RE: For want of a better word

Overloaded terms are a problem.

"Proportional", in the context of text, is commonly used with respect to the size 
of individual characters, generally with reference to their width.

"Scale" refers to gross adjustments to size with respect to an agreed base. Thus 
"100%" would refer to the base size. There is no necessary implication that "100%" 
means legible, though this would be a natural assumption.

The use of "scale" to refer to the ability of a systems architecture to grow/shrink 
in size and still perform well, is sufficiently different in context from the use of 
"scale" to refer to text size. I do not think there would be any confusion.

So, I would recommend that you define a base size, or at least some concept of a 
base size, that refers to the optimal size for visual reading on a device. Declare 
this base to be 100%, and then use the term "scale" to refer to relative sizes 
expressed in percentage w.r.t. the base.

Resizing of text is, in my opinion, a shared responsibility. The selection of size 
may be an adaptation operation to ensure that the relative importance of text is 
reflected in the visual space allocated to it. Changes in size may occur to provide 
more room for other aspects of the presentation. I suggest that the device should 
also be able to scale the text, but the motivation for this capability is the 
requirement of the user to be able to see the text under varying ambient conditions 
(including visual impairment of the user). It is the combined influences of these 
variables that determines the ultimate text size, and I would further suggest that 
preferences of the end user should take precedence in situations where such 
preferences have been expressed. In the absence of such an expression, the origin 
server, intermediate adaptation and client device contribute to the final 
presentation.

Personally, I find the inability of a client device to scale text (or images) 
locally to be a serious deficiency.

Finally, if it were possible, I would devise a solution whereby my preferred visual 
range could be expressed, and then the active components (server, adaptation, 
client) would cooperate to scale text within this range as part of the presentation 
of content. But who would want to undergo an eye exam each time you start using a 
browser?

---Rotan

Thought: of course, if the device could communicate/record my regular local changes 
in text scaling, one could gather statistical information from which one could infer 
my visual range and thus adapt the content accordingly. There's nothing new about 
adaptive feedback systems...

-----Original Message-----
From: Kai Hendry [mailto:hendry@cs.helsinki.fi]
Sent: 08 June 2004 11:38
To: www-di@w3.org
Subject: For want of a better word



I have chosen the word "scale" to describe how content is proportionally
defined to be able to be device independent.

So if text is sized at 100% it should be very readable / legible default setting
on a desktop browser, as well as a XHTML micro browser on a mobile. Hence
it scales across devices...

Am I correct for using the word "scale"? It seems to be an overloaded
term. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=scale

It's often referred on the web to whether hardware or software can meet
large amounts of users.

Here I am asserting that it's the devices browsers responsibility to
resize the text accordingly, not the content authors:
http://natalian.org/archives/2004/06/07/can-text-scale/

W3 resources such as:
http://www.w3.org/TR/acdi/#diac-3.29
Certainly doesn't make it any clearer. :/



Kind regards,




p.s. Btw http://www.consensus-online.org/ is still not working ...

Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2004 07:02:08 UTC