, i.e. also the contrast requirements from SC 1.4.3.
I only find it difficult to deal with criteria that have more to do with each other in terms of content, e.g. SC 1.4.12 and SC 1.4.10: Must it still be possible to adjust the text spacing at 320px?
mraccess77 commentedon Nov 24, 2020
My understanding is that text spacing does need to be supported at 320CSS pixel widths as well because that is a page variation and everything must be tested at each variation.
JAWS-test commentedon Nov 24, 2020
If I follow this logic, then 1.4.4 should be valid at 1.4.10 too, 200% zoom is possible at 320px width. I do not believe, that many pages fulfill this...
mraccess77 commentedon Nov 24, 2020
I'd say that at 320CSS pixels 1.4.4 would be met through browser zoom which allows for horizontal/vertical enlargement rather than expecting the page to reflow further past 320CSS pixels. Many user agents have ways to perform this type of zoom without triggering reflow. For example, on my touch screen laptop pinch zoom on the touch screen is often treated differently than browser zoom with mouse and keyboard.
JAWS-test commentedon Nov 25, 2020
I don't think it's necessary to test 200% zoom at 320px, because according to Understanding 1.4.10 the 320px is required to be able to zoom 400%, so if I require 320px + 200% zoom, the page must allow 800% in the end. But this is not required by the WCAG. Quite the opposite: in 1.4.10 there is even the exception that with 400% zoom the content only needs to be enlarged by 200%. I also assume that someone who needs 800% zoom uses a screen magnifier and therefore does not need a browser zoom
patrickhlauke commentedon Nov 25, 2020
@JAWS-test not quite correct. SCs apply to all possible media query breakpoint/variations. a user may start at 320 CSS px width on their phone, and they still need to be able to zoom to at least 200%.
we don't expect reflow to work at widths below 320 CSS px because that becomes eminently difficult (when you can barely fit an entire long word in the width), so horizontal scrolling is allowed beyond that point.
JAWS-test commentedon Nov 25, 2020
@patrickhlauke: I do not agree.
All SCs apply to all possible breakpoints according to 5.2.2 Full Pages. But this has nothing to do with SC 1.4.10 and 320px. Breakpoints can also be at 40000px, 300px and 20px and would then have to be tested.
320px are defined in SC 1.4.10 for 400% zoom. And it would not make sense to test 400% zoom together with 200% zoom.
I do not see that SC 1.4.10 has anything to do with phones that are 320px wide. It has to do with desktop screens with 1280px width.
The only thing that applies: A display with 320px or less does not have to meet 1.4.10 at zoom. A display with 640px only needs to meet 1.4.10 up to 200% zoom, etc.
mraccess77 commentedon Nov 25, 2020
I agree you would not need to test 200% zoom at 320CSS pixels. The goal with SC 1.4.4 is to make sure that at some point you can reach 200% of the default size of text - this is generally starting from the 1280x768 type size and zooming in to ensure at some point it can be reached.
patrickhlauke commentedon Nov 25, 2020
so you're exempting mobile sites from allowing pinch to zoom, for instance? I'm sure that's not what you mean...
alastc commentedon Nov 26, 2020
Going back to the original issue (text-spacing + text contrast).
Personally, I don't think there should be a different between text that spills out of it's container and is invisible (due to being under another element/box/background), or overlapping, or illegible due to contrast. If that happened as part of reflow I'd think the same thing as well.
That does go beyond our previous discussions on page variations though, so it would be good to agree on this.
Chair hat on: I think the appropriate place to address this (if agreed) would be the text-spacing understanding doc. Could someone draft an update that includes this as something in the "Effects of Not Allowing for Spacing Override" section?
patrickhlauke commentedon Nov 27, 2020
i think the underlying question though is: do you fail this just under text spacing, or do you then also fail this under contrast (minimum)?
in this case, as it's a change to the author's original styles, i'd be inclined to fail it just under text spacing.
if something like text spilling out and become illegible/low contrast happened when resizing (using zoom, not text-only sizing) or reflowing though - not modifying the author styles, but just changing the environment / viewport dimensions that the content is presented in, then i'd personally fail under both resizing/reflowing and under contrast (minimum)
alastc commentedon Dec 4, 2020
Personally, I'd probably fail under the trigger (e.g. text-spacing), but the conformance model doesn't try to cover that aspect as in either case it isn't a pass.