Re: Allowing font size changes

yes good discussion, 
and please make sure the task force captures all this in their documents, 
for example in the user needs document - 

Jon, you, Alan, and others are in the task force too, so that is good. 

Is anyone a "responsive" front-end developer?  FOr example, they are 
really familiar with the 3 breakpoints they use in designing desired 
re-flow behavior and when to switch from complex grid layouts to single 
columns card views.

I think the task force needs a rep from 
        1. Freedom Scientific's MAGic and
        2. Ai Squared's ZoomText
        3. Firefox, Safari, Chrome, and Edge
on the task force too since MAGic and Zomtext are so popular with many Low 
Vision users working with the top desktop and mobile browsers..

W3C WAI Low Vision Task Force
Current Participants
Phill Jenkins, 
IBM Accessibility

From:   Wayne Dick <>
To:     Jim Allan <>
Cc:     Phill Jenkins/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, Jonathan Avila 
<>, "" <>
Date:   01/20/2016 12:41 PM
Subject:        Re: Allowing font size changes

This has really been a clarifying discussion.

Thank You Oscar for kicking this off.

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 6:46 AM, Jim Allan <> wrote:
LP = Large Print

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Wayne Dick <> 
I think it is time to be realistic about the timeline of standards. If we 
set standards for what is routine today then in 3-5 years when the 
standard becomes established, the technology we proposed will be obsolete. 
That is why we can be a little on the edge when it comes to proposed 
Today responsive design is a little new, but worked enough to be reliable. 
In 3-5 years it will be routine, and some better methodology will emerge.  
Today we have progressive enhancement ? completely established and 
guaranteed to revert to one column format. Responsive design is moderately 
new (5 years old) and tested.  We can write requirements today that insist 
a page must be linearizable to one column to enable limitless text 
enlargement (level A). We can make a level AA requirement of responsive. 
It can be done today, and in 3-5 years when the standard is out in the 
world it will be easy to implement.
As far as enlargement is concerned, it should be defined in EMs. One media 
query case should look for screens with 10-20 EMs. That gives about 12-14 
letters per screen. On a 13in screen that translates to 72 point, 1 inch 
letters. If one selects the (word-break, break-word) option entire words 
stay on the screen even if they break. This is better than magnification 
that forces the first part of long words to be out of the visual space 
once the person moves right. It is linear. On a 26 inch monitor, 10 EM 
screen width means 144 point font, and the formatting would be very 
God is in the details. Conversion to responsive is difficult, but adding a 
few extra queries for low vision is not. Don?t kid yourself. It isn?t some 
people who have a hard time with screen magnification, it is almost 
everyone, like 20 to 1. Having sufficiently large font with word wrapping 
will change the entire world for people with low vision resulting from 
reduced visual acuity. It did for me. 
I have read 10 times as many books since CSS 2 as I did in the preceding 
40 years. I could not participate in this discussion without that access. 
Well-structured content changed my life. After eight years of research I 
know it will do the same for the overwhelming majority of people with low 
vision. The question is this. We have the technology to do this for 
everyone, should we hold it back. Is that ethical?

Jim Allan, Accessibility Coordinator
Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired
1100 W. 45th St., Austin, Texas 78756
voice 512.206.9315    fax: 512.206.9264
"We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." McLuhan, 1964

Received on Wednesday, 20 January 2016 20:53:33 UTC