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

Re: [PROPOSAL] Checkpoint 4.1Configure text size.

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 11:29:16 -0400
Message-ID: <3B4C70CC.BE7512A9@w3.org>
To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
CC: Tantek Celik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Jon Gunderson wrote:
> 
> Tantek,
> I will bring this issue back to the group for further discussion.
> 
> Here are two proposal that I though of to change checkpoint 4.1:
> 
> <OLD>
> 2. Allow the user to choose from among the full range of font sizes
> supported by the operating environment.
> </OLD>
> 
> <NEW1>
> 2. Allow the user to choose from the range of fonts which includes the
> largest font size supported by the operating system environment and the
> minimum font size that is considered usable for people without visual
> impairments for each operating system supported font family.

Who is the authority that determines what is usable? I don't agree
with this proposal (even though I understand the sentiment).

> The minimal
> usable font size will vary across character sets and the user agent can
> satisfy this checkpoint by supporting the full range of font sizes
> supported by the operating system.
> </NEW1>
> 
> or
> 
> <NEW2>
> 2. Allow the user to choose from a range of font sizes that includes the
> largest font sizes supported by the operating system for a specific font
> family.  

How many is sufficient? In this regard, colors are harder than fonts.
I would be more comfortable saying that 10 font sizes are sufficient
than I would saying that 16 colors are sufficient.

I am uncomfortable drawing an arbitrary distinction here (e.g., 
the larger half of available sizes for a particular font family). 
However, I think this is worth discussing (but not for very long!).

 - Ian


> The user agent can satisfy this checkpoint by supporting the full
> range of font sizes supported by the operating system.

(This sentence is unnecessary at the checkpoint level.)

> </NEW2>
> 
> Personally I like the second proposal, since it is clearly the original
> intent of the checkpoint.  The first proposal seems a bit much and
> ambiguous.  I think that we can trust that developers to include the
> smallest font sizes that they feel are usable by people without disabilities.

Right.
 
> I will bring this up with the group.  I am not sure the group will want to
> make a change from the current wording.  Personally, like you, I am
> troubled by the current requirement of the full range of supported fonts,
> especially when the range includes unreadable font sizes.
> 
> If you have any other proposals, please send them to the group.

-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Cell:                    +1 917 450-8783
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2001 11:29:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:58 GMT