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

Re: Font accessibility

From: Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 16:51:29 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJeQ8SBTrOv+t_EF1+8veqd0ddthZmtpc9d5-ML9xXLmkj_Oeg@mail.gmail.com>
To: chaals@yandex.ru
Cc: W3C WAI ig <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
The temporal fluctuation of need something that almost everyone with low
vision experiences. This happens through the day, and over years. Over the
years I have used less and less saturation with my colors. Font size is
another. In the morning I only need 300% as the day goes on font size goes
up. Things like letter-spacing depend on the available font families. I
also used to go down to 250%, but no more. I have a few font families I
like: PT Sans, Open Sans, Tahoma. Since each applications gives you a very
limited choice I pick the closest to one of these three. Comic sans is
actually a very good font for distinguishing letters. Each time I use an
application I pick the closest thing to what really works for me.

If you take another person with visual acuity the same as me who also has
retina scotoma and weirdly you'll find a host of other choices.

Best Wayne

On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 4:07 PM Chaals Nevile <chaals@yandex.ru> wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 05:01:38 +0200, Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
> > Phill Jenkins composed on 2018-06-25 21:40 (UTC-0500):
> >
> >> Yes Felix, I was referring to "one size" metaphorically, not literally
> >> "font size" in pixels or EM's, but that "one font style" that would not
> >> fits everyone needs as discussed throughout the thread.
> >
> >> And, your example "zoom's" nicely in Chrome and Firefox to 200% so I can
> >> view the page in the "size" that fits my need's best too.
> >
> > If you need to zoom, then something's wrong. :-p
> True. But *what* is wrong turns out to be important.
> > The foundational presumption is that personal computing device users
> > personalize their devices,
> > so that everything personalized that is not usurped by something else
> > displays and works optimally.
> The conclusion is correct, but we have learned that in practice the
> foundational assumption is not.
> Of the many reasons, a couple of very strong ones:
> 1. There are a lot of computing devices that are not personal but which
> people are required to use. Content that might end up on one must provide
> its own solution. People get used to that being the answer so expect it
> to
> be that way.
> 2. People's visual needs change very dynamically. Time of day, ambient
> light conditions (which can be related), fatigue levels, and the nature
> of
> the task they are doing all impact how people trade off variations
> between
> more screen space, more contrast, more content, and having to mess around
> with their device instead of performing the task at hand.
> Peronalisation of most devices is hard enough that in particular having
> to
> mess with it to meet changing needs is something people avoid.
> (As a random example I am typing this with a very white screen, because I
> am in the dark and cannot see things cmpletely external to the computer
> otherwise, and the most comfortable trade off wight now is to have my
> screen "too bright". Other times I would avoid that, e.g. having it too
> dark to preserve battery. Because reality is messy).
> cheers
> --
> Chaals: Charles (McCathie) Nevile    find more at https://yandex.com
> Using Opera's long-abandoned mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> Is there really still nothing better?
Received on Thursday, 28 June 2018 23:52:29 UTC

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