W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-archive@w3.org > July 2021

Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-fonts] Proposal to extend CSS font-optical-sizing (#4430)

From: David Berlow via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 11:48:26 +0000
To: public-css-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <issue_comment.created-882483585-1626695304-sysbot+gh@w3.org>
The main issue that you’re pointing at, davelab6 is that the systems were implemented in a way so humans must adjust to that implementation, which is different from the way humans can adjust to print.

Humans adjust to small type by moving it closer or farther away, and to large type, often by moving their feet. Humans were expected to move their chairs farther from windows, and closer to the Mac, when those systems each assumed their own ideal distance, without specifying what that was.

On the other hand, corresponding with @tiroj on this last year,
during the discussion of his heroic rewrite to the spec., I found we disagreed fundamentally on opsz. John wrote, “…if I have to move closer to read 6 point, opsz has failed.” This is a point of disagreement I now have time to address, as I believe the user is the final arbitrator of accessibly, and it’s always been thus. We, type designers, do not control the user distance, but rather plan for what’s normal, and count on the OS to present choices the user can adjust to.

That same correspondence yielded the request that I agree with the principle that we, type designers, view all the opsz we design from one distance, or people will be confused by the spec’s documentation. This too is impossible to agree with, as small opsz have small ranges of accessibility while larger sizes have large ranges of accessibility. I look at type designed for opsz from many distances.

When Apple left the 1px = 1 pt and did not document the change, as an Apple developer, I complained. When MS deprecated the 72px per inch option in vista, I complained. And when w3c adopted that “96”, and its view angle nonsense, I objected. I continue to object because print exists and is not going to change. Accessibly for users of uncommon vision, cannot be forced forever to zoom, and users of world scripts with a different opsz scale from Latin will not be encouraged by such a crappy spec or its twisted implementations.

Three such groups, print users, accessibly user and world script should’ve been enough a long time ago to make this not about “same system” or “some system”, because it’s about one human audience.


-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by dberlow
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4430#issuecomment-882483585 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Monday, 19 July 2021 11:48:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 06:42:39 UTC