E-mail List Archives
Thread: Scaleable fonts for Priority 2 WAI guidelines
Number of posts in this thread: 9 (In chronological order)
From: Paul Collins
Date: Wed, May 14 2008 3:40AM
Subject: Scaleable fonts for Priority 2 WAI guidelines
No previous message | Next message →
Hi all,
I am just about to embark on a new page build that needs to meet
Priority 2. It is quite design heavy and there are a few fonts that
will need to be replaced. I was just wondering though, to meet
priority 2, do all fonts need to be scaleable? There doesn't seem to
be anything clear on this. Obviously, if I use image replacement, the
text will be scaleable when images and/or CSS is turned off.
The other option is to use sIFR, but it's a bit more work and not so reliable.
Just wondering if it would be a requirement that all text needs to be
scaleable for WAI priority 2?
Thanks,
Paul
From: Rahul Gonsalves
Date: Wed, May 14 2008 4:10AM
Subject: Re: Scaleable fonts for Priority 2 WAI guidelines
← Previous message | Next message →
Note: I am assuming that you mean WCAG 2.0 [1].
On 14-May-08, at 3:02 PM, Paul Collins wrote:
> I am just about to embark on a new page build that needs to meet
> Priority 2. It is quite design heavy and there are a few fonts that
> will need to be replaced. I was just wondering though, to meet
> priority 2, do all fonts need to be scaleable?
Guideline 1.4.4, states clearly that "text _(but not images of text)_
can be resized [...]"
Guideline 1.4.5 states that using images of text (if using a
background image (not SIFR)) is allowed - "The image of text can be
visually customized to the user's requirements."
Going back to Guideline 1.1, non-text content should have a text
equivalent. I'd say that you are in the clear if you have a clear text
alternative for the image of the text. I would suggest using a method
which involves _images_ of the text (I believe that there are server-
side measures to generate such images programmatically) and size them
in ems. That way, they are accessible to screen-reader users (an
appropriate ALT tag will be necessary), as well as people who would
prefer to increase the text size.
> Just wondering if it would be a requirement that all text needs to
> be scaleable for WAI priority 2?
Edit: I just realise that you probably are referring to WCAG 1.0. I am
less familiar with the 1.0 guidelines, but a cursory scan doesn't seem
to invalidate what I've already typed out ;-); except, perhaps this:
3.1 When an appropriate markup language exists, use markup rather than
images to convey information.
Of course, the use of 'rather' leaves a fair amount of leeway, IMO.
Hope this helps,
Best,
- Rahul.
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#perceivable
Perhaps helpful reading:
1. http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#images-of-textdef
2. http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/20080430/Overview.php#qr-visual-audio-contrast-scale
3. http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20080430/visual-audio-contrast-scale.html
4. http://wcagsamurai.org/errata/errata.html#GL1.1-corr
From: Paul Collins
Date: Wed, May 14 2008 8:20AM
Subject: Re: Scaleable fonts for Priority 2 WAI guidelines
← Previous message | Next message →
Thanks Rahul, that is a big help. I was refering to WCAG 1.0, I just
realised WCAG 2.0 has been officially released! You could still use
sIFR for 1.4.5 thought, right? Just that you have the option to use
images as well.
Better start learning the new rules then...
Thanks again for your help.
Paul
2008/5/14 Rahul Gonsalves < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >:
> Note: I am assuming that you mean WCAG 2.0 [1].
>
>
> On 14-May-08, at 3:02 PM, Paul Collins wrote:
>
> > I am just about to embark on a new page build that needs to meet
> > Priority 2. It is quite design heavy and there are a few fonts that
> > will need to be replaced. I was just wondering though, to meet
> > priority 2, do all fonts need to be scaleable?
>
> Guideline 1.4.4, states clearly that "text _(but not images of text)_
> can be resized [...]"
>
> Guideline 1.4.5 states that using images of text (if using a
> background image (not SIFR)) is allowed - "The image of text can be
> visually customized to the user's requirements."
>
> Going back to Guideline 1.1, non-text content should have a text
> equivalent. I'd say that you are in the clear if you have a clear text
> alternative for the image of the text. I would suggest using a method
> which involves _images_ of the text (I believe that there are server-
> side measures to generate such images programmatically) and size them
> in ems. That way, they are accessible to screen-reader users (an
> appropriate ALT tag will be necessary), as well as people who would
> prefer to increase the text size.
>
>
> > Just wondering if it would be a requirement that all text needs to
> > be scaleable for WAI priority 2?
>
> Edit: I just realise that you probably are referring to WCAG 1.0. I am
> less familiar with the 1.0 guidelines, but a cursory scan doesn't seem
> to invalidate what I've already typed out ;-); except, perhaps this:
>
> 3.1 When an appropriate markup language exists, use markup rather than
> images to convey information.
>
> Of course, the use of 'rather' leaves a fair amount of leeway, IMO.
>
> Hope this helps,
> Best,
> - Rahul.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#perceivable
>
> Perhaps helpful reading:
>
> 1. http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#images-of-textdef
> 2. http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG20/quickref/20080430/Overview.php#qr-visual-audio-contrast-scale
> 3. http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/WD-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20080430/visual-audio-contrast-scale.html
> 4. http://wcagsamurai.org/errata/errata.html#GL1.1-corr
>
From: Steve Green
Date: Wed, May 14 2008 8:50AM
Subject: Re: Scaleable fonts for Priority 2 WAI guidelines
← Previous message | Next message →
WCAG 2.0 has not been officially released. It is merely a Candidate
Recommendation, and won't become a Proposed Recommendation till 31 August
2008. There will be a further delay before it reaches the final stage and
becaomes a W3C Recommendation.
