SC 1.4.10 Reflow applicability to EPUB Fixed Layout publications

[gregoriopellegrino]

Section

https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/#reflow

Describe the problem

Success criterion 1.4.10 Reflow in WCAG 2.2 is one of the most challenging to meet for a fixed-layout publication; as the name itself suggests, reflow is the opposite of a fixed layout 😄

WCAG 2.2 success criterion 1.4.10 Reflow requires that content can be presented without loss of information or functionality, and without requiring scrolling in two dimensions, at a viewport width equivalent to 320 CSS pixels (or at 1280 CSS pixels with 400% zoom).

At the same time success criterion includes an exception for content that requires two-dimensional layout, with Note 2 listing examples:

Examples of content which requires two-dimensional layout are images required for understanding (such as maps and diagrams), video, games, presentations, data tables (not individual cells), and interfaces where it is necessary to keep toolbars in view while manipulating content. It is acceptable to provide two-dimensional scrolling for such parts of the content.

Describe the fix or new feature you propose

The question is whether an EPUB Fixed Layout publication — or a single FXL page — falls within the exception listed in SC 1.4.10 Note 2, or whether the criterion should instead be considered not satisfiable by design for FXL content.

Questions to the task force: should the EPUB FXL Accessibility Note explicitly state that SC 1.4.10 Reflow is not applicable (or not satisfiable) to all EPUB Fixed Layout publications, regardless of content type?

[mattgarrish]

The question is whether an EPUB Fixed Layout publication — or a single FXL page — falls within the exception listed in SC 1.4.10 Note 2

The exception doesn't apply just because the content is laid out in a certain way. The positioning is not essential to understanding many fixed layouts, especially if it's just done for print replication. You could reflow the content and not lose any information.

But you likely can't reflow the text over a background illustration for a children's book and still have it be meaningful. If a page of a comic is just a bunch of individual panels then you could stack them, but if the page layout is more intricate, then you can't. But once you're down to individual panels then you can't expect those to reflow because the layout of them is essential. The SC only really takes the easy boxy nature of web content into account. If you have panel borders at angles, does that grant you an exception because the default layout would be problematic to produce using multiple img tags? (My feeling is that comic and manga pages should just be exempt from this SC.)

Someone asked for clarity on a similar problem a number of years ago and it got bumped to a discussion that never got answered. It might be useful to try and reengage the AG through that discussion and see if they can provide better clarity on what they intended with this SC.

[GeorgeKerscher]

I agree we should reach out. IMO if there is a really good reason to use a fixed layout, then an exception should be allowed. The low vision person would need to pan and scroll. I do think the screen reader user should be able to consume the content.

I would be very disappointed if fixed layout started to be used in cases where it is not necessary. I hear that cookbooks and textbooks are use cases, and in both those cases I see no reason for fixed layout to be used.

[clapierre]

I totally agree with everything that was said here. I had also wondered George way Cookbooks were always brought up as a Fixed Layout example and didn't see the need either especially with the advancements with Flexboxe's etc. in CSS.

[sueneu]

I hear that cookbooks and textbooks are use cases, and in both those cases I see no reason for fixed layout to be used.

Making a complex print book layout can take months of back and forth collaboration. Often editors and designers have extensive expertise in their genre. It is hard to convince an editor and publisher to jettison all that work, and ignore what they know about their craft.

This is not helped by the lack of information available to publishers about how users consume ebooks. Essentially, publishers have hundreds of years of research and experience that clarifies how readers like their books. Ebook creators have almost no data about ebook users to argue for change.

I know that sometimes using FXL for a title is simply "pressing the easy button" However, more complex processes take more time and cost more. And the cost of a complex conversion is rarely balanced by what is earned in ebook sales. This is another challenge— convincing people to lose money on a process is hard. Additionally, we all have an interest in keeping ebook prices low for our users.

I would love to see a way out of this, technical or otherwise. Maybe the AG will have one.

In the meantime, I feel that reflow is not satisfiable for all EPUB Fixed Layout publications, regardless of content type.