Re: Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt

Notes are NOT normative.
You are correct

but in definitions…  hmmmm..   

pts are defined in inches — so they are an absolute number.   

pixels are not — or do you have some absolute definition of px meaning a fraction of an inch (or mm)? 

gregg

> On Apr 25, 2016, at 5:34 PM, James Nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> Gregg,
> Are the Notes normative too? I seem to recall that Notes are not normative in W3C specs and as such we could add a note (to accompany the 5 other notes) following the definition of large scale (text)  to clarify what 14pt and 18pt are equivalent to in px.
> 
> This is important to solve. I had to answer this question twice this week from developers who couldn't understand why the contrast checker was returning an error for text that they thought was "large" (but was actually only 14px bold and hence was not large)
> 
> Regards,
> James
> 
> On 4/25/2016 3:24 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>> I’m not sure what you are referring to by "Changing definition of "Large text" to use px rather than pt"
>> 
>> Definitions in WCAG are normative.    They cannot be changed without changing the standard.
>> 
>> We can provide an advisory - but we can’t change the definition. 
>> 
>> If we are defining it differently in an extension - then that too seems to are problematical
>> 
>> If we are creating a  NEW version of WCAG  - the we could change it — but there will be some confusion.
>> 
>> Why is it needed? 
>> 
>> 
>> gregg
>> 
>>> On Apr 25, 2016, at 4:54 PM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk <mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 25/04/2016 22:41, ALAN SMITH wrote:
>>>> Just a quick thought.
>>>> 
>>>> I know many companies are designing for responsive design with break
>>>> points - as they call them - for several specific device screen sizes.
>>> 
>>> Clarification: screen sizes defined in CSS units (mostly pixels and ems), not physical dimensions (as there is no way to write a media query breakpoint in physical sizes). Which loops us right back to the start of the whole discussion.
>>> 
>>>> Would there be any value in mentioning some common screen sizes in any
>>>> technical write up for this?
>>> 
>>> If you were thinking along the lines of "typical sizes are X, Y, Z, and for those sizes your best font sizes are A, B, C" then there's possibly little value here, as the typical screen sizes bear no relation to the actual physical dimensions of screens, so again you'd be back at square one and not actually defining anything substantial, unfortunately.
>>> 
>>> I think the one universal piece of advice when it comes to font sizing would be (from a readability point of view): don't make your base font size smaller than 1rem / the default UA base font size, and ensure that your viewport (for mobile/tablet devices) is set to the device/UA's ideal viewport (using width=device-width), as that should guarantee a font size that the device manufacturer/UA developer deems to be readable.
>>> 
>>> P
>>> -- 
>>> Patrick H. Lauke
>>> 
>>> www.splintered.co.uk <http://www.splintered.co.uk/> | https://github.com/patrickhlauke <https://github.com/patrickhlauke>
>>> http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ <http://flickr.com/photos/redux/> | http://redux.deviantart.com <http://redux.deviantart.com/>
>>> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke
>>> 
>> 
> 
> -- 
> Regards, James
> <oracle_sig_logo.gif> <http://www.oracle.com/>
> James Nurthen | Principal Engineer, Accessibility
> Phone: +1 650 506 6781 <tel:+1%20650%20506%206781> | Mobile: +1 415 987 1918 <tel:+1%20415%20987%201918> | Video:  <sip:james.nurthen@oracle.com>james.nurthen@oracle.com <mailto:james.nurthen@oracle.com> 
> Oracle Corporate Architecture
> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood Cty, CA 94065 
> <green-for-email-sig_0.gif> <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment
>