W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2000

RE: Are Small Text buttons level 2 compliant

From: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce_Bailey@ed.gov>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 11:47:20 -0400
Message-ID: <AF196F44735ED411B93A00508BDFB1080E42AB@WDCROBEXC09>
To: "'Leonard R. Kasday'" <kasday@acm.org>, "'WAI GL'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Cc: "'GV@trace.wisc.edu'" <GV@trace.wisc.edu>, "'mcooper@cast.org'" <mcooper@cast.org>, "'dickb@microsoft.com'" <dickb@microsoft.com>, "'paciello@webable.com'" <paciello@webable.com>
Len,

I would like to express my personal opinion that you've brought up a
legitimate concern.

My experience is that many people with very significant visual impairment
eschew the use of "real" screen magnification (even when something
reasonable is free and part of the operating systems, as is the modern
case).  As you say, this is not for reasons that third parties have excuse
to dismiss.  Modern OS and applications are fairly adaptive in this regard
and have significant accommodations built it.  I would guess that most of
this list know someone whose vision is poor enough that, for example, they
cannot drive, but can work Windows fine just using one of the larger font
schemes and a 17" or 21" monitor set to 640x480 resolution.  When browsing
(or using a word processor) things are even better (or should be) since the
major product have (for years now) included the ability to enlarge the base
font.  When compared with the features incorporated into the OS and
applications, the additional cost overhead of using screen magnification
(i.e., losing fast access to the whole screen) is just not worth the minor
perceived benefit.

Text-as-graphics do not scale.  Defeating the scalability of a page is a
major obstacle to accessibility.  This effectively disables the "text size"
feature of the browser.  It is, of course, ridiculous to expect someone to
use screen magnification software (even the freebie built into 98+) when a
text is hard to read -- especially when the browsers have a "larger font"
feature built in.  All the Guideline 3 checkpoints are P2 (as is 11.2 which
mentions explicitly mentions the FONT element).  It is extremely appropriate
that using a graphic-of-text (for non-logo applications) is a P2 violation.
I don't see why people are arguing around this.  Why should exceptions be
made for menus and tabs?  Why else have this checkpoint?  The complaint
seems to be, "Well, that makes AA compliance too hard!"  I have been trying
to point out for some time that achieving all P2 items is a VERY high
standard.  I don't, however, think this justifies moving the bar down!

I would love to hear from some of the disability oriented sites that violate
3.1.  I outed them on my last post on this thread.
(1)  Did you think about this checkpoint as applying to your site design?
Could the checkpoint be stated better?
Now that it has come to your attention, please explain:
(2a)  Why Checkpoint 3.1 doesn't apply to using images to represent text in
menus (or image maps).  OR
(2b)  Why Checkpoint 3.1 doesn't apply to your site (maybe you are using
11.4 as an out).  OR
(2c)  Why you don't claim nor try for full AA compliance.  OR
(2d)  Your plans to make corrections ASAP.

Thanks.
Received on Wednesday, 27 September 2000 11:47:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:06 GMT