Re: Responses to Tantek Çelik issues raisedduring third last call of UAAG 1.0

Tantek,
  Apparently the information will be part of the next version of the 
techniques document.

Ian,
I recommend that we use the 9 pixel limit for western characters and use 
the reference supplied by Tantek in the next version of the techniques 
document.

Jon


At 03:47 PM 7/9/2001 -0400, Ian B. Jacobs wrote:
>Jon Gunderson wrote:
> >
> > Tantek,
> > The checkpoint currently does not set a box size.  Your argument for 9
> > pixels seems satisfactory to me.  I know we considered having this type of
> > information in the note.  I am not sure why we did not include it.  Ian do
> > remember why we didn't include this information in the note?
>
>It's in the techniques document only.
>
>  _ Ian
>
> > At 12:04 PM 7/9/2001 -0700, Tantek Celik wrote:
> > >From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
> > >Subject: Re: Responses to Tantek Çelik issues raisedduring third last call
> > >of UAAG 1.0
> > >Date: Mon, Jul 9, 2001, 7:44 AM
> > >
> > > > But there is no need to allow the user in this case [8x8 pixels] to
> > > decrease
> > > > the font size.
> > > >
> > > > Since there is no accessibility requirement for smaller sizes, no 
> priority
> > > > is associated with adding this capability to a browser.
> > >
> > >Good.  I will take this to mean that it is ok for the font size preference
> > >in a UA to have a lower limit of 8 pixels.
> > >
> > >As an example, currently in IE5/Mac we have both the ability to set the
> > >default medium font size (in pixels) and the resolution of the display
> > >(since the Macintosh provides no capability in the operating system for
> > >doing so).  IE5/Mac also provides the ability to instantly "zoom" the size
> > >of all text on any page through its easily accessible "Text Zoom" menu.
> > >
> > >Our font size preference is a menu of typical/popular options
> > >(12,14,16,18,24) and an "Other..." option which allows the user to enter
> > >their preferred default medium font size.  If the user enters a size less
> > >than 9, the value is set to 9.  This was based upon input from Todd 
> Fahrner,
> > >a screen font/typography expert who noted that 9 pixels is really the
> > >practical minimum for readable text (8 pixels being too small).
> > >
> > > >From my understanding of this discussion, IE5/Mac would NOT be 
> considered to
> > >be compliant with this checkpoint (despite having perhaps the most
> > >comprehensive user control over font size and screen resolution of 
> available
> > >visual web browsers as noted in numerous reviews).
> > >
> > >Also from my understanding of this discussion, if we changed this lower
> > >bound to 8, then we would be compliant with this checkpoint.
> > >
> > >I'd like to ask the (perhaps rhetorical) question, who would be helped by
> > >this change?
> > >
> > >Either way, I'd like to suggest that a parenthetical comment be added 
> to the
> > >checkpoint description summarizing what you said about western characters
> > >and 8 pixels (or my suggestion: 9 pixels) being the effective limit of
> > >readability.
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >
> > >Tantek
> > >
> > >----------
> > > >From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
> > > >To: "Tantek Celik" <tantek@CS.Stanford.EDU>, "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
> > > >Cc: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
> > > >Subject: Re: Responses to Tantek Çelik issues raisedduring third  last
> > > call of
> > >UAAG 1.0
> > > >Date: Mon, Jul 9, 2001, 7:44 AM
> > > >
> > >
> > > > It was difficult for the working group to come up with a required 
> minimum
> > > > size for many reasons, including internationalization issues.  It 
> can be
> > > > assumed for western characters that are visually rendered in a box less
> > > > than 8x8 pixels it would be difficult or impossible for most people to
> > > > read.  If an author specified a font size that resulted in a graphical
> > > > rendering in a box less that 8x8 pixels box accessibility 
> requirement would
> > > > be to increase the text size (probably needed for everyone) to one 
> that is
> > > > readable.  But there is no need to allow the user in this case to 
> decrease
> > > > the font size.
> > > >
> > > > Since there is no accessibility requirement for smaller sizes, no 
> priority
> > > > is associated with adding this capability to a browser.
> > > >
> > > > Jon
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > At 02:13 AM 7/9/2001 -0700, Tantek Celik wrote:
> > > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> > Issue 512: Checkpoint 4.1: Range of text sizes
> > > >> > http://server.rehab.uiuc.edu/ua-issues/issues-linear-lc3.html#512
> > > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Issue summary: Is it a P1 requirement to allow configuration of very
> > > >> > small text sizes?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Resolution:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >  - The UAWG agrees that the intent of this checkpoint is to 
> allow the
> > > >> >  user to choose large, not small, text sizes.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >  - However, after consultation with other Working Groups, the UAWG
> > > >> >  concluded that, in light of internationalization issues (and 
> others),
> > > >> >  the WG could not come up with a lower bound on the requirement
> > > >> >  with any confidence.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >  - Therefore, the WG resolved to leave the checkpoint as is with a
> > > >> >    note in the Techniques document:
> > > >> >
> > > >> >    <BLOCKQUOTE>
> > > >> >     The primary intention of this checkpoint is to allow users with
> > > >> >     low vision to increase the size of text. Full configurability
> > > >> >     includes the choice of (very) small text sizes that may be
> > > >> >     available, though this is not considered by the User Agent
> > > >> >     Accessibility Guidelines Working Group to be part of the 
> priority
> > > >> >     1 requirement.  This checkpoint does not include a "lower bound"
> > > >> >     (above which text sizes would be required) because of how users'
> > > >> >     needs may vary across writing systems and hardware.
> > > >> >    </BLOCKQUOTE>
> > > >>
> > > >>I would like to point out that the reason I raised this issue is 
> that some
> > > >>very small text sizes are illegible (e.g. anything less than 9px
> > > >>unsmoothed), and therefore, it may be preferable for a UA to set a 
> "lower
> > > >>bound" for the purposes of avoiding "unusable" configurations.
> > > >>
> > > >>Is it a P2 (or P3) requirement to permit users to configure the size of
> > > text
> > > >>to such illegible sizes?
> > > >>
> > > >>Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
> > > > Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
> > > > Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
> > > > MC-574
> > > > College of Applied Life Studies
> > > > University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
> > > > 1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL  61820
> > > >
> > > > Voice: (217) 244-5870
> > > > Fax: (217) 333-0248
> > > >
> > > > E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu
> > > >
> > > > WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
> > > > WWW: http://www.w3.org/wai/ua
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
> > Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
> > Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
> > MC-574
> > College of Applied Life Studies
> > University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
> > 1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL  61820
> >
> > Voice: (217) 244-5870
> > Fax: (217) 333-0248
> >
> > E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu
> >
> > WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
> > WWW: http://www.w3.org/wai/ua
>
>--
>Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
>Cell:                    +1 917 450-8783

Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
MC-574
College of Applied Life Studies
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL  61820

Voice: (217) 244-5870
Fax: (217) 333-0248

E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu

WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
WWW: http://www.w3.org/wai/ua

Received on Monday, 9 July 2001 16:07:15 UTC