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: CAE-Vanderhe <gregg@raisingthefloor.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2014 13:10:06 -0500
Cc: IG - WAI Interest Group List list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B6F38C51-58C8-49A3-BEAD-9DE0D4629EDA@cae.wisc.edu>
To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Ah I see what you are getting at.  (Was crossing your conversation with other discussion / web posting.)

The comparison should be against a page with no font size specified.     That is,  the “Base font” should be no font size specified.  

If they specify points   (rather than 1.5 em)   then use the 14   18 guideline. 

(and yes different font faces are different sizes — but that gets into normal variance and improbably complex rules.)

Remember that these are MINIMUM guidelines for accessibility.   Many people can’t use them at these sizes — so larger is better.  
(or in this case - higher contrasts even for larger print.)


PS  ALSO remember that it is important to make it possible for people to create lower contrasts and text/background color changes.   Some people have TROUBLE with high contrast. 

On Oct 7, 2014, at 10:40 AM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote:

> 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?
> 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, 7 October 2014 18:10:35 UTC

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