W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2014

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

From: Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2014 23:16:45 +0000
To: "howard_leicester@btconnect.com" <howard_leicester@btconnect.com>, 'Ramón Corominas' <listas@ramoncorominas.com>, "'Patrick H. Lauke'" <redux@splintered.co.uk>
CC: "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <3e35693bd4c841fba9cf33c0c972627b@BY2PR03MB272.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
> And what if that family carer of family member has 'problems' too?

I agree these things should all be accessible -- they just aren't directly covered by WCAG or most other accessibility standards.  There are similar issues with electronic documents that contain forms that can only be printed and not completed electronically.  In certain place there may be other electronic health record requirements that include accessibility and state the ability to request alternative formats including large print.

While it may sound simple to copy the text out of a page and make it larger or better contrast in a word processor -- I've found this can sometimes be nearly impossible.  I tried to copy directions from mapping software off of the page designed to be printed and the text format was incorrect and some text was missing and other text jumbled.  So I certainly understand it is an issue.

Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: Howard Leicester [mailto:howard_leicester@btconnect.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 4:05 PM
To: Jonathan Avila; 'Ramón Corominas'; 'Patrick H. Lauke'
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: RE: Clarification on normative glossary definition of "Large scale (text)"

Thanks Jonathan,

And apologies, once more, if I'm not as up to date as I should be on all the standard numberings.

But what if it's a health document for someone with disabilities - who needs it in manipulable format to help them - but also to be printed by a family member or carer?


And what if that family carer of family member has 'problems' too?


This suggests to me simplified ways for different 'viewers' to display and print formats?

Apologies,
Howard (Leicester)
choose 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Avila [mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com]
Sent: 10 October 2014 20:43
To: howard_leicester@btconnect.com; 'Ramón Corominas'; 'Patrick H. Lauke'
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: RE: Clarification on normative glossary definition of "Large scale (text)"

> But what if the recipient also wishes to 'print out' the document.

I'm not sure if WCAG covers printed content but the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines seem to address printing under point 1.4.4.

Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: Howard Leicester [mailto:howard_leicester@btconnect.com]
Sent: Friday, October 10, 2014 3:35 PM
To: Jonathan Avila; 'Ramón Corominas'; 'Patrick H. Lauke'
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: RE: Clarification on normative glossary definition of "Large scale (text)"

Thanks to All, and apologies if I'm being stupid.

But what if the recient also wishes to 'print out' the document.

Yes, that can be specified via CSS etc.

But this is not necessarily a device issue.

Best,
Howard (Leicester)


-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Avila [mailto:jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com]
Sent: 10 October 2014 19:22
To: Ramón Corominas; Patrick H. Lauke
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: 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 23:17:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:53 UTC