Re: Add Font Family back to adaptation

Hi Alistair,
As was pointed out in the AG meeting 2 weeks ago, 1024 is a frequently
occurring resolution (at least on Mac's). I do think we should this should
be factored into enlargement. However, it does point out that developers do
have to deal with a range of 1024 to at least 1600. We are asking for 1.2
more flex. Is that unreasonable?

I don't think that a wide font should be free to the user. They must pay in
letter spacing and word spacing. If we put a cap of 1.2 on all expansions
caused by letter spacing, word spacing and font substitution that is far
less than developers must account for in the expected range of resolution
they must face in a device category like laptop.

The international issue which might have been an issue just isn't an issue.

We could state the following:
We can state simple that:
The page should remain functional (or whatever language we've settled on)
so long as the combined impact on the average space taken by a letter is no
greater than 1.2.

This can be stated with more mathematical precision if needed. It should be
actually. Most standards provide tolerance tables. I have never been sure
why we don't behave like other standards.

This isn't that difficult. It s not such a big ask.

Actually, the user agent is the worst way to change font family.

Loops like
let arr= getElementsByTagName('p');
for (let i=0; i<arr.length; i++) {arr[i].style.fontFamily="Roboto";}

work better.

Wayne






On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 1:50 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Hi Wayne,
>
>
>
> The problem is that starting here:
>
> “The user can substitute a font family for the author's font family...”
>
>
>
> That is a user-agent requirement, *not* a content requirement.
>
>
>
> Also, the user *can do that now*. Unless you have found a way authors can
> block that change?
>
>
>
> We must take it a step further and identify the content issues when the
> user does that, what is the harm?
>
>
>
> Taking font-icons out of it, the only harm I’m aware of is when the text
> expands out of the containers. In that case, sizing is the only issue.
>
>
>
> If sizing is the issue, then we take a point on the normal distribution of
> font-sizes (e.g. one standard deviation to the right), and include that as
> part of the sizing criteria.
>
>
>
> As I said, if that is more than about 10% overall then I suspect that it
> will get enough push-back to shunt into Silver or personalisation, but
> happy to try.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>
>
>
>
> I would start the bullet with this language.
>
> The user can substituted a font family for the author's font family so
> long as the the following condition is met.
>
> There ratio of the user's font family character size and the average
> character size taken over font families in the script for the writing
> system in use does not exceed 1.2.
>
> The average character size for a font family is the width of the Unicode
> language block measured in pixels divided by the number of characters in
> that block.
>
> Note: Unassigned characters will be excluded from the Unicode language
> block as well as any characters that are identified by language experts as
> inessential to the count. The character count will thus equal the size of
> the Unicode block minus the number excluded character codes.
>
>
>
> The average character size for font families in a given script is the mean
> average character size taken across a representative sample of font
> families.
>
> Wayne
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The need is conflict pairs in font families. The most common are: Capital
> I, Lower case l and the digit 1 (that is actually 3 pairs taken 2 at a
> time). The other pairs are S (capital 'S') and 5 (digit 5), B (capital 'B')
> and 8 (digit 8), O (capital 'O') and 0 (the digit zero) and in some script
> cases Q (upper case Q) and 2 (digit 2).
>
> Letter spacing and size are different issues. The capital 'I' and lower
> 'l' is the worst. Frequently the only difference is a slight difference in
> height. These pairs do not pose a huge problem in text, but outline numbers
> and passwords are a different situation.
>
> Use case: You forget your password and get a temporary password on your
> mobile phone.You are forced to copy the password by hand to your computer,
> and if you cannot distinguish one of these pairs, then you are in serious
> trouble.
>
> Wayne
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 9:19 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Wayne,
>
>
>
> For what purpose? I thought the point was that we assume people can
> over-ride fonts, therefore we cover that need with sizing?
>
>
>
> Having looked at the distribution of font-sizes, do we need to increase
> the spacing aspects of the current bullets?
>
>
>
> Note that there is a balance: Layouts can take a certain amount of buffer
> before they look odd in regular use. If we push past that point (my feeling
> is around 10-15% increase) then it will be either rejected by the design &
> dev community, or moved into a personalisation SC.
>
>
>
> Going past that point means a more significant override, so either
> discarding the author-styles (like Linearise assumes), or adding
> alternative layouts with personalisation. In either of those cases, it
> would move out of the text-adaptation SC anyway.
>
>
>
> I’m more concerned with colour which isn’t covered yet, does anyone have
> further ideas on including that?
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, 6 June 2017 at 16:50
> *To: *LVTF - low-vision-a11y <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
> *Subject: *Add Font Family back to adaptation
> *Resent-From: *LVTF - low-vision-a11y <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
> *Resent-Date: *Tuesday, 6 June 2017 at 16:51
>
>
>
> It is time to put font family back into Adapting Text. Steve has addressed
> the icon substitution issue well. Namely add failure to mark icon fonts to
> 1.3.1. I have looked at the distribution of font face sizes. Within each
> writing system:
>
>    1. Identify a mean character size within the script for that system.
>    2. Compute the ratio R of average character size by family to mean
>    character size over all families in a representative sample.
>    3. Using language experts, establish boundaries that make sense close
>    to 1 standard deviation from the mean.
>
> Note: Mean +/- 1.2 should do based on the physiology of the human eye.
>
>
>
> Wayne
>
>
>
>
>