- From: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 21:27:35 -0600
- To: WSTF <public-wai-eo-site@w3.org>, Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>, "Green, James" <jgreen@visa.com>, alicia.frausto@gmail.com, "Watson, Caleb" <calwatso@visa.com>
Hi all, Sorry I was not able to provide good input on the font issue in the teleconference yesterday. I didn't know that we were going to discuss it, and so I didn't have the relevant info loaded in my head -- and couldn't do it in the mili-second that James pauses between topics. ;-) Important tangent: Please note that I'm often not good at making definitive decisions or even good comments unless I have relevant information beforehand. So when you want decisions made in a call, I'll need to know the issue ahead of time, as much as feasible. Agendas are good. Back to font: After the call, I read through https://github.com/w3c/wai-website-design/issues/52 and the issue seems pretty clear, if I understood it all. I added my view of it here: https://github.com/w3c/wai-website-design/issues/52#issuecomment-285160613 Looks like the requirements clearly point to: Noto Sans (/me also read a bit about Noto font and looked for critiques, which is worth a few minutes if you're interested) I did a quick check with Judy on Wednesday and she was OK with it, but it's good to give her a chance to "sleep on it", too. I'm confirming with: * W3C Communications Team * WAI staff * Low Vision Task Force (LVTF) * Cognitive... Task Force * EOWG with deadline of Tuesday 14 March. [1] So far all +1s, including from LVTF folks, which is a key audience / requirement. I guess shouldn't jinx it by saying it looks like it will go through as the best font to meet requirements... although if I were Alicia, Caleb, and Eric, I would go ahead and make revisions now using it. :) Looking forward to having that wrapped up and moving onward! Best, ~Shawn [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-eo/2017JanMar/0047.html
Received on Friday, 10 March 2017 03:27:48 UTC