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

RE: Font scaling

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:14:17 -0600
To: "'Tim Boland'" <frederick.boland@nist.gov>, <public-wcag-teamb@w3.org>
Message-ID: <006201c74f36$31e15df0$146fa8c0@NC84301>

Be sure to put the 50% down in the SC language.


Gregg
 -- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tim Boland
> Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 9:39 AM
> To: public-wcag-teamb@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Font scaling
>
>
> 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/retinitispigme
> ntosa.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/retinitispigme
> ntosa.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 Tuesday, 13 February 2007 06:14:27 GMT

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