In all probability it won't change much between now and then but it reached
Candidate Recommendation status before about two years ago, after which it
was substantially rewritten.
By all means learn about WCAG 2.0 but it's premature to be talking about
implementing it. From our perspective as accessibility testers it is
possible (or even likely) that modifications will be needed to the tools
that we rely on for efficient working (I'm talking about things like the
Accessibility Toolbar, not online services like Cynthia), and it's anyone's
guess when those modifications will be implemented.
Also there's absolutely no reason to adopt WCAG 2.0 in the short term - it's
not a better, just different. The people we are designing for haven't
changed at all, and their needs are more important than a badge.
Steve
From: Steve Green
Date: Wed, May 14 2008 9:00AM
Subject: Re: Scaleable fonts for Priority 2 WAI guidelines
← Previous message | Next message →
I don't think it's as clear-cut as you suggest. In my opinion sIFR is
equivalent to an image for most purposes insofar as it is not possible to
change the colour or font family. Even changing the size requires a page
reload, which users will not understand.
Steve
From: Rahul Gonsalves
Date: Wed, May 14 2008 9:10AM
Subject: Re: Scaleable fonts for Priority 2 WAI guidelines
← Previous message | Next message →
Apologies Paul, I included a terribly constructed sentence.
On 14-May-08, at 7:49 PM, Paul Collins wrote:
> 2008/5/14 Rahul Gonsalves < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >:
>> Guideline 1.4.5 states that using images of text (if using a
>> background image (not SIFR)) is allowed - "The image of text can be
>> visually customized to the user's requirements."
> You could still use sIFR for 1.4.5 thought, right? Just that you
> have the option to use images as well.
_I_ take Guideline 1.4.5 to mean that text is preferred to images
_however_, if you want to customise the way things look, then you are
free to do so. One can definitely use sIFR; my badly phrased sentence
was meant to mean that sIFR is not an _image_, and therefore,
Guideline 1.1.1 (non-text content) does not apply here.
Best,
- Rahul.
From: Paul Collins
Date: Wed, May 14 2008 10:40AM
Subject: Re: Scaleable fonts for Priority 2 WAI guidelines
← Previous message | Next message →
> _I_ take Guideline 1.4.5 to mean that text is preferred to images _however_,
> if you want to customise the way things look, then you are free to do so.
> One can definitely use sIFR; my badly phrased sentence was meant to mean
> that sIFR is not an _image_, and therefore, Guideline 1.1.1 (non-text
> content) does not apply here.
Thanks Rahul, no probs about the sentence, appreciate your help and
nice to know sIFR is OK!
> WCAG 2.0 has not been officially released. It is merely a Candidate
> Recommendation, and won't become a Proposed Recommendation till 31 August
> 2008. There will be a further delay before it reaches the final stage and
> becaomes a W3C Recommendation.
Thanks Steve, that's good to know I can stick with version 1 for the
moment. You're right that as long as we are trying to do the right
thing the requirements won't change.
> I don't think it's as clear-cut as you suggest. In my opinion sIFR is
> equivalent to an image for most purposes insofar as it is not possible to
> change the colour or font family. Even changing the size requires a page
> reload, which users will not understand.
This is very valid, but at least you can resize sIFR, unlike graphic
image replacement.
Thanks for all your replies.
Paul
2008/5/14 Steve Green < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >:
> I don't think it's as clear-cut as you suggest. In my opinion sIFR is
> equivalent to an image for most purposes insofar as it is not possible to
> change the colour or font family. Even changing the size requires a page
> reload, which users will not understand.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
From: Keith Parks
Date: Wed, May 14 2008 11:30AM
Subject: Re: Scaleable fonts for Priority 2 WAI guidelines
← Previous message | Next message →
On May 14, 2008, at 9:36 AM, Paul Collins wrote:
>> This is very valid, but at least you can resize sIFR, unlike graphic
> image replacement.
Actually, you *can* make graphic-as-type images resizable.
Create your graphic oversize, say... 300% of the "normal" display
size. And then through CSS spec the size of the image to be in EMs.
It will then resize along with other type if the user bumps the type
size up or down.
Of course, some browsers render the resized type better than others.
But the technique works.
******************************
Keith Parks
Graphic Designer/Web Designer
Student Affairs Communications Services
San Diego State University
San Diego, CA 92182-7444
(619) 594-1046
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://www.sa.sdsu.edu/communications
http://kparks.deviantart.com/gallery
----------------------------------------------------------
World Peace through Cascading Style Sheets.
From: Krystian - Sunlust
Date: Wed, May 14 2008 1:10PM
Subject: Re: Scaleable fonts for Priority 2 WAI guidelines
← Previous message | No next message
Some precious rant about WCAG 2:
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/tohellwithwcag2/
Regards,
--
Krystian - Sunlust
Freelance on the side: Sunlust Designs - http://sunlust.net
Full time Website Designer at SME System Solutions Ltd