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

On 26/04/2016 09:53, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:

>> Being aware that authors can over-ride the ‘base’ text-size by
>> setting it on the HTML/Body elements, we could refer to proportions
>> of the default size, e.g. 120% & 150% of the default text-size of the
>> user-agent (although that might ban setting a size on HTML/body
>> elements in practice?).
>
> If large scale text is defined clearly as 120%/150% of *default* base
> font size, then authors are free to resize on html/body, but when
> calculating the actual dimensions of a piece of content to determine if
> it counts as large scale or not, they'd have to refer back to
> unadulterated/default base font size.
>
> Whether or not the size of "normal" (non-large) text is changed or not,
> and whether that's too small, is orthogonal to this particular
> discussion, and something that should be taken on as a new SC by Low
> Vision TF (who, in my mind, should simply advise not to make text
> smaller than the default base font size, i.e. don't scale text below
> 1rem on default sizes)

Alternatively, the proportions could be relative to whatever the author 
has set the "default" / "normal" text size to be for their content. 
Whether *that* measure is then too small would be covered by Low Vision 
TF. The assumption being that either through settings, or zooming, the 
user will (try to) make normal/default body text comfortable for them, 
and then "large scale (text)" would be relative to that.

P
-- 
Patrick H. Lauke

www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com
twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke

Received on Tuesday, 26 April 2016 09:01:00 UTC