The horizontal scrolling requirement in SC 1.4.8 #3345
Comments
xfq
added
i18n-tracker
xfq
added
i18n-clreq
i18n-jlreq
i18n-mlreq
i18n-needs-resolution
|
Hi @xfq,
In effect it is limited, it does not apply to vertical text (as you don't need to scroll horizontally to read a line). I think we'd need some more expertise / research to establish if it is useful and feasible to extend the requirement to vertical-text scenarios. |
|
According to my understanding, for vertical text, we should be able to increase the font size without scrolling vertically to read a line of text. I think @murata2makoto and others in the jlreq TF have more expertise and research about the requirements for scrolling in vertical writing mode. |
|
I agree with @alastc - the intent to ensure that vertical text wraps so there is only horizontal, and not vertical scrollling is not supported by the SC text. |
I completely agree with @xfq. Obviously, this SC should be generalized for vertical layout. |
I do not understand why more expertise / research is required. I wonder if you are asking p-value based significance test? |
Yes, this should be but the current situation is that it is not required for vertical text due to the language of the SC. That isn't something that can be addressed at this time in the process for publication. This should be added to the list for WCAG 3 to consider. |
Not even errata to WCAG 2.X?
Horizontal scrolling is always unnecessary for reading a vertical line. It is thus true that the phrase " in a way that does not require the user to scroll horizontally to read a line of text on a full-screen window" does not impose any harmful requirements. It is just misleading and useless for vertical writing. |
This would be a substantial errata rather than an editorial errata. It would need to be updated in WCAG 2.0/2.1/2.2 - all errata to date are editorial (such as typos)- see https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/errata/ |
(except for the upcoming one for 4.1.1) |
But the W3C process allows class 3 changes. Why do you eliminate them from WCAG errata? |
|
IIRC based on the i18n ⇔ AG joint discussions at the teleconference, it is possible to use the errata process for this kind of change and it was mentioned in the meeting summary (W3C member only). |
|
The discussions in this thread make me nervous. |
|
I would like to request the addition of " when in horizontal writing, and vertically when in vertical writing." at the end of the current sentence. |
How does a reader of this specification know that it does not apply to vertical text? |
This is not how WCAG conformance works. The requirement is that at 200% no horizontal scrolling is needed to read a line of text. So you resize the text to 200% and then see if horizontal scrolling is needed. As far as my (admittedly limited) understanding of vertical languages goes, there is no scenario where you would need to scroll horizontally to read a “line” of text. So it automatically passes the success criterion. I 100% support the internationalization effort, and if murata2makoto’s suggestion addresses the concern, I think it is a simple enough fix. However, because it has a meaningful impact on conformance to WCAG (as in: a requirement is introduced that needs to be met now that did not exist before) I would strongly recommend containing the change to WCAG 2.2 and not introduce an Errata on earlier versions, as it is a normative change. Nobody wants websites that have passed WCAG 2.0 for 15 years and WCAG 2.1 for 5 years to suddenly not pass those versions. It’s OK (and expected) that they do not meet WCAG 2.2. |
|
Thank you, @yatil, for your comment. Indeed, there is no scenario in which you would need to scroll horizontally to read a 'line' of vertical text. While vertical text happens to not violate this clause, I'm not sure that this should be the way we address the issue. I am comfortable with @murata2makoto's suggestion, and I agree with you that we should confine the changes to WCAG 2.2. |
"scroll horizontally" was an error in 2.0. It should have been "scroll in two dimensions". We avoided the same error in the 2.1 reflow criteria:
It seems we should now correct that in WCAG 2.2 wording, and with WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 errata.
As we learned with 4.1.1, the community is adamant about "backwards compatibility". Thus, if we change wording in 2.2, we will need to add errata for previous versions. Practically, I think the error correction from "scroll horizontally" to "scrolling in two dimensions" does not introduce a new requirement and doesn't impact past conformance. It makes the SC applicable for different language systems and also more flexible for different situations. Maybe I'm missing something? |
|
Slightly more complicated
We DID mean not scroll horizontally — but that was because we forgot about Vertical languages
It should have been "not Scroll horizontally for left-right and right-left languages and not scroll vertically for vertical languages"
But "do not scroll both directions" USUALLY works (by accident) because most pages scroll vertically so it ends up de-facto preventing horizontal scrolling
If a page was only 1 page high — AND scrolled ONLY in horizontal (and not vertical) it would be bad. So changing language to Don’t require scrolling in both — is not a good solution — but it will work in most cases. It just leaves people wondering what the SC is about.
It is really about not requiring people to scroll back and forth to read each line.
So the SC should have been
"not Scroll horizontally for left-right and right-left languages and not scroll vertically for vertical languages"
gregg
…------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden
***@***.***
On Sep 25, 2023, at 1:13 PM, Shawn Lawton Henry ***@***.***> wrote:
.... does not require the user to scroll horizontally to read a line of text ...
"scroll horizontally" was an error in 2.0. It should have been "scroll in two dimensions".
