- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 12:00:59 -0400
- To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
- CC: Tantek Celik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Jon Gunderson wrote: > > Responses in JRG: > > >How many is sufficient? > > JRG: We don't have a requirement for how many increments now, so that would > not change with this proposal. > > >In this regard, colors are harder than fonts. > >I would be more comfortable saying that 10 font sizes are sufficient > >than I would saying that 16 colors are sufficient. > > > >I am uncomfortable drawing an arbitrary distinction here (e.g., > >the larger half of available sizes for a particular font family). > >However, I think this is worth discussing (but not for very long!). > > JRG: I am not saying the larger half. No, I said that. > All it is saying that the range of > fonts must include the largest font available for that family, which is > part of the current requirement. > The number of increments to the largest > font would be the same as the current requirement, basically what the OS > environment supports in terms of increments. The only difference from the > current proposal is that the UA developer gets to choose the smallest font > size they want to support. So, a UA could conform by only supporting the largest font (which I don't think that they would do in practice). I think that supporting only one large font would lead to poor usability. Some variation is required so that users can balance size requirements with the desire to optimize how much data the user can view. I am uncomfortable saying that one big font meets the accessibility (and usability) requirements of users with low vision. - Ian -- Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Cell: +1 917 450-8783
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2001 12:01:02 UTC