- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 12:19:16 -0400
- To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
- CC: Tantek Celik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Jon Gunderson wrote: > > Response in JRG: > > Ian said: > >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. > > JRG: I guess it comes down to whether the working group trusts developers > to pick an usable lower limit or the user agent guidelines requiring a > lower limit in many cases that is clearly not usable by anyone (e.g. 1 > point). I really don't think any user agent developer who wants people to > use their technology would hardwire the largest size font size for a > particular font family. I agree that that is unlikely. I am uncomfortable with a scenario where the user has available 9, 10, and 80 points only as I think that for many users, 80 points will not result in a usable environment, and 36 points would be a much better solution. In fact, 80 points would make browsing nearly unusable for many people. I think more granularity is required, and in the past we have not been able to establish with certainty any granularity other than "everything". Is there a way to get a) Biggest font. b) A few other big fonts. That's why I mentioned in passing: the top half of the size range. _ Ian -- Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Cell: +1 917 450-8783
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2001 12:19:20 UTC