Windows XP Bug Still There In Windows 10 November 2019 Update

Windows 10 files sharing not working may be due to bugs in the update. The latest versions of Windows 10 seem to have resolved this problem. Thus, upgrade to the latest windows version if you haven't done it yet.

In Windows 10, the "Make everything bigger" option (scaling) is in the"Ease of Access" settings, which can be considered an accessibilityfeature. 1.4.4 says "...text can be resized *without assistive technology *upto 200 percent...".So if your page looks good at 200% zoom in browser and windows scaling is100% (essentially assistive technology is turned off), then I'd say you'reok. If you change your scaling (turning assistive technology on), thenwhile it would be nice to support browser zoom, if it doesn't completelywork, it's not necessarily a 1.4.4 failure.It might depend what you mean by "not usable". If your page does notreflow properly, the problem might be reproducible without scaling turnedon, in which case it would be a 1.4.4 problem.On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 4:55 AM Kalle Lahtinen wrote:> Hi>> I'm doing accessibility testing for my company and seem to come to a> problem with Success Criterion 1.4.4 Resize text. It makes a big> difference if user has Windows scaling on operating system. If user has 100> % scaling on Windows most my test go thru with 200% zoom in the browser.> But if I have 175 % scaling in Windows then 200% zoom the website is not> usable>> So is there some standard or something that says what is acceptable scaling> level and also what resolution and screen size are minimum to test.>> Im sorry if did not make any sense but ask if you need more information on> the issue.>> --> Kalle Lahtinen>> Protacon Oy> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > > > > >

Windows XP Bug Still There in Windows 10 November 2019 Update

Download File

On 28/11/2019 18:55, glen walker wrote:> In Windows 10, the "Make everything bigger" option (scaling) is in the> "Ease of Access" settings, which can be considered an accessibility> feature. 1.4.4 says "...text can be resized *without assistive technology *up> to 200 percent...".Not really. It's a display setting, not an accessibility setting.Changing the system's scaling will, in essence, change the number of logical/CSS pixels used. It changes the relationship between the hardware pixels on the display, and the logical/display pixels used.So what is happening here is that when you have a higher scaling than 100%, you're essentially making the viewport in the browser smaller. i.e. the same problems would appear if you ran your browser window not full-screen/maximised, but at a smaller windowed size.Resize text in theory applies to any possible viewport size. At any possible viewport size, a user should be able to resize text up to 200% without adverse effects (things being cut off, overlapping ... but note that scrollbars are fine, they're not prohibited by 1.4.4).Long story short: if you're having situations in which 200% zoom in browser does lead to unusable content (in terms of content being cut off and unreachable, even with scrolling, over overlapping), then yes that's a failure of 1.4.4.> So if your page looks good at 200% zoom in browser and windows scaling is> 100% (essentially assistive technology is turned off), then I'd say you're> ok. If you change your scaling (turning assistive technology on), then> while it would be nice to support browser zoom, if it doesn't completely> work, it's not necessarily a 1.4.4 failure.> > It might depend what you mean by "not usable". If your page does not> reflow properly, the problem might be reproducible without scaling turned> on, in which case it would be a 1.4.4 problem.Let's not confuse the matter by talking about reflow, which has nothing to do with 1.4.4. That's a 1.4.10 thing. And yes, there, content should adapt/reflow to the viewport correctly and not cause two-directional scrollbars.P-- Patrick H. Laukewww.splintered.co.uk twitter: @patrick_h_lauke skype: patrick_h_lauke

Thanks Glen and Patrick for explanations!So is it correct to say:a) If an element passes 1.4.10, it passes 1.4.4 (Reflow is a sufficienttechnique to resize text properly up to 200% zoom).b) Since both criteria are listed up under the same conformance level AA,1.4.4 is only to be applied for the exceptions in 1.4.10. (Only theseexceptions need no reflow and therefore need mechanisms like scroll bars toavoid overlapping.)I'm not sure about b) since I still don't understand, why 1.4.4 considers200% magnification and 1.4.10 400% pixel magnifications..Wolfgang-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----Von: WebAIM-Forum Im Auftrag vonPatrick H. LaukeGesendet: Samstag, 30. November 2019 15:45An: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = Betreff: Re: [WebAIM] 200% website scalingOn 29/11/2019 17:40, glen walker wrote:> One of the great (and aggravating) things about accessibility is that > some issues are subjective.> >> Not really. It's a display setting, not an accessibility setting.> > As mentioned in my reply. "Make everything bigger" (scaling) is the > "Ease of Access" settings. Those are accessibility settings.It's also set inSystem > Display > Scale and LayoutNot exclusively an "accessibility" related setting, but a display setting.>> Let's not confuse the matter by talking about reflow, which has >> nothing> to do with 1.4.4> > Sure it does. You even said so yourself when you said "At any > possible viewport size, a user should be able to resize text up to > 200% without adverse effects (things being cut off, overlapping...".> > If the page does not reflow properly, that can cause "things being cutoff"> or "overlapping". I didn't say that 1.4.4 was *only* about reflow, > but if you don't reflow properly, you can cause 1.4.4 issues.thing being cut off means they're cut off and you can't get to them. think overflow:hidden in CSS.The appearance of scrollbars, rather than reflow, is perfectly fine in lightof 1.4.4. See for instance the understanding doc -text.html under"Examples":"A user uses a zoom function in his user agent to change the scale of thecontent. All the content scales uniformly, and the user agent providesscroll bars, if necessary."This is exactly why there was a need for an additional 1.4.10 SC for reflow.P--Patrick H. Laukewww.splintered.co.uk twitter: @patrick_h_lauke skype: patrick_h_lauke 2ff7e9595c