To meet SC 1.4.4 with a control what increments if any between 100 and 200 percent must be provided?

[mraccess77]

We have G178 which indicates adding a control that provides incremental levels is sufficient - but the test procedure doesn't seem to require incremental support.
https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-WCAG20-TECHS-20161007/G178

Is it acceptable for a page to add a control for resize of text but only support 100% and 200% without incremental levels? If incremental levels are required - how many?

[patrickhlauke]

just to avoid confusion, https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Techniques/general/G178 is the 2.1 url for that technique.

as normatively the SC doesn't say anything about requiring any particular incremental levels (depending how you interpret the "up to" part of "up to 200 percent"), we can't say that the SC "requires" any incremental levels at all. even a single step from 100% to 200% would pass in my view. it may not be good usability-wise, but that's outside of the scope of what the SC tries to define.

[alastc]

Looking through the procedures they are pretty consistent about saying to test at 200%. Reading the understanding doc, I'm guessing it was a case of: If it works at 200%, it will probably work at 150%. Particularly as it was pre-media queries.

After 13 years, I think that's a reasonable reading of the SC.

[patrickhlauke]

I assume this issue can be closed, as the answer is, i believe: the SC doesn't say anything about increments or anything

[yatil]

Because this is just a topic in the #web-a11y Slack: While the SC does not define specific incremental points, the SC does require that any font-size between 100% and 200% (including) works “without loss of content or functionality“. Correct?

The increments are defined by the accessibility supported mechanism that provides the increase, in my reading.

[jha11y]

Thankx @yatil for asking. Guess I don't need to create a new issue?

This could have an impact on the Mobile Accessibility Task Force's Group Note and impacts for Mobile app text resize support in general.

[giacomo-petri]

Note: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3986/files

[yatil]

Note: https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/3986/files

I think in some of these instances "at least" is correct as they refer to the endpoint which should be "at least" 200% but is allowed to support more, of course.