RE: Font accessibility

Hi Phil,

By embeded I mean Chrome, Firefox, etc. views embedded into native apps like those on Windows and Mac.  With IE you had a control panel option for IE and the settings (Internet Options) from that carried into embedded IE views with your preferences.  Chrome and Firefox views don't seem to have that as far as I know.

Jonathan

From: Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2018 7:03 PM
To: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com>
Cc: Gian Wild <gian@accessibilityoz.com>; Olaf Drümmer <olaflist@callassoftware.com>; w3c WAI List <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>; Ron Lucey <Ron.Lucey@gov.texas.gov>
Subject: RE: Font accessibility

Jonathan wrote:

. . . I think the reason [font accessibility] has not been addressed for web content is that historically browsers have provided the ability for users to apply their own styles and fonts and thus this has allowed these issues to become more usability type issues.  However there are situations where the user cannot overwrite the font such as embedded content, native content, print content, etc.  there is also a trend away from user agents allowing user level style sheets and pages also preventing extensions like Stylish to add document level styles.

Reply:

we cannot advocate for or allow a trend of a one size font fits all.  Jonathan, I'm not saying that is what you're saying, but I am trying to use your observations that we as a community need to keep advocating for the browsers and user agents and assistive technologies to solve this need.  Font selection should not ever primarily be a content or web author responsibility /  issue.  Sure its a consideration, and sure there is a font selection that fits *most* users, or *many* users, but accessibility is about adapting the content to fit *all users* or at least as many users as possible.  Font selection should always start with the browser, user agent, and user selection and then only be a content issue when the font is *locked* by the author / content developer.  Same with magnification, and the same with contrast - meaning that the content and web author's responsibility is to allow for changes and adaptions of their content by the user agent's settings for font, contrast, and magnification.

If there is a "trend away from user agents allowing user level style sheets . . . " then perhaps that is a problem that we as a community have caused or at least should be advocating against!, and a lot louder than it seems we are asking authors to settle on or choose some single font that fits many users.  Where is the movement to require UAAG<https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/uaag/>compliance of the small number of browser manufactures?  Sure, there are print choices that can't be changed once printed, and PowerPoint font choices that can't be changed during actual presentations, but when we're talking about digital accessibility, web accessibility, that is when I try to advocate 1st and foremost for adaptability, not a one-size-fits-all single font choice approach.

What do you mean by "embedded content" and "native content"? Shouldn't the browser or user agent be able to override that content's font too?    If it should, or could, but isn't, then we as a community should be advocate for it.  As that late night legal commercial goes, "We demand justice!" from the browsers.

btw, the Texas Governors Committee on Persons with Disabilities did some research and recommend Verdana fonts for all their PowerPoint presentations and printed materials.  See https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/organization/.../19_PP_02.docx<https://www.google.com/url?q=https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/organization/disabilities/19_PP_02.docx&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjp5Pz67e_bAhWwxFkKHQLTDygQFggOMAQ&client=internal-uds-cse&cx=002666182470826170590:zn4eerpozui&usg=AOvVaw2o1cqgYAQqE5Z6r_YA1kg1>

We have a resource about Contacting Organizations about Inaccessible Websites<https://www.w3.org/WAI/teach-advocate/contact-inaccessible-websites/>; we need one about Contacting Organizations about Inaccessible Browsers!

Possible ways to send issues to the browsers:

        Send feedback about Google Chrome athttps://www.google.com/accessibility/get-in-touch.htm

        Send feedback about Microsoft Edge at https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/accessibility

        Send feedback about Mozilla Firefox at   https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Accessibility

___________
Regards,
Phill Jenkins
Check out the new system for requesting an IBM product Accessibility Conformance Report VPAT®at  able.ibm.com/request<https://able.ibm.com/request/>
pjenkins@us.ibm.com<mailto:pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
Senior Engineer & Accessibility Executive
IBM Research Accessibility



From:        Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com<mailto:jon.avila@levelaccess.com>>
To:        "Olaf Drümmer" <olaflist@callassoftware.com<mailto:olaflist@callassoftware.com>>, Gian Wild <gian@accessibilityoz.com<mailto:gian@accessibilityoz.com>>, w3c WAI List <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>>
Date:        06/21/2018 10:13 PM
Subject:        RE: Font accessibility
________________________________


  *   That much said - legibility as such is a usability aspect not an accessibility aspect. Accessibility rules though could build on top of usability aspects and require a heighten degree of usability.


I'd say legibility is an accessibility issue because it affects people with disabilities at a disproportional level.  A font that is legible for a fully sighted person may be totally unusable by someone with low vision.  I think the reason this has not been addressed for web content is that historically browsers have provided the ability for users to apply their own styles and fonts and thus this has allowed these issues to become more usability type issues.  However there are situations where the user cannot overwrite the font such as embedded content, native content, print content, etc.  there is also a trend away from user agents allowing user level style sheets and pages also preventing extensions like Stylish to add document level styles.



Jonathan

From:Olaf Drümmer <olaflist@callassoftware.com<mailto:olaflist@callassoftware.com>>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 5:12 AM
To: Gian Wild <gian@accessibilityoz.com<mailto:gian@accessibilityoz.com>>; w3c WAI List <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>>
Cc: Olaf Drümmer <olaflist@callassoftware.com<mailto:olaflist@callassoftware.com>>
Subject: Re: Font accessibility



Some fonts are more legible than others. This has been addressed by various standards, for example in the field of ergonomics and also in the context of regulation for labels on food or pharmaceutical items.



That much said - legibility as such is a usability aspect not an accessibility aspect. Accessibility rules though could build on top of usability aspects and require a heighten degree of usability.



It is important to understand that legibility rules depends a lot on context: viewing distance, amount of text, purpose of the information conveyed, etc. A long text benefits from a different font than the four letters 'STOP' on a stop sign.





Olaf





On 21. Jun 2018, at 10:58, Gian Wild <gian@accessibilityoz.com<mailto:gian@accessibilityoz.com>> wrote:



Hi



Does anyone have some research or evidence about the accessibility of different fonts? We have come across a very thin-lined font and we have been asked for proof that it is harder to read than normal font.



Thanks

Gian



(Sorry for cross-posting)



Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>