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

Re: Font accessibility

From: Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 20:46:02 -0400
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <b88f5e20-08e4-ae77-1542-6a6690d3dc43@earthlink.net>
Phill Jenkins composed on 2018-06-25 18:03 (UTC-0500):

> we cannot advocate for or allow a trend of a one size font fits all.  

IMO this is qualifiedly false, depending on the definition of "size".

The whole problem of font sizes dates back to the incorporation of the CSS1 spec
in web browsers, specifically, the px unit, and its perfect disregard of the
UA's default text size.

If the rem unit and its kin were the only permissible units for sizing anything
other than bitmap images, at least 90% of font size problems would instantly
disappear (as would display density issues, and computer software as impediment
to technological display advancements).

With the rem unit, the user gets to pick the ideal physical size of the sizing
unit, whilst the perspectives, which are what the designer is really interested
in, are under the control of the designer - WIN-WIN!

If you don't believe me, take a look inside these two very simple examples I
made many moons ago and have not since touched:

http://fm.no-ip.com/Auth/Sites/dlviolin.html
http://fm.no-ip.com/Auth/Sites/Ksc/

All the design-side solutions and workarounds I've seen for text size problems,
including in particular "responsive design", to me look like _literally_ trying
to push rope.
-- 
"Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Whatever else you
get, get wisdom." Proverbs 4:7 (New Living Translation)

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/
Received on Tuesday, 26 June 2018 00:46:31 UTC

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