- From: Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 10:42:26 +0000
- To: "Sorcha Moore" <sorcha@segala.com>
- Cc: TeamB <public-wcag-teamb@w3.org>
Hi Sorcha, On 31/01/07, Sorcha Moore <sorcha@segala.com> wrote: > I've just noticed that we did not include the line about working from the > assumption that the specified font size is readable to start with - did we > intend to do this? > > If not a start might be: "Working from the assumption that the author has > specified a readable size font size, the group feels that ..." I still have reservations about making assumptions. If we make assumptions about text being legible in the first place, is there a relevant success criterion to catch text that isn't legible to start with? No author would deliberately write content that couldn't be read by anyone (and hope it was accessible), so there is also the issue as to what constitutes a default readable font-size. Maybe we should explicitly state a base for the visual acuity in the intent? The more I think about this, the more I can't help thinking that maybe it would be a good idea to add another success criterion to ensure rendered content is legible in user agents in their standard configuration (for example, text-size set at medium). Maybe something like, "visually rendered content does not require visual acuity greater than 20/40 on the Snellen chart". We could add this to the description for 1.4.5 and 1.4.6, but if it was a separate success criterion, it would negate the need for an explicit assumption, and make it easier to expand on issues such as the standard configuration of a user agent. Best regards, Gez -- _____________________________ Supplement your vitamins http://juicystudio.com
Received on Wednesday, 31 January 2007 10:47:18 UTC