Prepared for Team A teleconference 8 Aug 06 by Bruce Bailey.
Synopsis. Paraphrasing. Opinion. Comments.
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.
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.”
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.
This is UA issue.
Advisory technique to GL 1.3.
Advisory technique to GL1.4.
Comments are uniformely one sided! This analysis was much simplier 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.
Sorted by length, shorter first.
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