Re: Font accessibility

Hi Again,
I would like to reinforce Jon's observation. Legibility is an accessibility
issue because it is completely defined by perception, one of  POUR.

I really think choice is the key issue. Karen likes serif because of
conflict pairs that occur more frequently with sans-serif fonts. I like
sans-serif with thinner letters because it is clean and I can detect the
differences in letters better. Jon likes a thick sans-serif font. If you
have not looked at the Low Vision Requirements
<https://www.w3.org/TR/low-vision-needs/> doc from the Low Vision Task
force you might find it interesting.

When we formed the low vision task force we invited lots of accessibility
experts with low vision. Once in a meeting we each described our
preferences for accommodations.  Of the eight members with low vision no
two had the same preferences.

Here are some good practices:

   - Since fonts people need can vary in width by a factor of 1.2 and
   letter-spacing can be increased by an additional 0.12em, make sure to
   enable change when the length of text changes. Text boxes and hard wired
   positioned fields are a problem with this.
   - When you use icon fonts use the ARIA parameter "role='img'".
   - If any other unusual use of font family where the exact font family is
   critical to the meaning, again use "role='img'". Example: Mathematical
   alphabets fall in this category. The capital "N" used to express the
   natural numbers comes from a special alphabet. The "N" I used would not be
   appropriate if I didn't define "N stands for the natural numbers".  The
   font family should never be changed in these cases. Each letter is an icon
   for a concept. Setting "role='img'" will say to the assistive technology
   that this font family must be seen exactly as it is, because the font
   family conveys meaning.

People like me are working on browser extensions to enable people to change
font family to suit their individual needs will require information like
that.

That's probably TMI, Sorry,

Wayne

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 5:32 AM Karlen Communications <
info@karlencommunications.com> wrote:

> I can chime in – I have difficulty reading sans-serif fonts because I
> can’t distinguish letter combinations like dl – to me it appears as a
> single letter if the ligatures are not present. I also find thin fonts,
> even if serif, difficult to read. Visually, they seem to blend into the
> background too much. It is kind of like trying to see a twig in the grass
> versus a branch.
>
>
>
> Cheers, Karen
>
>
>
> *From:* Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@levelaccess.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 21, 2018 11:09 PM
> *To:* Gian Wild <gian@accessibilityoz.com>; w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> *Subject:* RE: Font accessibility
>
>
>
> I can’t provide you proof but I can speak from personal experience that
> thin line fonts are much harder for me to read.  Overly bold fonts are a
> problem as well because the shape of the letter then is harder to
> distinguish.
>
>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
> *From:* Gian Wild <gian@accessibilityoz.com>
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 21, 2018 4:59 AM
> *To:* w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> *Subject:* Font accessibility
>
>
>
> 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>
>