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

Re: Font scaling

From: Tim Boland <frederick.boland@nist.gov>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:38:35 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.1.5.2.20070212103444.01f6f368@mailserver.nist.gov>
To: public-wcag-teamb@w3.org

I support Sofia' s position about scaling down as well as up.
   At the recent Education and Outreach (EO) meeting
in Boston, there was a gentleman, quite knowledgeable with use of screen 
magnifiers,
who argued for scaling down as well.   He said he  would send some comments 
to WCAG
on this subject.  I will try to get more information from him.

Thanks and best wishes
Tim Boland NIST

At 07:11 AM 2/12/2007 -0800, you wrote:

>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 15:40:12 GMT

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