W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org > February 2018

Internationalization section for text spacing

From: Jim Allan <jimallan@tsbvi.edu>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 09:59:09 -0600
Message-ID: <CA+=z1WkTuthbbKAObb018FZ+SOV6ru_yooO74okV9B4=Edd9GA@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-low-vision-a11y-tf <public-low-vision-a11y-tf@w3.org>
Effects of Text Spacing on Languages/Scripts

The SC allows the user to make spacing adjustments. The author needs to
allow for the adjustments within the SC range without breaking content as
shown in the examples below. The ability to read and derive meaning from
the adjusted content rests with the reader. If the increased spacing
impacts those abilities the user will adjust or they will return to the
default view. Regardless, they user needs the flexibility to adjust spacing
within the bounds set in the SC.

Testing the following pages with the maximum spacing adjustments allowed by
the SC showed no adverse effects for the roughly 480 languages and scripts

   - Languages in their own writing systems
   - Online Encylopedia of writing systems and languages – language names
   https://www.omniglot.com/language/names.htm and
   - Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 1)

Character Spacing - Individual characters in words remained intact though
they were spaced a bit further apart.

Word Spacing – Words were space farther apart. In languages that do not
have words (e.g. Japanese) applying word spacing had no effect. Which is

Line-height adjustment – Changing line-height did not separate diacritics
from characters, nor did it adversely impact ascenders and descenders.

Jim Allan, Accessibility Coordinator
Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired
1100 W. 45th St., Austin, Texas 78756
voice 512.206.9315    fax: 512.206.9452 http://www.tsbvi.edu/
"We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." McLuhan, 1964
Received on Thursday, 1 February 2018 15:59:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:23:30 UTC