Re: Anything for a possible 2.2?

The ability to change font is important. I believe something like this
would impact developers very little:
Normalized change of font.
If the user adjusts font size so that the average character width is 0.5em
for 1em font-size, then the user may change font to whatever family they
choose.

Example: Suppose you choose Verdana width for 1em is 0.576em to replace
Times New Roman width for 1em is 4.718. Multiplying the font size of
Verdana by  0.8680 = 0.5/0.576 gives 0.8680 em.
The character width is 0.4994em really 0.5. Now the normalized Verdana
exceeds the size of Times New Roman by 0.05em. See
http://nosetothepage.org/TextAccessibility/FontCompare.html.

To handle icon font problem caution users to avoid the i and span element
in font family change. Caution authors to use role="img". For math just
have users avoid math like p:not(math p).

For users also caution to avoid the * selector favoring explicit selectors
like:

html, body, div, /*span,*/ applet, object, iframe, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6,
p, blockquote, pre, a, abbr, acronym, address, big, cite, code, del, dfn,
em, font, img, ins, kbd, q, s, samp, small, strike, strong, sub, sup, tt,
var, b, u, /*i,*/ center, dl, dt, dd, ol, ul, li, fieldset, form, label,
legend, table, caption, tbody, tfoot, thead, tr, th, td{
font-family:"Lucida Sans Unicode", "Lucida Grande", sans-serif;
}
(generated mechnaically)

Access to font is pretty easy.

I am willing to make my font normalization programs open source.

Wayne






On Fri, Oct 12, 2018 at 8:58 AM Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Hi Jim (and LVTF),
>
>
>
> Pre-TPAC, it would be useful to know if there are any potential SCs you’d
> consider for a WCAG 2.2?
>
>
>
> We haven’t determined whether the group will tackle that yet, but part of
> the decision would be: Is it useful to do a 2.2?
>
>
>
> Looking back, I couldn’t see much in the LVTF ‘defer’ list here:
>
>
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+label%3ALVTF+label%3ADefer+
>
>
>
>
> Printing customised text perhaps?
>
>
>
> Given the shape of 2.1 now, are there gaps or things to tighten up that
> can work in the 2.x structure?
>
> Perhaps a couple of additional SCs that tighten up current ones?
>
>
>
> If there are others that didn’t make it to a github issue in the first
> place, now is the time to say so.
>
>
>
> I’m not sure who’s attending TPAC, but if there’s a short overview of 1-6
> SCs I can run through them which would be very useful for the discussion.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> www.nomensa.com
> tel: +44 (0)117 929 7333 / 07970 879 653
> follow us: @we_are_nomensa or me: @alastc
> Nomensa Ltd. King William House, 13 Queen Square, Bristol BS1 4NT
>
>
>
> Company number: 4214477 | UK VAT registration: GB 771727411
>