W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2016

Re: Allowing font size changes

From: Wayne Dick <waynedick@knowbility.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2016 10:32:15 -0800
Message-ID: <CAC9gL7549xZWjuyEjz+c+Px4Y0qM+tagwQWwY016aYCWtv+BCA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>
Cc: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
This has really been a clarifying discussion.

Thank You Oscar for kicking this off.

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 6:46 AM, Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu> wrote:

> 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
Received on Wednesday, 20 January 2016 18:32:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 29 January 2016 16:39:04 UTC