- From: Denis Anson <danson@miseri.edu>
- Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 08:35:41 -0400
- To: "'Richard Schwerdtfeger'" <schwer@us.ibm.com>, "'Ian Jacobs'" <ij@w3.org>
- Cc: <clilley@w3.org>, <duerst@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>, <w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org>
Rich, The problem here is that this restriction is based on the low-resolution of the television, which is a function of interlacing the drawing. A real issue there is that text resolution may differ in different platforms. There are two ways to deal with things that are below the resolution of a platform: render anyway, knowing that the user won't be able to read the text (possibly by "greeking"), or to change the formatting of text so that it meets the resolution of a specific platform. To provide access to all content, the second approach is preferable, but can we say that you have to know what the "lower limit" will be? Obviously, it would make no sense to say that browsers must provide all fonts down to 18 point, or display all text at a minimum of 18 points. This would not meet the needs of the computer based, or PDA based browser. But saying that you have to render down to 6 point font won't make sense to a WebTV appliance. On the other hand, a browser manufacturer probably knows the platform that is being targeted. IE for Windows won't be running on a WebTV platform, and AvantGo for Palm won't be running on a PC. It might be the better part of valor to deal with the issue by saying that you must render text in a minimum size that is readable based on the resolution of the target platform for the browser. This will be different for different types of browser. The upper limit of text size is also a function of the display resolution of a browser, since a display size that cannot show an entire letter at once would not be useful. Denis Anson, MS, OTR/L Assistant Professor College Misericordia 301 Lake St. Dallas, PA 18612 -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Richard Schwerdtfeger Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 4:43 PM To: Ian Jacobs Cc: clilley@w3.org; duerst@w3.org; w3c-wai-ua@w3.org; w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org Subject: Re: [Issue 512] Seeking lower bound on text size requirement Ian, Here is an interesting comment on digital TV text size (http://www.ostdev.net/pages/applications/itv.html?JServSessionIdservlet s=am6dglwo91): Here they talk about text no larger than 18 points. ... might want to say something about this in the techniques. Rich Rich Schwerdtfeger Senior Technical Staff Member IBM Accessibility Center Research Division EMail/web: schwer@us.ibm.com "Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.", Frost Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org> To: clilley@w3.org, duerst@w3.org Sent by: cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org w3c-wai-ua-requ Subject: [Issue 512] Seeking lower bound on text size requirement est@w3.org 05/18/2001 10:21 AM Chris, Martin, The UAWG would like your input on a question of visual text rendering and internationalization. Checkpoint 4.1 of the 9 April 2001 draft [1] starts: "4.1 Allow global configuration and control over the reference size of rendered text ..." This is a Priority 1 checkpoint. One reviewer pointed out that it is not really a P1 requirement to allow the user to choose very small text sizes. Indeed, the intention of this checkpoint is primarily to allow users with low vision to increase text size. [I would note here that small text is useful to some users (e.g., so that users with screen readers can scroll less), but that's not a P1 requirement.] At our teleconference yesterday we asked ourselves whether we could come up with some lower bound on the requirement. Thus, user agents would not be required to provide access to very small text size as part of meeting this checkpoint (or, for example, they might allow configuration, but not actually be required to render very small text). Our questions are thus: - How might we express a lower bound in text size? What units would we use? What parameter to measure size (x-height? aspect ratio?)? - What internationalization issues enter into this discussion? Does a lower bound requirement make sense across different scripts? Thank you for your help on this topic, - Ian Note to the Working Group: For checkpoints 4.1 and 4.2, we should change "rendered text" to "visually rendered text" to be more precise. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-UAAG10-20010409/ [2] http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc3.html#512 -- Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Tel: +1 831 457-2842 Cell: +1 917 450-8783
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2001 08:35:12 UTC