W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > March 2008

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

From: Loretta Guarino Reid <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:18:08 -0700
Message-ID: <824e742c0803101718k277c939eo7d026b8d23736574@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Aktionsbuendnis fuer barrierefreie Informationstechnik" <kontakt@abi-projekt.de>
Cc: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org

Dear Aktionsbuendnis fuer barrierefreie Informationstechnik,

Thank you for your comments on the 11 Dec 2007 Last Call Working Draft
of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 (WCAG 2.0
http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-WCAG20-20071211). The WCAG Working Group
has reviewed all comments received on the December draft. Before we
proceed to implementation, we would like to know whether we have
understood your comments correctly and whether you are satisfied with
our resolutions.

Please review our resolutions for the following comments, and reply to
us by 31 March 2008 at public-comments-wcag20@w3.org to say whether
you accept them or to discuss additional concerns you have with our
response. Note that this list is publicly archived.

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 10 March 2008 at

Note that if you still strongly disagree with our resolution on an issue,
you have the opportunity to file a formal objection (according to
3.3.2 of the W3C Process, at
to public-comments-wcag20@w3.org. Formal objections will be reviewed
during the candidate recommendation transition meeting with the W3C
Director, unless we can come to agreement with you on a resolution in
advance of the meeting.

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.


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: How to decide whether it is "large scale text" or not
Source: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2008Jan/0052.html
(Issue ID: 2430)
Original Comment:

We've got a problem with the definition of "large scale text". It's
described to be "18 point or 14 point bold" and explained to be of
that size when delivered. So how should I test a page if it meets that
SC after delivery than? And if every font-size is defined in "em" or
"%" which size in px should I as tester assume to be the 100% size?
Another question is what's meant with "point" in that case? Do you
mean "pt" or "px"? Proposed Change: Would be helpful if there is a
clearer definition of what "large scale text" means.
Response from Working Group:

If you don't specify the font size, then you can make your assumption
based on the size standard user agents render unspecified fonts. If
the user has an visual disability and is using a non-standard browser,
one can assume that they will have something which is not worse than
standard browsers (or it isn't the authors problem if they do). So,
the author can see whether fonts labeled as H1, for example, will
render as '14 point bold' or higher and use that to determine whether
their text is 'large scale text'.

If you specify the font using relative terms (em or % but not px)-
then you can use a similar means to determine if it will be large
scale text.

To help clarify this, we have added the following note to the definition.

Note: When using text without specifying the font size, the font size
used on major browsers for unspecified text should be used. If H1 is
rendered in 14pt bold or higher on major browsers then it would be
large text. Relative scaling can be calculated from the default sizes
in a similar fashion.
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2008 00:18:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:14:48 UTC