- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2017 07:35:49 -0600
- To: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>
- Cc: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>, public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Hi Gregg, Alastair, and all, >> Spacing: Changing the line-height of all text to .8 to 1.3 and spacing >> around elements containing text to - .01em to 0.5EM does not cause loss >> of content or functionality. >> >> NB: Line height it best dealt with as unit-less [1]. Also, I know I’m >> going to get some comments such as “why don’t you recommend pixels for >> this?”, because I always do recommend pixels. The answer is that EMs are >> relative to the text they enclose, even though they are calculated to >> pixels. If we can’t say EM because it is too technology-specific, perhaps >> spacing of “½ the font-size of the text” could be used? > GV2: Em is a technology agnostic way — and avoids the pixel problem with > scaled screens today (and tomorrow). So agree with this. > > you didn;t talk about spacing of word and characters etc? In the CSS !important spacing user stylesheet test [1] per Wayne's advice I used: line-height: 1.36 letter-spacing: 0.03em word-spacing: 0.07em For consideration I have inserted those metrics into proposal 19. Kindest Regards, Laura [1] http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/wcagwg/tests/user_styles/important_spacing.html [2] https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/SC_Text_to_Combine_79,_78,_74#Proposal_19:_No_loss_of_content_or_functionality_.28Gregg.27s_font_family.2C_Alastair.27s_Color.2C_Wayne.27s_Spacing_Metrics.29 -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Thursday, 26 January 2017 13:36:23 UTC