We avoided the same error in the 2.1 reflow criteria:
... without requiring scrolling in two dimensions...
It seems we should now correct that in WCAG 2.2 wording, and with WCAG 2.0 and 2.1 errata.
... does not require the user to scroll in two dimensions to read a line of text ...
As we learned with 4.1.1, the community is adamant about "backwards compatibility". Thus, if we change wording in 2.2, we will need to add errata for previous versions.
Practically, I think the error correction from "scroll horizontally" to "scrolling in two dimensions" does not introduce a new requirement and doesn't impact past conformance. It makes the SC more flexible for different situations. Maybe I'm missing something?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#3345 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACNGDXVB7YO4HP6JLMKU5LLX4HQYBANCNFSM6AAAAAA3R2YXU4>.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
|
Right, and more specifically, not scroll back and forth to read a block of text. If I recall correctly, when the low vision task force was discussing what became 1.4.10 Reflow, it decided that if in a horizontal language there was a single long line and the user had to scroll horizontally to read it (but not also vertically to read any of the block of text), that would be acceptable. Though, that's still pretty hard reading. I think it would be good to decide if we were starting from a clean slate, what the wording would be for 1.4.8 Visual Presentation and 1.4.10 Reflow. And then decide what we can do given the wording already in WCAG 2. Is a wording change appropriate? As yatil says, we don't want to make a bunch of websites non-conformant. Yet, in reality given common practice, this wording correction might not. |
|
I think you are right Shawn. At this point we can only make sure the intent is there in the Understanding doc since 2.x is all closed and sealed.
All discussion otherwise should be on what is best wording for WCAG3
For understanding doc — the problem is twofold
1) it is tiresome to have to keep scrolling the page back and forth to read a paragraph (or block) of text. This is convenience and efficiency.
2) many people find it very difficult to figure out which line is the next line when the scroll back to the left. This is a real problem - not just convenience. They scroll back - don’t know which is next line — have to scroll to the right to figure out what they read last — the scroll back to the left and see what looks logical (they can’t visually track the line as they scroll back). If two lines make sense it takes longer. If having trouble reading in the first place it is really hard (low vision and dyslexia).
Best
gregg
… On Sep 25, 2023, at 5:11 PM, Shawn Lawton Henry ***@***.***> wrote:
It is really about not requiring people to scroll back and forth to read each line.
Right, and more specifically, not scroll back and forth to read a block of text.
If I recall correctly, when the low vision task force was discussing what became 1.4.10 Reflow, it decided that if in a horizontal language there was a single long line and the user had to scroll horizontally to read it (but not also vertically to read any of the block of text), that would be acceptable. Though, that's still pretty hard reading.
I think it would be good to decide if we were starting from a clean slate, what the wording would be for 1.4.8 Visual Presentation and 1.4.10 Reflow. And then decide what we can do given the wording already in WCAG 2. Is a wording change appropriate? As yatil says, we don't want to make a bunch of websites non-conformant. Yet, in reality given common practice, this wording correction might not.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#3345 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACNGDXSIDW3ZMDDPHLZ64ITX4IMSXANCNFSM6AAAAAA3R2YXU4>.
You are receiving this because you commented.
|
+1 to clearly addressing in the Understanding doc. As I understand it, in practice vertical writing systems will pass this. So there's not a problem with conforming. (nd this is Level AAA. [comment above edited] |
As illustrated in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nlcEgJGIs8&t=22s , specifically starting at 2:09 |
That will do then!
It should, but it would be adding a requirement, and we're well past the time for adding new requirements in 2.2. It would need to go into 3.0, or (if there's new support for it) WCAG 2.3.
There are two slightly separate things here:
Also, as I mentioned elsewhere, this is an AAA requirement which is NOT recommended to be included in legislation by default. That is also helpful for justifying an errata: If regions where this SC is an issue have not been applying it at all, there would be no harm in updating it. |
If those CJK users who have print disabilities are not forsaken and the third agreement between the I18N WG and the AG WG ("Working together, produce errata for each of the 2.x specs. In the call we identified the “horizontal” text and the addition of an “exception” in section 1.4.8 as a particular target, but this effort would extend to other items as appropriate.") are honored, every attempt should be made to generalize 2.2 by publishing errata. |
|
Vertical text pretty much never violates the horizontal scrolling part of the requirement (it can require vertical scrolling that violates the spirit of the SC), so we could ship this as-is, I think. The added note I think covers vertical text under the "additional or different requirements" bit. There is a separate thread and PRs in which the understanding docs are being revised. I also think that a more general SC would be better and not very difficult to achieve. But I don't think we need to hold 2.2. |
|
Will the I18N WG and the AG WG work together to produce errata for each of the 2.x specs? |
|
@murata2makoto Yes. This is already in progress. The edits by @shawna-slh I believe are part of this effort. |
https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#visual-presentation
The text here seems to assume that the text is in horizontal writing mode, which may not be applicable to vertical text. IMHO we need to limit the scope of this SC or add some text about vertical text.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: