Re: Unifying the rendering approach from Loretta Guarino Reid on 2014-02-24 (public-texttracks@w3.org from February 2014)

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 07:05:12 -0800
To: Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>
Cc: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>, Victor Carbune <victor.carbune@gmail.com>, Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>, "public-texttracks@w3.org" <public-texttracks@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CAHu5OWYJG7uph8_PoAyn+f1=b_VDNr_sLf2VasME7ax4UJQ2CQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 6:29 AM, Nigel Megitt <nigel.megitt@bbc.co.uk>wrote:

> This choice seems to be between reading text that is smaller than ideal or
> reading text that isn't visible at all. I'd bet it's easier to read small
> text than invisible text.
>

No, both are equivalently unreadable. (Believe me, as my eyes have aged, I
know!). If the user has increased the text size, it is because it is
functionally necessary . And while I would prefer that the captions not
obscure important on-screen information, I would take that possibility over
not having the captions functionally available at all.

Received on Monday, 24 February 2014 15:05:43 UTC