Re: Proposed changes to "large scale (text)" glossary definition notes

Hi everyone,

To get this resolved I’ve tried to make an easy to review version of the pull request here:
https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/184 


We are discussed the notes within the definition of ‘large scale (text)’, the current version is here:
https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#larger-scaledef 

The normative bit is:
"with at least 18 point or 14 point bold or font size that would yield equivalent size for Chinese, Japanese and Korean (CJK) fonts”

The problem is that developers / designers either don’t know what a point relates to, or assume it is the same as pixels (leading to bad assumptions about smaller text).

Patrick has re-written the notes underneath the normative definition to explain that points are in relation to pixels, and be clear about how you would test them.

I’ve put an HTML page of that pull request here:
https://alastairc.ac/tmp/large-text-definition-pl.html 

I agree that would be an improvement, but I also put my editing hat on and tried to create a more concise version:
https://alastairc.ac/tmp/large-text-definition-ac.html 

I blithely decided to include less explanation and be a bit more forthright about things like user settings and points to pixel conversion.  I also used “text size” rather than “font size”, to try and keep discussion of fonts to font-faces.


Both versions need a little cleaning up (e.g. adding the ‘note 1:’ bits), but the questions are:

- Do you understand the content? (I.e. What it is trying to say.)
- Can we explain a bit less (second version), or is that explanation needed?

Also worth noting that with new SCs from the task forces, it seems likely the explanation of large scale text should be in the WCAG definitions rather than understanding, as it would get duplicated under multiple understanding documents.

Hopefully this can be added to a survey soon?

Kind regards,

-Alastair


On 05/05/2016, 14:50, "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote:

>On 27/04/2016 13:34, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
>> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/184

>>
>> I'm working on the assumption here that although the glossary definition
>> itself is normative (so unfortunately the actual use of "14pt bold /
>> 18pt" has to remain), the notes are informative/non-normative and can
>> therefore be amended in order to clarify those measures.
>
>I've had several good comments (initially via twitter and email) on 
>this, which led to some fixes/additions/clarifications.
>
>What are the next steps to potentially move this forward? Does it make 
>sense as a PR, or does it need a more succint rationale/explanation? As 
>this only touches on non-normative notes, and expands what's currently 
>there to provide better context without changing the actual normative 
>meaning nor the values (keeping it as "points"), I would see this as an 
>erratum rather than anything new/for future versions.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>P
>-- 
>Patrick H. Lauke
>
>www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke

>http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com

>twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>

Received on Tuesday, 10 May 2016 17:07:40 UTC