W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > May 2007

Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Draft of April 2006

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 16:33:35 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0705171633y5c984aa4yf732ed3438a026b5@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Felix Miata" <mrmazda@ij.net>
Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org

Dear Felix Miata ,

Thank you for your comments on the 2006 Last Call Working Draft of the
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG 2.0
http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/WD-WCAG20-20060427/). We appreciate the
interest that you have taken in these guidelines.

We apologize for the delay in getting back to you. We received many
constructive comments, and sometimes addressing one issue would cause
us to revise wording covered by an earlier issue. We therefore waited
until all comments had been addressed before responding to commenters.

This message contains the comments you submitted and the resolutions
to your comments. Each comment includes a link to the archived copy of
your original comment on
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/, and may
also include links to the relevant changes in the updated WCAG 2.0
Public Working Draft at http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/.

PLEASE REVIEW the decisions  for the following comments and reply to
us by 7 June at public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org to say whether you are
satisfied with the decision taken. Note that this list is publicly

We also welcome your comments on the rest of the updated WCAG 2.0
Public Working Draft by 29 June 2007. We have revised the guidelines
and the accompanying documents substantially. A detailed summary of
issues, revisions, and rationales for changes is at
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2007/05/change-summary.html . Please see
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ for more information about the current review.

Thank you,

Loretta Guarino Reid, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Gregg Vanderheiden, WCAG WG Co-Chair
Michael Cooper, WCAG WG Staff Contact

On behalf of the WCAG Working Group

Comment 1:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/20060531020151.8F03E66363@dolph.w3.org
(Issue ID: LC-659)

Part of Item:
Comment Type: GE
Comment (including rationale for proposed change):

Guideline 1.4 is the only part of the whole document I was able to
find that addresses any component of the most basic element of
accessibility to any non-blind user attempting access entirely
visually: legibility.  Thus legibility coverage appears to be
inadequate, making the entire document inadequate.

 If text content cannot be read at or all without pain, it is
functionally inaccessible.  Nothing else matters when the content
cannot be read. Other very important criteria  factor heavily in
determining basic legibility in addition to the guideline 1.4

1-font size
2-font family

Reduction of font size from the user preferred size,  and substitution
of an author chosen font family for a user preferred font family, both
cause a reduction in legibility, and thus a reduction in

The  primary message from http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/font-size is
hereby incorporated by reference, and should be a part of the
guideline. Additionally, please digest
http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/accessibility.html for more detail and
background on legibility as relates  to accessibility.

Proposed Change:

Legibility is so fundamental a component of accessibility that it
demands its own subpart, with the current 1.4 a component thereof. The
guideline in addition to the current 1.4 should spell out:

1-Avoid font size reduction from the user preference for primary (e.g.
centrally located paragraph text) content. Never size text in px or
any absolute unit.
2-Minimize font size reduction from the user preference for secondary content.
3-Use utmost care, preferably avoid entirely, substituting any font
family for the user\'s preferred font family for primary content. Font
family substitution should be limited to branding and secondary
4-Only users are in position to suitably determine the font size and
font family required to provide adequate legibility.
5-Not all users are empowered to compensate, either at all or to
sufficient degree, when authors deviate from these guidelines. (e.g.,
users of computers situated in public libraries or kiosks)

Response from Working Group:

Although text resizing and other font configurations such as font
family are primarily user agent functions, we have added new success
criteria to address the author's responsibility:

Level AA: Visually rendered text can be resized without assistive
technology up to 200 percent and down to 50 percent without loss of
content or functionality.

Level AAA: Visually rendered text can be resized without assistive
technology up to 200 percent and down to 50 percent without loss of
content or functionality and in a way that does not require the user
to scroll horizontally.
Received on Thursday, 17 May 2007 23:34:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:14:43 UTC