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: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 14:15:14 -0500
Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20010709140954.026ae828@staff.uiuc.edu>
To: "Tantek Celik" <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>, "ian b. jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Tantek,
The checkpoint currently does not set a box size.  Your argument for 9 
pixels seems satisfactory to me.  I know we considered having this type of 
information in the note.  I am not sure why we did not include it.  Ian do 
remember why we didn't include this information in the note?

Jon



At 12:04 PM 7/9/2001 -0700, Tantek Celik wrote:
>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
> >
> >

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 15:13:58 GMT

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