W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-eo-badtf@w3.org > February 2009

Re: WAI-AGE-Implementation, next steps

From: Liam McGee <liam.mcgee@communis.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 11:42:44 +0000
Message-ID: <498AD0B4.5090901@communis.co.uk>
To: Thomas Jewett <jewett@csulb.edu>
CC: Maik Wagner - mcwiwa consulting <wagner@mcwiwa.de>, public-wai-eo-badtf@w3.org

Hi Thomas, excellent email.

My comments, for what they're worth, below.

Thomas Jewett wrote:
> Maybe all of these things have been resolved by
> the AGE WG; if so, I apologize in advance -- but
> maybe still worth thinking about?
> 
> "Use 12-14pt text size" - I though that any fixed
> text size was verboten? I use "pt" only for
> @media print, ems for screen typography, % usually
> for elements, px only for things like borders and
> of course images. Works with whatever adaptation
> the reader uses.

I agree. Also, pt size is effectively meaningless on-screen (and is, in 
any case, really a px measure when considered pratically) as it is not 
within the control of the author - it's down to the user what size of 
monitor he/she buys, and how big each px is.

That said, as a *suggested* guide, no smaller than 0.75 em would be a 
sensible minimum.

> "Provide text size adjustment link" - related to
> above, and I don't know what the EOWG will think,
> but I'd vote as strongly as I can to NOT include
> this feature.
>  1) If we do it, everyone will think it HAS to
>     be done, which I don't believe is true.
>  2) There is no possible way to guess exactly
>     three sizes that will be suitable for a real-
>     life range of visual needs.
>  3) Ironically, in the usual implementation, the
>     three sizes of "A" are pretty hard for users
>     that might need them to actually see.
>  4) Modern user agents are much more flexible,
>     anyway. I think this is a holdover from what
>     might have been a good idea in 2001 or so.

I agree.

> I'm not sure what "terms of conditions" refers to
> in the Comment column -- am I missing something
> on the site? By the way, I assume that "articles
> page" = "info" = "news" (comment in my preceeding
> message re: standard terms).
> 
> I need to learn why avoiding blues and greens is
> a good idea -- greens I understand, but to the
> best of my knowledge, blue is the only one that
> doesn't turn to mud for most color-blind users.

I think it's a contrast/acuity thing?

> The rest of the items on this list look good --
> are we supposed to go back and find more from
> the original, longer, WAI-AGE list that we might
> want to implement?
> 
> Tom
> 
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:42:38 +0100
>  Maik Wagner - mcwiwa consulting <wagner@mcwiwa.de> wrote:
>>
>> Dear taskforce,
>>
>> I'm sorry, but I can -again- not participate at the telco today, but 
>> maybe
>> you could although discuss my updated list of concrete changes of the
>> before-pages to clarify the differences:
>>
>> http://www.mcwiwa.de/bad-tf/waiage_updatedII.htm
>>
>> Have a effective talk
>>
>>
>> Best wishes
>>
>>
>> Maik

-- 
www.communis.co.uk
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2009 11:43:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 5 February 2009 11:43:29 GMT