W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > October 2008

Re: 18 point or 14 point bold

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 08:17:25 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0810240817g28c39c5em92356c7145e48138@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Makoto Ueki" <makoto.ueki@gmail.com>
Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 2:23 AM, Makoto Ueki <makoto.ueki@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear WCAG WG,
>
> Thanks for the response. But I have additional question on this issue.
>
>> ================================
>> Response from the Working Group
>> ================================
>> Since the note relates to the definition of large scale text, we have
>> removed this sentence "This success criterion is based on common pixel
>> sizes available today." Additional detail about why 14 point bold and
>> 18 point were chosen can be found in the understanding 1.4.3 and 1.4.6
>> documents.
>
> JIS working group reviewed the Understanding 1.4.3 and 1.4.6 before we
> sent our comment. It read:
> ---
> 18 point text or 14 point bold text is judged to be large enough to
> require a lower contrast ratio. "18 point" and "bold" can both have
> different meanings in different fonts but, except for very thin or
> unusual fonts, they should be sufficient. Since there are so many
> different fonts, the general measures are used and a note regarding
> fancy or thin fonts is included.
> ---
> This explanation was not enough. It didn't describe why "18" and "14
> bold" were chosen. It just says "judged to be large enough". We have
> to understand why those sizes are "judged to be large enough". Without
> it, other languages such as CJK won't be able to find the equivalent
> font sizes.
>
> Need more details in the Understanding 1.4.3 and 1.4.6 documents.
>
>
> 2008/10/24 Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>:
>> On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 10:54 AM, WCAG 2.0 Comment Form <nobody@w3.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Name: Makoto Ueki
>>> Email: makoto.ueki@gmail.com
>>> Affiliation: JIS Working Group
>>> Document: W2
>>> Item Number: Appendix A: Glossary
>>> Part of Item:
>>> Comment Type: question
>>> Summary of Issue: 18 point or 14 point bold
>>> Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
>>> What is "common pixel sizes available today"? 1024 x 768?
>>>
>>> Proposed Change:
>>> We need more concrete premise for the users display.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> ================================
>> Response from the Working Group
>> ================================
>> Since the note relates to the definition of large scale text, we have
>> removed this sentence "This success criterion is based on common pixel
>> sizes available today." Additional detail about why 14 point bold and
>> 18 point were chosen can be found in the understanding 1.4.3 and 1.4.6
>> documents.
>>
>> 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
>>
>
================================
Response from the Working Group
================================

The American Printing House for the Blind publishes "The American
Printing House for the Blind Guidelines for Large Printing"
<http://www.aph.org/edresearch/lpguide.htm>
This is where the 18 point minimum comes from.

The Library of Congress publishes "National Library Service for the
Blind and Physically Handicapped (NLS), The Library of Congress
Guidelines for Large Print"
<http://www.loc.gov/nls/reference/circulars/largeprint.html>. This is
where the 14 point minimum comes from.


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
Received on Friday, 24 October 2008 15:18:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 17 July 2011 06:13:26 GMT