Re: Your comments on WCAG 2.0 Last Call Working Draft of December, 2007

On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Michael Stenitzer
<stenitzer@wienfluss.net> wrote:
>
>  sorry for being late in my reply.
>
>  we agree to all your replies with one exception:
>
>  Comment 4: 200% seems too ambitious (Issue ID: 2443)
>
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0065.html
>
>  the answer was not sufficient for us because it did not take our argument
> about the missing base level of text size fully into account:
>
>
>
> > It also seems inconsistent to require text to be scalable to a certain
> extent
> > without taking into account the base level (original size of text).
> Otherwise
> > it would be of advantage for websites with very small text-sizes.
> >
>
>  for example: you are using a browser which does not scale the full page
> (ie6 or firefox 2). its easier to build a multi column page-layout with 10px
> font-size scalable up to 200% than with 16px default font-size. this might
> force webdesigners to develop web sites with very small font-size to conform
> with wcag-scalability. therefore this might have a counterproductive effect
> regarding accessibility and usability.
>
>  therefore we think that it needs a base or reference level for text size
> either for the unscaled text or for the scaled text.
>

---------------------------------------------
Response from Working Group:
---------------------------------------------
It is true that Webmasters could design pages in tiny type. And some
Webmasters do. As long as the page will scale 200% from what everyone
else can see and use, we feel that is sufficient for this provision.
That would mean that 9 pt type would scale up to large print size.
This guideline is designed with the understanding that people who
really need larger print would use the enlarger features built into
all the major operating systems. We see specifying minimum font sizes
as being problematic from a number of perspectives including the fact
that they are not well implemented in current screen technologies and
could cause either pixelation or blurring.

Thanks again for the interest that you have taken in these guidelines.
Could we ask you to let us know whether or not you are satisfied with
this response by Wed, April 16?

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

Received on Friday, 11 April 2008 17:23:57 UTC