W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wcag-teamb@w3.org > February 2007

Font scaling

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 07:11:13 -0800
Message-ID: <824e742c0702120711n318ba956kb34deb750d14b4e@mail.gmail.com>
To: TeamB <public-wcag-teamb@w3.org>

Sofia provided information about why she had asked that the text
scaling SC include scaling down as well as scaling up.  Should we
propose modifying the current SC to something like:

Visually rendered text can be resized without assistive technology up
to 200 per cent or down to 50% without loss of content or
functionality.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sofia Celic <Sofia.Celic@visionaustralia.org>
Date: Feb 11, 2007 9:03 PM
Subject: RE: WCAG question for you
To: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>

Hi Loretta,

The situation where decreasing font size is important is for people with
a narrow field of vision (such as with Retinitis Pigmentosa:
http://www.visionaustralia.org.au/info.aspx?page=607 and
http://www.ushernet.org/en/ushersyndrome/study/retinitispigmentosa.html)
. These users want to be able to fit in as much information as possible
within their field of vision.

Some web pages have font size specifications that are problematic when
the size is reduced. This is noted with Internet Explorer and is
typically due to inheritance problems. When the size is changed to
"smaller" or "smallest" via IE's 'view > text size' feature, the text
can become unreadable. (With this implementation an exaggerated increase
is observed when the larger font sizes are chosen too)


*************************************************************************


Hi Loretta,

Yes, I think the new SC needs to specify the scaling down percentage
since it is possible to scale up successfully and not down.

For example, providing a manual link to an alternative CSS could be an
implementation that is deemed sufficient to satisfy the SC. The
alternative CSS may only be a fixed unit size that is twice that of the
default version.
With this implementation the site could satisfy the 200% criterion but
not allow for reducing the font size.

The implementation described above would require another alternative CSS
that has a fixed unit size that is half that of the default version to
aid the users requiring a smaller font size. This requirement is not
specified by the current wording.

I hope the above illustrates the situation satisfactorily.

With thanks,
Sofia


-----Original Message-----
From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com]
Sent: Monday, 12 February 2007 3:29 PM
To: Sofia Celic
Subject: Re: WCAG question for you

Thanks, Sofia. Do you think we should modify the new SC so that it
specifies scaling down to some percent (50%?) as well as up to 200%?
If a page can scale up successfully, will it also scale down, so that
we don't have to complicate the SC but can still get the benefit?

Thanks, Loretta

On 2/11/07, Sofia Celic <Sofia.Celic@visionaustralia.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Loretta,
>
> The situation where decreasing font size is important is for people
with
> a narrow field of vision (such as with Retinitis Pigmentosa:
> http://www.visionaustralia.org.au/info.aspx?page=607 and
>
http://www.ushernet.org/en/ushersyndrome/study/retinitispigmentosa.html)
> . These users want to be able to fit in as much information as
possible
> within their field of vision.
>
> Some web pages have font size specifications that are problematic when
> the size is reduced. This is noted with Internet Explorer and is
> typically due to inheritance problems. When the size is changed to
> "smaller" or "smallest" via IE's 'view > text size' feature, the text
> can become unreadable. (With this implementation an exaggerated
increase
> is observed when the larger font sizes are chosen too)
>
> Best regards,
> Sofia
>
> ____________________________
>
> Dr Sofia Celic
> Assistant Manager Online Accessibility
> & Senior Web Accessibility Consultant
> Vision Australia - Accessible Information Solutions
> 454 Glenferrie Road
> Kooyong, Victoria, 3144
> P: +61 (0)3 9864 9284
> F: +61 (0)3 9864 9370
> E-mail: Sofia.Celic@visionaustralia.org.au
> www.visionaustralia.org.au
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Loretta Guarino Reid [mailto:lorettaguarino@google.com]
> Sent: Saturday, 3 February 2007 6:59 AM
> To: Sofia Celic
> Subject: WCAG question for you
>
> Hi, Sofia,
>
> We are sorry that you haven't been able to make the teleconferences
> for a while. We've got a question about one of your comments, and
> wondered if you could clarify.
>
> In the Dec 14 Team B survey that proposed wording for the new 1.4.5
> success criteria ("Visually rendered text can be resized without
> assistive technology up to 200 per cent without loss of content or
> functionality."), you commented:
>
> Decreasing the font size is important for some vision impairments.
> This seems to only talk about increasing it.
>
> The working group is trying to decide whether we need to add a clause
> to the SC to the effect that it can be resized down to 50%, as well as
> up to 200%. But we wondered whether this is a problem in practice. Can
> you tell us about the situations where decreasing the font size is
> important, and whether users run into problems when they decrease the
> font size?
>
> Thanks, Loretta
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> << ella for Spam Control >> has removed 487 Spam messages and set
aside
> 191 Later for me
> You can use it too - and it's FREE!  www.ellaforspam.com
>



________________________________

<< ella for Spam Control >> has removed 487 Spam messages and set aside
192 Later for me
You can use it too - and it's FREE!  www.ellaforspam.com
Received on Monday, 12 February 2007 15:11:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:45 GMT