RE: What we need to do next

Please find attached and below my action item for FONTS.  The formatting is rougher than I had hoped, but I think it will be acceptable for the assignment.

-- 

Summary of FONT keyword issues for WCAG 2.0
Prepared for Team A teleconference 8 Aug 06 by Bruce Bailey.

Synopsis.  Paraphrasing.  Opinion.  Comments.

Short Synopsis.
There are 8 specifically identified issues, 25 general hits.  Of the eight, 6 have been assigned to Team A, 1 to Team B, and 1 to the Editors.

Seven of eight are a request for user-controlled re-sizing (equivalent for WCAG 1.0 P2 checkpoint 3.4).  One adds font choice and color to this.  I have not considered the other 25.

Key concepts:  user control, avoiding horizontal scrolling, Liquid layout.

Paraphrasing.
Problem:
No equivalent for WCAG 1.0 Priority 2 Checkpoint to "Use relative rather than absolute units in markup language attribute values and style sheet property values."

Suggestions:
Add guideline to use scaleable fonts and layout.

Suggestion variously attribute missing SC to GL 1.3, 1.4, and 4.1.  One suggestion for new Guideline 1.5.  Variously recommended at Level 1 or Level 2, but mostly 2.  Some specific SC were included.

Commenter noted problem with previous 3.4 wording since "pixel" is a relative unit, but it is not user-scaleable.

Our WG notes:
This is UA issue.

Advisory technique to GL 1.3.

Advisory technique to GL1.4.

My Opinion
Comments are uniformly one sided!  This analysis was much simpler than I expected.  My gut feeling is that these few are representative of much broader sentiment. 

I agree that this is a serious omission.  The absence of just such an expectation from the 508 standards has been unfortunate, but we have been living with it.

IMHO:  Advisory technique is not sufficient.  Passing the buck to UA is a cop out.

Gian Sampson-Wild has volunteered to draft SC.  I bet she would be glad to author failure and success techniques as well.

Keyword seems misnamed, but let us stick with it.  I was expecting character sets and such to confound this analysis.

If we don't add SC, we should mindfully explain the rational for the deliberate omission.

Full Comments
Sorted by length, shorter first.

http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=1067 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=1256 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=941 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=986 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=469 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=1437 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=659 
http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/viewdata_individual.php?id=1050 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment LC-1067
Sort Terms: FONT
Document: WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
Submitter: Gian Sampson-Wild <gian@tkh.com.au>
Comment Type: substantive
Location: mapping (Checkpoint 3.4)
Comment:
Relative vs absolute units: There should be a WCAG2 equivalent at Level 1 for this WCAG1 checkpoint. The ability to change the text size in a page is very important to people with vision impairments. The ability to resize tables according to the size of the screen is very important to people using PDAs 
Proposed Change: 
Create a new SC outlawing absolute units (I am happy to write this)
Status: open
Working Group Notes: [TEAMA] [HOLD]
Resolution Working Notes - Unapproved:
Related Issues: 
Assigned To: Nobody
Last Edited: 20060711215952

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment LC-1256
Sort Terms: FONT
Document: WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
Submitter: Henny Swan <henny.swan@rnib.org.uk> Affiliation: Royal National Institute of the Blind
Comment Type: general comment
Location: 
Comment:
WCAG1, 3.4 (use relative fonts) not in WCAG 2. Unsure why this is.
Status: open
Working Group Notes: [EDITORZ] [HOLD] 
Group agreed with this but send to HOLD to be considered with other comments.
Resolution Working Notes - Unapproved:
{QUESTION - ANSWERED} 
Since fonts are a suggestion to the user agent and can be overridden there, this issue is considered a user agent issue. An advisory technique, however, is provided under guideline 1.4. Related Issues: 
Assigned To: Nobody
Last Edited: 20060721191805

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment LC-941
Sort Terms: font
Document: WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
Submitter: M.F. Laughton <adio@crc.ca> Affiliation: Government of Canada
Comment Type: substantive
Location: 
Comment:
Principle 1: Content must be perceivable. 
There is nothing in the current edition of WCAG to ensure Color requirements / User Choices of color/presentation/font needs are respected or requirements in the new WCAG. A low vision user doesn't want a text equivalent, they want something in a presentation they can read. Ie: 18 point font or black background and white text. 
Proposed Change: 
There should be explicit guidance relating to color/presentation/font usage, as at least a level 2 success criterion.
Status: open
Working Group Notes: [TEAMA] [HOLD]
Resolution Working Notes - Unapproved:
Related Issues: 
Assigned To: Nobody
Last Edited: 20060705185700

