Re: Allowing font size changes

Indeed great discussion. I agree with Phil that it's "user agent" and
"users" responsibility to know how to set the font size they want. However,
my comment for original question is that:

1. It's definitely not a essential requirement for author to provide such
buttons but depends on your target audience. If target users are of people
those may not have reasonable knowledge of options on browsers / OS, then
it may be a good idea to provide such buttons. I think there would be many
users who just know the address bar and content window.. they may not even
know what is title bar...
2. For mobile devices, I recommend either not to have or provide option for
users to hide the tool bar if they wish to do so, because firstly the
screen size is small so it's ideal that users get to see primary content of
the site than enhanced tools.

BTW, I'm a person with low vision, but I have never used font size buttons
provided by authors as I'm aware of browser / OS options... But yes, users
are not same!



Srinivasu Chakravarthula - Twitter:

Let's create an inclusive web!

Sr. Accessibility Consultant, Deque
Hon. Joint Secretary, The National Association for the Blind, Karnataka

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 2:22 AM, Phill Jenkins <> wrote:

> 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
> ____________________________________________
> Regards,
> 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.
> Wayne
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 6:46 AM, Jim Allan <**
> <>> wrote:
> Phil
> LP = Large Print
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 4:46 PM, Wayne Dick <**
> <>> wrote:
> 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 requirements.
> 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 usable.
> 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?
> Wayne
> --
> Jim Allan, Accessibility Coordinator
> Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired
> 1100 W. 45th St., Austin, Texas 78756
> voice *512.206.9315* <512.206.9315>    fax: *512.206.9264* <512.206.9264>
> ** <>
> "We shape our tools and thereafter our tools shape us." McLuhan, 1964

Received on Thursday, 21 January 2016 07:12:23 UTC