[CEUD-ICT] "Liquid Layout" and WCAG (2.0) - opinions?

[Simius Puer]

Ooh, that made my head hurt a little!

I think you are right in your analysis - the liquid layout approach is a
sufficient technique, but not a required one.  The thing is, you need "a
technique" and to be honest I don't see any real alternative to the liquid
layout if you are to meet the principle of this guideline.

Having re-read the other "sufficient techniques" provided I think these are
a little confused:

   1. G142: Using a technology that has commonly-available user agents that
   support zoom

   This focuses more on the user agent rather than on the technique used to
   create the web page.

   I still have to laugh at "Content authored in *technologies *that are
   supported by user agents...".  The shift away from "just publish it in HTML
   and stop messing about" really shows through here.  Personally I think this
   is a major mistake a makes it impossible to police or audit effectively, not
   to mention confusing the hell out of 90% of developers.

   2. Ensuring that text containers resize when the text resizes*...*

   This is essentially the "liquid layout/font-sizing option".

   3. G178: Providing controls on the Web page that allow users to
   incrementally change the size of all text on the page up to 200 percent

   Personally I've never been sold on custom website "controls" and I think
   they are overused as a solution to this problem.

   "Many people with low vision do not use magnifying software, and they may
   not be familiar with browsers text size adjustments. This may be
   particularly true of older people who are learning about computers later in
   life and who may be experiencing age related vision loss. It may also be
   true of some people with cognitive disabilities who also require increased
   font size." [from description of
G178<http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20081211/G178>
   ]

   Sure, people who are web savvy know how to use them, but the majority of
   people I know set the font-size on the computer/browser to suit their needs
   and do *not* understand the little + and - (or the "T with an up arrow"
   and a "t with a down arrow" as suggested by WCAG) symbols developers like to
   use to keep the page looking uncluttered.

   These controls look different and behave differently from site to site -
   and if this is aimed at "older people who are learning about computers later
   in life" and people with "cognitive disabilities" then there is a very good
   case for leaving base font-sizes alone.  This allows the user to set their
   preference *once on their computer/browser *(as the vast majority of them
   do!) rather than *forcing them to change setting via a custom tool each
   site they use*.

   I've also seen a ton of these controls that are not accessible
   themselves.  This not only makes them utterly useless but also puts users of
   trying to use similiar functionality when they find it elsewhere!

   4. G179: Ensuring that there is no loss of content or functionality when
   the text resizes and text containers do not resize

   This looks very basic on the surface - essentially saying "make sure your
   text doesn't disappear outside a fixed size box".  But the description ends
   with "The block may provide scrollbars when the resized text no longer
   fits".  Having done plenty of user testing of websites (along with or
   observance of user behavior) I do not believe this to be accessible at all.
   Many people miss scrolling boxes embedded within a web page, risking a loss
   of content or functionality.  It could be argued that there is a hazy line
   here between usability and accessibility, but I'd see this a fundamental
   failure...I could try and tie this to specific WCAG points, but it's a
   Friday afternoon!


Going back to your original point, I think liquid layouts are the only
option for websites regardless of whether they strive to be accessible or
not.  Long gone are the days when you could say 95% of people have a monitor
running at 800x600 resolution and only a minority have something slightly
better.  These days websites need to contend with a far greater range of
screen resolutions and sizes.  Forcing horizontal scrolling or only using a
tiny proportion of the width of the screen not only raises accessibility
questions, but ones about the basic principle of good design.


_____________________
Andrew Hart
Simius Web Ltd

tel: +353 (0)65 6847040
mob: +353 (0)871 264 728

Website: http://www.simiusweb.ie

Facebook: http://bit.ly/1BqaY0
Twitter: http://bit.ly/mYeWy
LinkedIn: http://bit.ly/1v9g6M


On 8 April 2010 12:49, Barry McMullin <barry.mcmullin at dcu.ie> wrote:

> Hi Folks -
>
> Just looking for some informed opinions here.
>
> My default view has always been that all web page or site
> claiming WCAG conformance should demonstrate a "reasonable
> degree" of liquid layout.  The devil, of course, in the details -
> what version of WCAG, at what level, and what qualifies as a
> "reasonable degree"?
>
> I have just quickly trawled through WCAG 2.0, where we have this:
>
>   1.4.4 Resize text: Except for captions and images of text, text
>   can be resized without assistive technology up to 200 percent
>   without loss of content or functionality. (Level AA)
>
> which seems fairly concrete and straightforward. And certain
> things would clearly fail here - for example, if resizing text by
> 200% caused some text to become obscured or otherwise
> unintelligible. But does enforced horizontal scrolling (which is
> the "classic" symptom of "non-liquid" layout) count as a "loss of
> ... functionality"? (And at what screen/window size?)
>
> "Understanding WCAG 2.0" does add some worthwhile elaboration;
> under "Examples of Success Criterion 1.4.4" (which I take to be
> examples of *satisfying* it) we have:
>
>   A user uses a zoom function in his user agent to change the
>   scale of the content. All the content scales uniformly, and the
>   user agent provides scroll bars, if necessary.
>
> The implication of this seems to be that, in general, it is
> acceptable for resizing (even only up to 200%) to cause a need
> for horizontal scrolling, as long as all the content can still be
> viewed in this way.  Which would suggest that "liquid layout" per
> se, is not a WCAG requirement at all.
>
> On the other hand, among the "Sufficient Techniques" (for meeting
> SC 1.4.4) we have: "G146: Using liquid layout" which is explained
> as designing pages so as to be able "... to present content
> without introducing horizontal scroll bars by using layout
> techniques that adapt to the available horizontal space."
>
> So, taking a strictly formal/legalistic approach to WCAG 2.0 (and
> I know that is not necessarily a wise or useful thing to do, but
> in some contexts, particularly procurement, it may be
> unavoidable), it seems to be saying that using a liquid layout is
> *sufficient* but not *necessary* to meet SC 1.4.4.
>
> Is that the way other people understand it? Any comments or
> advice would be welcome!
>
> Best regards - Barry.
>
> --
> Barry McMullin,
> Director, The Rince Research Institute (www.rince.ie):
>   "Researching Innovative Engineering Technologies"
> Dublin City University
>   phone: +353-1-700-5432
>   web: http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/~mcmullin/<http://www.eeng.dcu.ie/%7Emcmullin/>
> _______________________________________________
> CEUD-ICT mailing list
> CEUD-ICT at list.universaldesign.ie
> http://list.universaldesign.ie/mailman/listinfo/ceud-ict
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://list.universaldesign.ie/pipermail/ceud-ict/attachments/20100409/a8d036c5/attachment.html