Re: Allowing font size changes

Phil
LP = Large Print

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Wayne Dick <waynedick@knowbility.org>
wrote:

> I think it is time to be realistic about the timeline of standards. If we
> set standards for what is routine today then in 3-5 years when the standard
> becomes established, the technology we proposed will be obsolete. That is
> why we can be a little on the edge when it comes to proposed requirements.
>
> Today responsive design is a little new, but worked enough to be reliable.
> In 3-5 years it will be routine, and some better methodology will emerge.
> Today we have progressive enhancement – completely established and
> guaranteed to revert to one column format. Responsive design is moderately
> new (5 years old) and tested.  We can write requirements today that
> insist a page must be linearizable to one column to enable limitless text
> enlargement (level A). We can make a level AA requirement of responsive. It
> can be done today, and in 3-5 years when the standard is out in the world
> it will be easy to implement.
>
> As far as enlargement is concerned, it should be defined in EMs. One media
> query case should look for screens with 10-20 EMs. That gives about 12-14
> letters per screen. On a 13in screen that translates to 72 point, 1 inch
> letters. If one selects the (word-break, break-word) option entire words
> stay on the screen even if they break. This is better than magnification
> that forces the first part of long words to be out of the visual space once
> the person moves right. It is linear. On a 26 inch monitor, 10 EM screen
> width means 144 point font, and the formatting would be very usable.
>
> God is in the details. Conversion to responsive is difficult, but adding a
> few extra queries for low vision is not. Don’t kid yourself. It isn’t some
> people who have a hard time with screen magnification, it is almost
> everyone, like 20 to 1. Having sufficiently large font with word wrapping
> will change the entire world for people with low vision resulting from
> reduced visual acuity. It did for me.
>
> I have read 10 times as many books since CSS 2 as I did in the preceding
> 40 years. I could not participate in this discussion without that access.
> Well-structured content changed my life. After eight years of research I
> know it will do the same for the overwhelming majority of people with low
> vision. The question is this. We have the technology to do this for
> everyone, should we hold it back. Is that ethical?
>
>
>
> Wayne
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Jim Allan, Accessibility Coordinator
Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired
1100 W. 45th St., Austin, Texas 78756
voice 512.206.9315    fax: 512.206.9264  http://www.tsbvi.edu/
"We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." McLuhan, 1964