W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2014

Re: Clarification on normative glossary definition of "Large scale (text)"

From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 16:40:19 +0100
Message-ID: <54340963.4020505@splintered.co.uk>
CC: IG - WAI Interest Group List list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
On 07/10/2014 16:28, CAE-Vanderhe wrote:
> *GV:  No.  Hmmm  let me try again.    18/14  point values are based on
> the fact that the user has a screen/resolution/zoom/viewing distance
> that makes 1em readable. *
> *GV:  Again. see above.       WCAG doesn’t talk about font size and
> readability because the size of the font to the viewer is not under the
> control of the author.  They can change RELATIVE size but the user can
> change that with the **screen/resolution/zoom/viewing distance.     And
> it is assumed that the viewer will use a
> **screen/resolution/zoom/viewing distance  that works for them for the web.*

To be clear, I am not asking with regards to readability. I am asking in 
the context of doing a site audit and hitting that definition when 
trying to assess contrast.

So again, if - unless I'm misunderstanding you completely - the intent 
of that definition was indeed to make a statement about relative size of 
text, starting from the assumption that all factors are right for the 
user to have a comfortable 1em size, why not make it explicit in the 
definition and actually state this in terms of relative sizes (saying 
"1.5x the base font size, 1.2x and bold" etc) rather than using pt 
values? Or am I splitting hairs here?

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, 7 October 2014 15:40:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:53 UTC