- From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
- Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2007 22:02:52 -0700
- To: "Nathan Ketsdever" <nathan_debate@yahoo.com>
- Cc: public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org
Dear Nathan Ketsdever, Thank you for your comments on the 17 May 2007 Public Working Draft of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG 2.0 http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20070517/). The WCAG Working Group has reviewed all comments received on the May draft, and will be publishing an updated Public Working Draft shortly. Before we do that, we would like to know whether we have understood your comments correctly, and also whether you are satisfied with our resolutions. Please review our resolutions for the following comments, and reply to us by 19 November 2007 at public-comments-wcag20@w3.org to say whether you are satisfied. Note that this list is publicly archived. Note also that we are not asking for new issues, nor for an updated review of the entire document at this time. Please see below for the text of comments that you submitted and our 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 WCAG 2.0 Editor's Draft of May-October 2007 at http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/WD-WCAG20-20071102/ Thank you for your time reviewing and sending comments. Though we cannot always do exactly what each commenter requests, all of the comments are valuable to the development of WCAG 2.0. Regards, 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: minimum text size Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2007May/0138.html (Issue ID: 1935) ---------------------------- Original Comment: ---------------------------- Document: W2 Item Number: (none selected) Part of Item: Comment Type: technical Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change): Text font size seems to be a fundamental accessibility issue. For instance, Yahoo Beta's Mail system is in 10 point, which makes it harder for older folks to access and use its site. I may have missed it in the document, but a mention of a text size minimum seems to get at the foundation of what your goal is. Second, speaking to disability seems fundamental to the issues you are talking about. Accessibility is not just for able-bodied folks. And speaking to these issues is critical to respect, human dignity, equality, and social justice concerns. If I am remiss in anyway, please forgive. Proposed Change: Above. Add a line about text size and a section on disability. --------------------------------------------- Response from Working Group: --------------------------------------------- We do not require a minimum, as no universal lower limit would be appropriate. We do, however, require that text be resizable, and the "understanding document" for that provision illustrates how, for that to happen, the author needs to specify text size using a measure which is readily resizable based on its parent or container size (i.e not pt or px), based on this and the usual initial font-size value of 'medium', it is possible in most browsers to adequately control the text size. This would allow users to scale the font to the size that works well for them. We would also note that we do intend to add an advisory technique for this section which requires large fonts by default. As a technical specification, it is somewhat outside of the scope of the guidelines to include in-depth information describing disability and the social issues that surround it. We do, however, include a general discussion of the types of disabilities addressed by the guidelines in the introduction as well as links to WAI resources introducing Web accessibility. As well, the Understanding documents include more specific information about how the WCAG 2.0 provisions benefit individuals with disabilities.
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2007 05:03:03 UTC