thank you very much for your reply. we will accept your response and will promote the implementation according to this succes criteria. best regards, michael Loretta Guarino Reid wrote: > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Michael Stenitzer > <stenitzer@wienfluss.net> wrote: >> sorry for being late in my reply. >> >> we agree to all your replies with one exception: >> >> Comment 4: 200% seems too ambitious (Issue ID: 2443) >> >> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0065.html >> >> the answer was not sufficient for us because it did not take our argument >> about the missing base level of text size fully into account: >> >> >> >>> It also seems inconsistent to require text to be scalable to a certain >> extent >>> without taking into account the base level (original size of text). >> Otherwise >>> it would be of advantage for websites with very small text-sizes. >>> >> for example: you are using a browser which does not scale the full page >> (ie6 or firefox 2). its easier to build a multi column page-layout with 10px >> font-size scalable up to 200% than with 16px default font-size. this might >> force webdesigners to develop web sites with very small font-size to conform >> with wcag-scalability. therefore this might have a counterproductive effect >> regarding accessibility and usability. >> >> therefore we think that it needs a base or reference level for text size >> either for the unscaled text or for the scaled text. >> > > --------------------------------------------- > Response from Working Group: > --------------------------------------------- > It is true that Webmasters could design pages in tiny type. And some > Webmasters do. As long as the page will scale 200% from what everyone > else can see and use, we feel that is sufficient for this provision. > That would mean that 9 pt type would scale up to large print size. > This guideline is designed with the understanding that people who > really need larger print would use the enlarger features built into > all the major operating systems. We see specifying minimum font sizes > as being problematic from a number of perspectives including the fact > that they are not well implemented in current screen technologies and > could cause either pixelation or blurring. > > Thanks again for the interest that you have taken in these guidelines. > Could we ask you to let us know whether or not you are satisfied with > this response by Wed, April 16? > > Loretta Guarino Reid, WCAG WG Co-Chair > Gregg Vanderheiden, WCAG WG Co-Chair > Michael Cooper, WCAG WG Staff Contact > > On behalf of the WCAG Working Group -- Michael Stenitzer | WIENFLUSS information.design.solutions www.wienfluss.net | proschkogasse 1/5 | wien06at fon ++43 650 935877 0 | fax ++43 1 23680199Received on Monday, 14 April 2008 13:51:42 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 14 April 2008 13:51:42 GMT