W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > July to September 2001

Re: [PROPOSAL] Checkpoint 4.1Configure text size.

From: Tantek Celik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 10:30:19 -0700
To: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>, Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Message-ID: <1217249931-254990205@psdbay.com>
From: "Ian B. Jacobs" <ij@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Checkpoint 4.1Configure text size.
Date: Wed, Jul 11, 2001, 9:19 AM

> 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.

Just a minor point - when talking about font sizes on the screen, please use
the units relevant to the screen which are pixels, not points.

I agree with your concerns and think they are valid.

> 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.

How about:

2. Allow the user to choose from the range of font sizes from the smallest
font size presented by the font size selection mechanism provided by the
user interface of the operating system environment (lacking such a
mechanism, use the smallest font size supported by the operating system
environment) up through and including the largest font size supported by the
operating system environment.

This gives you (a) Biggest font, and (b) _all_ the font sizes from the
minimum available in the user interface of the operating system (e.g. 9
pixels on the Mac as documented in my previous email - I expect similar
minimums on other operating systems) up through the largest font size (255
pixels on the Mac).

This way, no mention of a particular numeric minimum size is made by the
techniques or guidelines, and the user agent is only expected to provide as
small a size as the operating environment UI provides, which is presumably
the smallest usable size for that operating environment, taking hardware and
languages into account (OS's tend to take care of those kinds of things in
general).  And of course, a full range (rather than only 9, 10, 80) is also

Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2001 13:31:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:38:31 UTC