- From: John Hudson via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 22:20:28 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> 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 to me, “…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. To clarify, I was talking specifically about myself in that context, and not about users in general. I can’t account for everyone elses’ eyesight, or the lighting conditions, or other factors that may affect a decision to adjust distance in the interest of comfort. I was talking about the same ‘normal’ as you: that if I have planned for that normal correctly, designing to an optical size at a presumed ‘normal’ distance, then I should not have to change that distance in order to read the designed optical size at that size. If I do need to change the distance, then I think probably I have designed some different optical size and given it the wrong number. -- GitHub Notification of comment by tiroj Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/4430#issuecomment-882899712 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 22:20:30 UTC