Re: Proposed changes to "large scale (text)" glossary definition notes

I don't care what units are used. With regard to contrast minimum, relative
size is the key. Normally the browser will provide a pretty usable font
size for running text. So, that size is small. 1.5.

Why unit of measure is unimportant.  Users don't know typographic or web
font units. The print is legibility or not. Developers know and care and
they should be able to choose their units.

Users need to modify size to support legibility. They really need to choose
bigger/smaller. The content or UA can enable resize in what ever units the
developer or UA wants. When this is done proportionally the minimum
contrast proportions will be preserved.  If we eventually enable users to
change presentation at the element level, they they will probably resize at
different rates, but pick their own colors and contrast.

Anyway we slice it the unit of measure should be up to the developer and
large vs. small should be a proportion.

I think that really does it.

Wayne



On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 9:28 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> To get this resolved I’ve tried to make an easy to review version of the
> pull request here:
> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/184
>
>
> We are discussed the notes within the definition of ‘large scale (text)’,
> the current version is here:
> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#larger-scaledef
>
> The normative bit is:
> "with at least 18 point or 14 point bold or font size that would yield
> equivalent size for Chinese, Japanese and Korean (CJK) fonts”
>
> The problem is that developers / designers either don’t know what a point
> relates to, or assume it is the same as pixels (leading to bad assumptions
> about smaller text).
>
> Patrick has re-written the notes underneath the normative definition to
> explain that points are in relation to pixels, and be clear about how you
> would test them.
>
> I’ve put an HTML page of that pull request here:
> https://alastairc.ac/tmp/large-text-definition-pl.html
>
> I agree that would be an improvement, but I also put my editing hat on and
> tried to create a more concise version:
> https://alastairc.ac/tmp/large-text-definition-ac.html
>
> I blithely decided to include less explanation and be a bit more
> forthright about things like user settings and points to pixel conversion.
> I also used “text size” rather than “font size”, to try and keep discussion
> of fonts to font-faces.
>
>
> Both versions need a little cleaning up (e.g. adding the ‘note 1:’ bits),
> but the questions are:
>
> - Do you understand the content? (I.e. What it is trying to say.)
> - Can we explain a bit less (second version), or is that explanation
> needed?
>
> Also worth noting that with new SCs from the task forces, it seems likely
> the explanation of large scale text should be in the WCAG definitions
> rather than understanding, as it would get duplicated under multiple
> understanding documents.
>
> Hopefully this can be added to a survey soon?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> -Alastair
>
>
> On 05/05/2016, 14:50, "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >On 27/04/2016 13:34, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
> >> https://github.com/w3c/wcag/pull/184
> >>
> >> I'm working on the assumption here that although the glossary definition
> >> itself is normative (so unfortunately the actual use of "14pt bold /
> >> 18pt" has to remain), the notes are informative/non-normative and can
> >> therefore be amended in order to clarify those measures.
> >
> >I've had several good comments (initially via twitter and email) on
> >this, which led to some fixes/additions/clarifications.
> >
> >What are the next steps to potentially move this forward? Does it make
> >sense as a PR, or does it need a more succint rationale/explanation? As
> >this only touches on non-normative notes, and expands what's currently
> >there to provide better context without changing the actual normative
> >meaning nor the values (keeping it as "points"), I would see this as an
> >erratum rather than anything new/for future versions.
> >
> >Thoughts?
> >
> >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
> >
>