Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Understanding document 1.4.10: examples instead of benefits #3428

Closed
gjccopinga opened this issue Sep 26, 2023 · 3 comments · Fixed by #3608
Closed

Understanding document 1.4.10: examples instead of benefits #3428

gjccopinga opened this issue Sep 26, 2023 · 3 comments · Fixed by #3608

Comments

@gjccopinga
Copy link

Hi,

If I look at the understanding document on SC 1.4.10 (https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/reflow) and go to the "Benefits" section I do not see benefits (for people with disabilities) but I see some examples. Please add the benefits here and move the examples to the "Examples" section.

Gerard

@detlevhfischer
Copy link
Contributor

detlevhfischer commented Sep 27, 2023

@gjccopinga There is a Benefits section https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/reflow#benefits mentioning the main benefit: being able to read content with text enlarged without having to scroll sideways. Do you think more benefts should be added?

If you just missed this section, I suggest we close this issue.

@gjccopinga
Copy link
Author

gjccopinga commented Sep 27, 2023

@detlevhfischer I saw the benefits section. But I did not recognize the two 'benefits' mentioned there as benefits. they 'looked' like examples. Probably because of the presentation with the bold text in the first sentence. That (bold) presentation is not being used in the previous succescriteria (1.4.x). And the wording is kind of different than usual (see also previous succescriteria 1.4.x). If I look closer I see that people wit disabilities are being mentioned at the end of the second 'benefit' and users in general are being mentioned in the first 'benefit'.
So the problem for me is probably more that the presentation is not consistent with the other succescriteria and the wording is also not very consistent (in comparison with the benefits sections of other succescriteria).

You can close the issue. But maybe it is a good idea to change the presentation and the wording. To make it more consistent.

@alastc
Copy link
Contributor

alastc commented Sep 28, 2023

It is a little inconsistent with other understanding docs, so we can leave open. Not high priority though, the core information is there.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
5 participants