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment LC-986
Sort Terms: font
Document: Understanding WCAG 2.0
Submitter: Sean Curran <sean@srcurran.com>
Comment Type: general comment
Location: meaning (Intent)
Comment:
Part of Item: Intent 
Comment Type: general comment 
Comment (including rationale for proposed change): 
I would add another section to 3.1 that alows users to increase or decrease the text size through the browser or the website. Or the text will work with multiple default text sizes. I think this is a bigger deal than screen readers and zooming in. Most 50 people have bad eyesight and don\'t know how to use windows zoom, but can be taught the make text bigger trick and have it as a large size by default. This breaks some websites and makes the content un-usable. 
Proposed Change: 
Add a section under 3.1 that allows users to increase the text size a reasonable amount and still have the website readable/usable/etc.
Status: open
Working Group Notes: [TEAMB][HOLD]
Resolution Working Notes - Unapproved:
Related Issues: 
Assigned To: Nobody
Last Edited: 20060728183934

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment LC-469
Sort Terms: FONT -- Relative Positioning
Document: WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
Submitter: Greg Gay <g.gay@utoronto.ca> Affiliation: ATRC UofT
Comment Type: general comment
Location: ensure-compat-rsv 
Comment:
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change): 
There is currently no item number relevant to this comment. Technique G96 seems to be the only place within the WCAG 2.0 documents that mentions anything about "relative positioning", or more specifically use of relative measures. Using relative measures is particularly important for low vision users who use a browser function to blow up the text size. It is also important for those using small screens like PDAs. 
Proposed Change: 
This requirement seems to fit best under WCAG principle 4, regarding robust. Perhaps a new guideline 4.1.3, at level 2. something like "Ensure that content can be resized without losing its symmetry" Then in the techniques describing the use of relative measures for sizing block level items, text, images, etc.
Status: open
Working Group Notes: [TEAMA] [HOLD] 
Submitted from Team A 5/23/06 
----------------------------- 
1) @@ add the following advisory technique 
"Using relative positioning." to guideline 1.3 
2) @@ check with Ben to incorporate the C6 idea. 
2) close item with 
{Partial Accept} 
"An advisory technique "Using relative positioning." has been added to guideline 1.3 to explain that allowing pages to maintain relative layout as fonts are increased is of value to those with low vision that must scale fonts but do not want the page to increase in width beyond the width of the screen." 
--------- 
Surveyed and discussed 5/25/06 and put on HOLD 
@@ ACTION: Gregg check with Ben to incorporate C6 idea for LC-469 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2006/05/25-wai-wcag-minutes.html#action01] 
resolution: put LC-469 put on hold because more comments will likely come in.
Resolution Working Notes - Unapproved:
Related Issues: 
564
Assigned To: Ben Caldwell
Last Edited: 20060718220646

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment LC-1437
Sort Terms: FONT
Document: WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
Submitter: Alastair Campbell <ac@alastairc.ac> Affiliation: Nomensa ltd
Comment Type: substantive
Location: 
Comment:
W2 
1.5 (missing) 
Intent, 
Description, 
Examples 
I cannot find anything on relative sizing of fonts or layout, at all. (Also noted in other comments.) I believe these are important aspects for accessible computers in general as well as the Internet, for anyone with a mild to moderate visual impairment. 
* The most common user agent Internet Explorer (installed on many corporate networks) does not allow the resizing of pixel sized fonts. Nor does the version 7(b3) update. (It does include 'zoom', but this causes horizontal scrolling on any currently accessible site). 
* Proper 'zooming' is not generally available yet (although some are working on it.) 
* Fixed width/height layouts suffer from a similar problem, partly because they often do not react well to increases in font size. There are some basic layout guidelines for HTML/CSS websites. 
* It is applicable to all screen technologies. For example, Flash scales well, but is often trapped in a fixed size window. Acrobat has re-flow & scaling. Other new technologies should be required to scale well. 
Relative fonts or layout may be covered in the techniques (although not when I last searched), but I believe it should be part of the normative document (level 2 success criteria). 
Proposed Change: 
Include a revised version of WCAG 1.0's checkpoint 3.4, example included below. The font aspects could be added to 1.3, but it does not seem a natural fit. 
Guideline 1.5 Use scalable fonts and layout 
Level 1 Success Criteria for Guideline 1.5 
(No level 1 success criteria for this guideline.) 
Level 2 Success Criteria for Guideline 1.5 
1.5.1 text sizing should be specified in a unit that is user re-sizable. The interface should be perceivable and operable with text increased to a 200% size. 
1.5.2 the layout of the page should allow for a variety of screen resolutions and sizes by using relative units for the primary layout areas, such as overall layout, and content area. 
------------------------------- 
Somewhat short, rough and ready, but I can expand on this if the concept is agreeable. This article on basic layout guidelines (http://alastairc.ac/2006/05/accessible-layouts/) could provide inspiration for the CSS techniques.
Status: open
Working Group Notes: [TEAMA] [HOLD] 
Comment submitted 19 July 2006 (late)
Resolution Working Notes - Unapproved:
Related Issues: 
Assigned To: Nobody
Last Edited: 20060727054304

