Feedback on https://deploy-preview-4055--wcag2.netlify.app/understanding/reflow

[ChrisLoiselle]

Feedback on https://deploy-preview-4055--wcag2.netlify.app/understanding/reflow

1. The SC says content

2. The in brief says the goal is for “content” to be enlarged.
   a. The in brief What to do then says lines of text

3. Why it’s important talks to people who need bigger text to read long lines
   a. Does bigger mean larger?
   b. Does bigger mean people who need to zoom in within their browser to read text?
   c. Does bigger mean magnify(with zoom) to enlarge the text?

4. The intent of SC says let users enlarge text and other related content without having to scroll in two dimensions to read.
   a. What phrasing within the why its important covers elements other than text currently?

5. The intent of SC then states Therefore, most sections of content are expected to reflow within the appropriate sizing requirement defined by this success criteria
   a. What are the “most” sections of content that are expected? Which aren’t?
   b. What is a section? Per WCAG , https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG/#dfn-section
   section
   a self-contained portion of written content that deals with one or more related topics or thoughts
   NOTE
   A section may consist of one or more paragraphs and include graphics, tables, lists and sub-sections.

6. The https://deploy-preview-4055--wcag2.netlify.app/understanding/reflow uses many examples that include content that is above and beyond “text”

7. For exceptions, this is brought forward in the intent section
   a. Then within the section of content paragraph
   b. Should those be exposed prior within the in brief in regard to “known exceptions” ?

Thank you!
Chris

[mbgower]

For your points 1-4, nothing is changed in the In Brief material. We intentionally left that alone because it was adopted by WCAG less than a year ago, and we wanted to keep the focus on the rewrite of the 7-year-old Understanding document – by which I mean everything from the Intent section and below. We will revisit the In Brief once we have the rest of the Understanding document updated.

You've interwoven comments on changed content in the Understanding with comments on the untouched In Brief, making it a little hard to address questions, but as a basic response, a 10-word In Brief line cannot – and was never intended to – be a comprehensive list of considerations. So the inferred idea that other concepts cannot be introduced in the Understanding document because they were not listed in the In Brief section is highly problematic, especially when the SC language uses the word “content” and the pre-existing Understanding document talked almost exclusively about "text".

In regard to the question about sections, I’m not sure when this Understanding rewrite included a link to the defined term for section of content. That is relatively new, and I have some minor qualms about it (even if it turns out that I introduced it!). My concern (and I assume yours) is that the definition links from the Section Heading SC, that is concerned biased to text headings. If the definition didn't have the word "written" in it, it would be more appropriate to use here. But I'm not sure it's that big an issue?

Or is you concern in point 5 more to do with the Intent not listing the kinds of sections that may be considered? The Intent is something of an introduction. There are lots of examples of sections in the document that elaborate on this. Obviously if we bring those all into the Intent, it ceases to be a short-ish introduction. Are you asking that we list some examples early on? Some more specifics on what you want to see done would help.

The current update had enough support that it seemed most consider it to be an improvement. It has been merged and will be published at the start of April. In the meantime, if you want to provide more specific feedback (or create a PR against the updated editor's draft) we're happy to incorporate. The new Understanding document is anticipated to be updated in many ways, but in smaller, more controlled PRs.

I've opened a separate issue to tackle the examination of the In Brief specifically.

[ChrisLoiselle]

@mbgower Great work as always. I'm not intending to hold up an merging or publication.

I'm coming from a perspective of understanding the intent and the understanding and aligning with what both state. Where there were issues with how I read it, I highlighted those in my issue here. I leave it up to the greater task force to adopt and move any of it forward. If the intent is not all inclusive, then perhaps a "examples of, but not limited to" would suffice in allowing the reader to know the intent is not an exhaustive list out. Maybe that would allow the reader to understand differences between content, text and most sections of content. Perhaps that phrasing needs to be analyzed a bit more by the reader who is interpreting the understanding of the technical language used with the non technical terminology used in intent and understanding.

I will leave it to your group to close out the issue as you see fit from the perspective of the task force.

[scottaohara]

linking to the definition of a section of content was part of this rewrite form very early on.

re: the question asked per point 5

a. What are the “most” sections of content that are expected? Which aren’t?

that's answered by the definition and comparing that to the normative text of the SC and its notes that call out things like graphics and tables having exceptions.

i can only assume point 6 is being called out because of the in brief only talking about text? but to be honest, i'm not really sure i understand even mentioning that, since websites commonly contain more than just text.

for point 7, it is my understanding that the in brief sections are not supposed to cover everything about an SC. including exceptions in it seems unnecessary, as in brief is not meant to be a substitute for reading the normative text where the exceptions are called out. Many of the in briefs for the different SCs would likely have the similar issues that are being brought up here...

[bruce-usab]

This issue reference on WCAG2ICT call today. With refreshed Understanding Reflow now published, some comments in OP might be resolved.