W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org > April 2017

Re: [public-low-vision-a11y-tf] <none>

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 23:02:32 +0000
To: Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>, GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <DB6PR0901MB146127CEA0D6AFB2AED2367EB9070@DB6PR0901MB1461.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com>
Hi Wayne,

I've been thinking about this, there seem to be three types of issue with replacing fonts:

1. Things covered by WCAG 2.0 (e.g. using text in graphics) which we should exclude from this SC.

2. The act of replacing font-families with a blunt tool can kill content (e.g. font-icons, MathML).

3. Spacing & wrapping.

As Jared mentioned [1], the spacing aspects of replacing font-families are probably covered by the other bullets in the SC about word & letter spacing. If you can space letters then there is some buffer around the text, so an odd font shouldn't (or will rarely) cause issues.

Perhaps we should narrow the font-aspect to number 2 above? (Where the content disappears.) 

I'm not sure that needs to affect the SC text if one of the "font family by at least one different font family" versions is chosen, but then the understanding could specify that spacing is not the focus of that bullet.

Overall, I think you're right that we need to put a hold on SC text-editing. If the group is happy that there is a good potential SC in there, we can come back with data after some testing.

Cheers,

-Alastair

1] https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/254
Received on Sunday, 16 April 2017 23:03:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 27 April 2017 14:44:35 UTC