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment LC-659
Sort Terms: FONT
Document: WCAG 2.0 Guidelines
Submitter: Felix Miata <mrmazda@ij.net> Affiliation: NA
Comment Type: substantive
Location: 
Comment:
Part of Item: 
Comment Type: GE 
Comment (including rationale for proposed change): 
Guideline 1.4 is the only part of the whole document I was able to find that addresses any component of the most basic element of accessibility to any non-blind user attempting access entirely visually: legibility. Thus legibility coverage appears to be inadequate, making the entire document inadequate. 
If text content cannot be read at or all without pain, it is functionally inaccessible. Nothing else matters when the content cannot be read. Other very important criteria factor heavily in determining basic legibility in addition to the guideline 1.4 coverage: 
1-font size 
2-font family 
Reduction of font size from the user preferred size, and substitution of an author chosen font family for a user preferred font family, both cause a reduction in legibility, and thus a reduction in accessibility. 
The primary message from http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/font-size is hereby incorporated by reference, and should be a part of the guideline. Additionally, please digest http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/accessibility.html for more detail and background on legibility as relates to accessibility. 
Proposed Change: 
Legibility is so fundamental a component of accessibility that it demands its own subpart, with the current 1.4 a component thereof. The guideline in addition to the current 1.4 should spell out: 
1-Avoid font size reduction from the user preference for primary (e.g. centrally located paragraph text) content. Never size text in px or any absolute unit. 
2-Minimize font size reduction from the user preference for secondary content. 
3-Use utmost care, preferably avoid entirely, substituting any font family for the user\'s preferred font family for primary content. Font family substitution should be limited to branding and secondary content. 
4-Only users are in position to suitably determine the font size and font family required to provide adequate legibility. 
5-Not all users are empowered to compensate, either at all or to sufficient degree, when authors deviate from these guidelines. (e.g., users of computers situated in public libraries or kiosks)
Status: open
Working Group Notes: [TEAMA] [HOLD] 
Discussed 06 July 2006 
resolution: put LC-659 on hold to be addressed with other font legibility issues 
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/06-wai-wcag-minutes.html
Resolution Working Notes - Unapproved:
@@ ACTION ITEMS 
Add the following two techniques to Gl 1.4 or 3.1 
1 - Avoiding font size reduction from browser default or user setting. 
2 - Avoiding sizing text in px or any absolute unit. 
- Using readable fonts. {already there now} 
@@ Include in the intent section for these techniques the following rationale's 
- Only users are in position to suitably determine the font size and font family required to provide adequate legibility. 
- Not all users are able to compensate, either at all or to sufficient degree, when authors deviate from these guidelines. (e.g., users of computers situated in public libraries or kiosks) 
RESPOND WITH : 
"Font and font size are controlled by the User Agent. Authors can suggest fonts and font sizes but the user agent can always override them. That being said, the working group does believe that it is good practice to use legible fonts and sizes. The group has therefore added advisory techniques as follows to GL 1.4 (or 3.1 depending on final organization). 
1 - Avoiding font size reduction from browser default or user setting. 
2 - Avoiding sizing text in px or any absolute unit. 
- Using readable fonts. {already there now} 
We will include in the intent section for these techniques the following rationale: 
- Only users are in position to suitably determine the font size and font family required to provide adequate legibility. 
- Not all users are able to compensate, either at all or to sufficient degree, when authors deviate from these guidelines. (e.g., users of computers situated in public libraries or kiosks) "
Related Issues: 
Assigned To: Nobody
Last Edited: 20060706204841

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------