W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > July to September 2001

Re: Responses to Tantek Çelik issues raisedduring third last call of UAAG 1.0

From: Tantek Celik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 12:04:32 -0700
To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>, "ian b. jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Message-ID: <1217417078-244936509@psdbay.com>
From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: Responses to Tantek Çelik issues raisedduring third last call
of UAAG 1.0
Date: Mon, Jul 9, 2001, 7:44 AM

> But there is no need to allow the user in this case [8x8 pixels] to decrease
> the font size.
>
> Since there is no accessibility requirement for smaller sizes, no priority
> is associated with adding this capability to a browser.

Good.  I will take this to mean that it is ok for the font size preference
in a UA to have a lower limit of 8 pixels.

As an example, currently in IE5/Mac we have both the ability to set the
default medium font size (in pixels) and the resolution of the display
(since the Macintosh provides no capability in the operating system for
doing so).  IE5/Mac also provides the ability to instantly "zoom" the size
of all text on any page through its easily accessible "Text Zoom" menu.

Our font size preference is a menu of typical/popular options
(12,14,16,18,24) and an "Other..." option which allows the user to enter
their preferred default medium font size.  If the user enters a size less
than 9, the value is set to 9.  This was based upon input from Todd Fahrner,
a screen font/typography expert who noted that 9 pixels is really the
practical minimum for readable text (8 pixels being too small).

From my understanding of this discussion, IE5/Mac would NOT be considered to
be compliant with this checkpoint (despite having perhaps the most
comprehensive user control over font size and screen resolution of available
visual web browsers as noted in numerous reviews).

Also from my understanding of this discussion, if we changed this lower
bound to 8, then we would be compliant with this checkpoint.

I'd like to ask the (perhaps rhetorical) question, who would be helped by
this change?

Either way, I'd like to suggest that a parenthetical comment be added to the
checkpoint description summarizing what you said about western characters
and 8 pixels (or my suggestion: 9 pixels) being the effective limit of
readability.

Thanks,

Tantek

----------
>From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
>To: "Tantek Celik" <tantek@CS.Stanford.EDU>, "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
>Cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Responses to Tantek Çelik issues raisedduring third  last call of
UAAG 1.0
>Date: Mon, Jul 9, 2001, 7:44 AM
>

> It was difficult for the working group to come up with a required minimum
> size for many reasons, including internationalization issues.  It can be
> assumed for western characters that are visually rendered in a box less
> than 8x8 pixels it would be difficult or impossible for most people to
> read.  If an author specified a font size that resulted in a graphical
> rendering in a box less that 8x8 pixels box accessibility requirement would
> be to increase the text size (probably needed for everyone) to one that is
> readable.  But there is no need to allow the user in this case to decrease
> the font size.
>
> Since there is no accessibility requirement for smaller sizes, no priority
> is associated with adding this capability to a browser.
>
> Jon
>
>
> At 02:13 AM 7/9/2001 -0700, Tantek Celik wrote:
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > Issue 512: Checkpoint 4.1: Range of text sizes
>> > http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc3.html#512
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > Issue summary: Is it a P1 requirement to allow configuration of very
>> > small text sizes?
>> >
>> > Resolution:
>> >
>> >  - The UAWG agrees that the intent of this checkpoint is to allow the
>> >  user to choose large, not small, text sizes.
>> >
>> >  - However, after consultation with other Working Groups, the UAWG
>> >  concluded that, in light of internationalization issues (and others),
>> >  the WG could not come up with a lower bound on the requirement
>> >  with any confidence.
>> >
>> >  - Therefore, the WG resolved to leave the checkpoint as is with a
>> >    note in the Techniques document:
>> >
>> >    <BLOCKQUOTE>
>> >     The primary intention of this checkpoint is to allow users with
>> >     low vision to increase the size of text. Full configurability
>> >     includes the choice of (very) small text sizes that may be
>> >     available, though this is not considered by the User Agent
>> >     Accessibility Guidelines Working Group to be part of the priority
>> >     1 requirement.  This checkpoint does not include a "lower bound"
>> >     (above which text sizes would be required) because of how users'
>> >     needs may vary across writing systems and hardware.
>> >    </BLOCKQUOTE>
>>
>>I would like to point out that the reason I raised this issue is that some
>>very small text sizes are illegible (e.g. anything less than 9px
>>unsmoothed), and therefore, it may be preferable for a UA to set a "lower
>>bound" for the purposes of avoiding "unusable" configurations.
>>
>>Is it a P2 (or P3) requirement to permit users to configure the size of text
>>to such illegible sizes?
>>
>>Thanks,
>
> Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
> Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
> Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
> MC-574
> College of Applied Life Studies
> University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
> 1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL  61820
>
> Voice: (217) 244-5870
> Fax: (217) 333-0248
>
> E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu
>
> WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
> WWW: http://www.w3.org/wai/ua
>
> 
Received on Monday, 9 July 2001 15:04:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:57 GMT