RE: Clarification on normative glossary definition of "Large scale (text)"

> What we do is to compare with a "standard" font like Arial at 14pt bold or 18pt, and basically we compare the stroke width, which is the most important factor in terms of contrast. Indeed, there are some typographies that have

Jim thatcher's Favlet provides an overlay of text at 14pt and 18pt font for people to compare against.  So I think that makes a lot of sense for situations where you can't determine the size.

Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: Ramón Corominas [mailto:listas@ramoncorominas.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 9:26 AM
To: Patrick H. Lauke
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: Clarification on normative glossary definition of "Large scale (text)"

I interpret this as "1.5x the base font". This would mean that, if the font size is too small, people with normal vision will have the same problems than people with visual deficiency at 1.5x sizes.

In practice, this only applies to those texts that:

a) Have a contrast ratio between 3.0:1 and 4.5:1 (or between 4.5:1 and
7:1 if testing AAA)
b) Are larger than the body size, but seem to be close to it

In my experience those cases are not very common, but we have of course seen some. What we do is to compare with a "standard" font like Arial at 14pt bold or 18pt, and basically we compare the stroke width, which is the most important factor in terms of contrast. Indeed, there are some typographies that have very thin strokes, so we apply a "correction factor" to them, taking into account that the Glossary notes warn about extremely thin fonts.

Cheers!
Ramón.

Patrick wrote:

>> *GV:  No.  Hmmm  let me try again.    18/14  point values are based on
>> the fact that the user has a screen/resolution/zoom/viewing distance 
>> that makes 1em readable. *
> [...]
>> *GV:  Again. see above.       WCAG doesn’t talk about font size and
>> readability because the size of the font to the viewer is not under 
>> the control of the author.  They can change RELATIVE size but the user can
>> change that with the **screen/resolution/zoom/viewing distance.     And
>> it is assumed that the viewer will use a 
>> **screen/resolution/zoom/viewing distance  that works for them for 
>> the
>> web.*
> 
> To be clear, I am not asking with regards to readability. I am asking 
> in the context of doing a site audit and hitting that definition when 
> trying to assess contrast.
> 
> So again, if - unless I'm misunderstanding you completely - the intent 
> of that definition was indeed to make a statement about relative size 
> of text, starting from the assumption that all factors are right for 
> the user to have a comfortable 1em size, why not make it explicit in 
> the definition and actually state this in terms of relative sizes 
> (saying "1.5x the base font size, 1.2x and bold" etc) rather than 
> using pt values? Or am I splitting hairs here?
> 
> P

--
Ramón Corominas
Accessibility specialist
Technosite - Fundación ONCE
E: rcorominas@technosite.es
T: @ramoncorominas
P: +34 91 121 0330
W: http://technosite.es

Received on Friday, 10 October 2014 18:22:48 UTC