Re: text scaling How To Meet pages

I don't understand how to measure that the author in fact sets a "readable" 
font size, that would work for all users/user agents".  I don't know how to 
measure "readability" in this context..

Do we need this assumption?

Thanks and best wishes
Tim Boland NIST

  At 10:42 AM 1/31/2007 +0000, you wrote:

>Hi Sorcha,
>
>On 31/01/07, Sorcha Moore <sorcha@segala.com> wrote:
>>I've just noticed that we did not include the line about working from the
>>assumption that the specified font size is readable to start with - did we
>>intend to do this?
>>
>>If not a start might be: "Working from the assumption that the author has
>>specified a readable size font size, the group feels that ..."
>
>I still have reservations about making assumptions. If we make
>assumptions about text being legible in the first place, is there a
>relevant success criterion to catch text that isn't legible to start
>with? No author would deliberately write content that couldn't be read
>by anyone (and hope it was accessible), so there is also the issue as
>to what constitutes a default readable font-size. Maybe we should
>explicitly state a base for the visual acuity in the intent?
>
>The more I think about this, the more I can't help thinking that maybe
>it would be a good idea to add another success criterion to ensure
>rendered content is legible in user agents in their standard
>configuration (for example, text-size set at medium). Maybe something
>like, "visually rendered content does not require visual acuity
>greater than 20/40 on the Snellen chart". We could add this to the
>description for 1.4.5 and 1.4.6, but if it was a separate success
>criterion, it would negate the need for an explicit assumption, and
>make it easier to expand on issues such as the standard configuration
>of a user agent.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Gez
>
>
>--
>_____________________________
>Supplement your vitamins
>http://juicystudio.com
>

Received on Wednesday, 31 January 2007 14:12:13 UTC