- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:36:24 -0600
- To: "'Gez Lemon'" <gez.lemon@gmail.com>, "'Sorcha Moore'" <sorcha@segala.com>
- Cc: "'TeamB'" <public-wcag-teamb@w3.org>
Hmmmm Would this outlaw all fine print at the bottom of pages? (could always meet the criterion by having a link that would give you a page with the font larger so maybe that is a good thing. Gregg -- ------------------------------ Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. > -----Original Message----- > From: public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-wcag-teamb-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Gez Lemon > Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 4:42 AM > To: Sorcha Moore > Cc: TeamB > Subject: Re: text scaling How To Meet pages > > > 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 22:36:40 UTC