W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2018

Re: Font accessibility

From: Mohsen Mahjoobnia <mm14kl@student.ocadu.ca>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2018 10:15:05 -0400
Message-ID: <CAKF8kE0bBVn7dipJVq+78Admx=7kY03jdLyWarGRrQDzFarStg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Olaf Drümmer <olaflist@callassoftware.com>
Cc: Gijs Veyfeyken <gijs@anysurfer.be>, w3c WAI List <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, Gian Wild <gian@accessibilityoz.com>
AS Olaf greatly mentioned its not one or the other. If I may add, when
consulting designers, would advice to provide alternative formats and
option to user to change the: font, color contrast size and etc. I believe
its about giving equal opportunities vs. making accessibility based on
common or assumed user edge case. Give alternatives!

That being said, when it comes to print and graphic design we need to be
more mindful (specially when we can't provide alternatives to our users),
CNIB has great suggestions:

"Avoid complicated or decorative fonts. Choose standard fonts with easily
recognizable upper and lower case characters. Arial and Verdana are good
choices." CNIB
<http://www.cnib.ca/en/services/resources/Clearprint/Documents/CNIB%20Clear%20Print%20Guide.pdf>
<
http://www.cnib.ca/en/services/resources/Clearprint/Documents/CNIB%20Clear%20Print%20Guide.pdf
>

Choosing an Accessible Font
<http://www.reciteme.com/common/ckeditor/filemanager/userfiles/Accessible_Font_PDF-2.pdf>
<
http://www.reciteme.com/common/ckeditor/filemanager/userfiles/Accessible_Font_PDF-2.pdf
>

Accessible Graphic Design
<https://www.rgd.ca/database/files/library/RGD_AccessAbility_Handbook.pdf>
<https://www.rgd.ca/database/files/library/RGD_AccessAbility_Handbook.pdf>

WebAim <https://webaim.org/techniques/fonts/> Font Readability <
https://webaim.org/techniques/fonts/ >

Which Are More Legible: Serif or Sans Serif Typefaces?
<
http://alexpoole.info/blog/which-are-more-legible-serif-or-sans-serif-typefaces/
>

Cheers

M

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 6:24 AM, Olaf Drümmer <olaflist@callassoftware.com>
wrote:

> It's inappropriate to make this topic (choice of font versus other
> typographical aspects) an either or question.  The fact that aspect A may
> matter more than aspect B is no justification to not care about aspect B.
>
> One aspect that is very often ignroed when it should not: context.
>
> Needs of a low vision person are different  form needs of a dyslexic
> person. Even for people with low vision there are different types of low
> vision that may benefit from different (possibly mutually exclusive)
> aspects (I know of people who benefit from low contrast whereas others
> prefer as much contrast as they can get). Not a single of these variations
> is wrong or  irrelevant. Nonetheless it is necessary to find middle ground
> for a form of presentation (e.g. for print, which is obviosuly difficult to
> reformat; for electronic devices adjusting presentation is also often
> limited) that works best for most.
>
> There are many other context aspects: type of text, situation in which
> text is viewed, relevance of text (e.g. emergency sign versus
> pharmaceutical label versus novel), apparatus used for viewing (screen,
> printout, with or without magnifying glass,...),  lighting, quiet
> environment versus 'rough' environment, ...
>
> Also, make sure to understand that the Latin script is different from
> other scripts, whether CJK, Vietnames, Thai, Myanmar, ...  or whatever.
> There are probably more people by default using non-Latin scripts than
> people using Latin script... Rules may have to vary between scripts.
>
> Olaf
>
>
> On 21. Jun 2018, at 11:28, Gijs Veyfeyken <gijs@anysurfer.be> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Related: I've searched for an answer to the serif versus sans-serif font
> question in the past.
> There is no conclusive evidence from user research that I could find
> indicating one is better (easier to read) then the other.
> In conclusion, I pretty much agree with this article:
> https://axesslab.com/fonts-dont-matter/
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Gijs
>
> On 21 Jun 2018, at 11:12, Olaf Drümmer <olaflist@callassoftware.com>
> wrote:
>
> Some fonts are more legible than others. This has been addressed by
> various standards, for example in the field of ergonomics and also in the
> context of regulation for labels on food or pharmaceutical items.
>
> That much said - legibility as such is a usability aspect not an
> accessibility aspect. Accessibility rules though could build on top of
> usability aspects and require a heighten degree of usability.
>
> It is important to understand that legibility rules depends a lot on
> context: viewing distance, amount of text, purpose of the information
> conveyed, etc. A long text benefits from a different font than the four
> letters 'STOP' on a stop sign.
>
>
> Olaf
>
>
> On 21. Jun 2018, at 10:58, Gian Wild <gian@accessibilityoz.com> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> Does anyone have some research or evidence about the accessibility of
> different fonts? We have come across a very thin-lined font and we have
> been asked for proof that it is harder to read than normal font.
>
> Thanks
> Gian
>
> (Sorry for cross-posting)
>
> Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 

----- Digital Signature -----


*Mohsen Mahjoobnia, *

Inclusive Integration and Virtual Reality Entrepreneur,

MDes, Inclusive Design, OCAD University

Connect on *LinkedIn* <http://ca.linkedin.com/in/moisenm>
Explorers Club <http://www.explorersclub.ca/> Member MI 2016
[image: explorers club of Canada] <http://www.explorersclub.ca/pages/>(Image:
logo of explorers club Canada, Blue maple leaf in center of a red compass.)



Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

The information contained in and transmitted with this e-mail is privileged
and confidential; intended only for the recipient(s)  specified.
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2018 14:15:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:37:17 UTC