WCAG 2 fails to directly address major accessibility issue

case 1-sizing in px or pt or mm or the like totally disregards whatever a 
site visitor's browser default(s) is/are set to

case 2-sizing the major portion of page text in keywords, %, rem, em or ex 
values other than medium (keywords), 100(%), 1(rem), 1(em), or ~2(ex) is an 
imposition on the visitor that assumes her browser default(s) is/are 
inappropriately set (in most cases, assumed too large by site stylists).

In either case, all except users of old IE versions can _resize_ the page's 
text. Resizing is a defense, which like most defenses, is unnecessary to 
utilize in the absence of offensive behavior (disrespect of browser defaults).

Some problems are these:
a-disregarding defaults entirely (specifying text size in px, pt, mm, in, 
etc) is rude
b-assuming browser defaults are wrong is rude
c-that most web sites do 'a' or 'b' above is not justification to be rude
d-application of defenses requires reactive user activity, typically 
preventing and/or delaying use of a just loaded page
e-applying browser defenses to overcome the rudeness (minimum font size; 
zoom; user CSS) often has side effects that are similarly rude, and can even 
make a page completely unusable
f-text size is a key component of legibility, which is in turn a key 
component of accessibility

That WCAG 2 does not _directly_ address all the above is reprehensible 
inaction from a standards body.
-- 
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

  Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/

Received on Tuesday, 18 October 2011 23:39:45 UTC