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

Thanks Jon.

By the way, here is a reference to a document by Todd Fahrner which
discusses (among other things) the 9 pixel minimum for legible text.

 http://style.cleverchimp.com/font_size_intervals/altintervals.html

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, 12:15 PM
>

> 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 15:56:11 UTC