W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2011

Re: WCAG 2 fails to directly address major accessibility issue

From: Martín Szyszlican <martinsz@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 02:43:57 -0300
Message-ID: <CAKTxXVWS=G+pqjKFLf3R2LpenK7MUJdn4GEModMAO1_W8W=r2w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net>
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Hi Felix, as far as I remember, WCAG2 says that text size has to be able to
resize by at least 200% without breaking the layout, this means that the
user is allowed to resize the text.
Also, las time I checked Firefox still had the option to change the ctrl-+
action to change the font-size instead of zooming.
I think it also says that you don't have to specify measures in absolute
units.

But I see what you mean. After all, the guidelines have a minimum contrast
requirement, they could have a minimum font-size requirement or something
like that... but typography is very strage now, think about webfonts and how
you can have a font that has very thin lines and is hard to read unless it's
100px tall, or even so complicated that it's hard to read at any size. I
think it's a complex topic and the body may have had a hard time reaching a
consensus about those issues.

But the WCAG is by no means a top limit as to what efforts you might do to
ensure accesibility, and any serious initiative should listen to feedback
from the users and fix the issues they report, so I think the problem you're
pointing at is that using WCAG2 as a requirement for websites and complying
by-the-letter doesn't ensure real accesibility, accomplishing that requires
real commitment.

Martín.

2011/10/18 Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net>

> case 1-sizing in px or pt or mm or the like totally disregards whatever a
> site visitor's browser default(s) is/are set to
>
> case 2-sizing the major portion of page text in keywords, %, rem, em or ex
> values other than medium (keywords), 100(%), 1(rem), 1(em), or ~2(ex) is an
> imposition on the visitor that assumes her browser default(s) is/are
> inappropriately set (in most cases, assumed too large by site stylists).
>
> In either case, all except users of old IE versions can _resize_ the page's
> text. Resizing is a defense, which like most defenses, is unnecessary to
> utilize in the absence of offensive behavior (disrespect of browser
> defaults).
>
> Some problems are these:
> a-disregarding defaults entirely (specifying text size in px, pt, mm, in,
> etc) is rude
> b-assuming browser defaults are wrong is rude
> c-that most web sites do 'a' or 'b' above is not justification to be rude
> d-application of defenses requires reactive user activity, typically
> preventing and/or delaying use of a just loaded page
> e-applying browser defenses to overcome the rudeness (minimum font size;
> zoom; user CSS) often has side effects that are similarly rude, and can even
> make a page completely unusable
> f-text size is a key component of legibility, which is in turn a key
> component of accessibility
>
> That WCAG 2 does not _directly_ address all the above is reprehensible
> inaction from a standards body.
> --
> "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
> words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)
>
>  Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!
>
> Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 19 October 2011 05:44:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 19 October 2011 05:44:28 GMT