Thread Subject: Re: TEXT SIZE 1-G
This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.
From: Diane Golden
Date: Fri, Mar 21 2008 10:10 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: TEXT SIZE 1-G"
- Previous message in thread: None
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
I believe the notes, especially the ones with specific text sizes were added
because of concern about the 3.5 times concept the core standard uses as a
proxy for a specific text size. Placing a person with "normal" vision
farther away from a product to judge the ability of a person with vision
loss to see text on that product was used to require a larger text size
without specifying what that larger text size was . . . It uses a 20/20
distance vision measure as "normal" which translates into letter recognition
at specific distances (none of which are near point).
However, most E&IT is used with near vision, not distance. I'm not at all
sure a subjective evaluation "legibility" of text by a person with "normal"
distance vision 3.5 times further away from a product than it is typically
used has any relationship to the ability of a person with low vision to use
that product at a normal viewing distance. At 3.5 times, it is likely the
task is changed from near to distance vision and does not reflect the myriad
if issues that influence text legibility in a near vision task (as Mary's
message noted.) Some individuals with low vision have field restrictions
and larger text size creates access barriers. Others have focus or tracking
issues and optimum text size can be large or standard with contrast and
other factors more critical.
Overall, I'm very uncomfortable with a technical standard that is based on
having "normal" people "simulate" a disability. If we cannot actually
determine what text size should be required in a technical standard (which
seems likely) -- perhaps this is an issue that should be addressed through
FPC rather than a technical standard.
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 7:30 AM
To: 'TEITAC Committee'
Cc: 'Rebecca Schwartz'
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] FONT SIZE 1-G
Many of the comments below are the result of a misunderstanding of the
provision I believe.
The pixel and point sizes are in informative notes and do not need to be
followed. They are reference points and not part of the provision. Hence
the fact that they do not apply to all devices is expected.
Per the conversation at the last TEITAC, keyboards with fonts less than 10
point can pass. They just have to be legible from 3.5 x distance by someone
with 20/20 vision - which all of they keyboards I tried pass (except one
with purple ink on black keys).
Again 10 point font is not required on phones. Though many phones have 10
point fonts on them. The new wording allows it to be what you set the phone
to. It does not have to be the factory default.
I think we need an "understanding' document like we have for WCAG. There is
much misunderstanding around this one I think.
The one proposed solution was to delete the notes. This is always possible.
They are informative not normative. If they are confusing we should address
Perhaps we need to write this better. For example TIA wrote:
- TIA views the combination of font size, font style, including
thinkness, and color contrast on the keyboard lettering as all important
variables to achieve legibility for a particular user.
This is exactly correct - and is why the 3.5 criteria was included as an
option to the text size.
The 4.5 inch diagonal screen - I'm not sure of the origin of that one.
Could someone post where that came from?
Re - violation of privacy. The font sizes we are talking about are smaller
than what is on most cell phones today for dialing. I don't think this is
I think we need to look at the notes again more carefully. They clearly are
not worded well as they are being interpreted as being criteria rather than
explanatory notes about what can be done. Or can be used.
Of course we need to remember that there will be some products that can't
meet this guideline (even after we clear up all confusion about things that
can). A wrist watch phone is unlikely to be able to have large enough text
(or buttons ) for people with low vision to use. That is ok. It will
simply not pass this provision (just like color matching software will never
pass the "does not rely on color" provision.) It simply says that this
device won't work for people with low vision. If there is a need for very
small products then people with low vision won't be able to use them.
But we need to do a lot better job of writing this up so that there are not
so many false failures read into the text.
Mary - this is VERY helpful.
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
If Attachment is a mail.dat try http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Brooner
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 7:01 PM
To: TEITAC Committee
Cc: Rebecca Schwartz
Subject: [teitac-committee] FONT SIZE 1-G
I have received substantial input from TIA members on the proposed
provsion 1-G The provision, as written, represents a significant shift in
the requirements when applied to all devices with a physical keyboard since
the text size and style are not user adjustable or selectable.
Below are some of the responses I received.
Pixel resolution differs between mobile phone vendors, and even between
models manufacturered by the same vendor. As such, 10 point on product A is
not necessarily going to be displayed the same as it would be displayed on
I just checked my PC keyboard and my telephone buttons, and both are less
than 10 points for the text.
If this applies to the letters of the alphabet on the telephone numeric
keypad--and the phone is mounted in a public place--it would have to be a
"big button" telephone to have 14 point text for the alphabet letters!
. Alpha designators (ABC, etc.), as well as many of the function labels
would not meet the proposed size requirements
. Having 10 point font by default is not possible on all mobile phones.
It is possible on some devices, on some platforms, but it is not a
. This requirement generally could not be met by the growing number of
mobile devices that have QWERTY keyboards, especially since the number pad
for phone dialing and the alpha characters are required to share the same
. Larger text size on the buttons (and on graphics surrounding the
buttons) would force a much larger product, especially cordless handsets.
One proposed alternative is to rely upon other provisions - both the FPC for
limited vision and Subpart D 2C - Accessible configuration which puts the
burden on the agency to configure the product to enable operation for
persons with low vision.
Another proposed alternative is to delete Notes 5 and 6. Note 5 narrows the
focus of legibility to font height according to one specific means of
defining font size. TIA views the combination of font size, font style,
including thinkness, and color contrast on the keyboard lettering as all
important variables to achieve legibility for a particular user. In this
respect, the essence of the requirement is captured in the FPC requirement
for limited vision.
Note 6 sets up a requirement that screen size be larger than 4.5 inches
measured diagonally. This greatly limits design of small mobile devices
which may display video but also are used for other purposes, including
Given the breadth of product concerns that have been voiced,even adding a
limitation that 1-G not apply to mobile devices would not be something that
TIA could agree with. While this would address some concerns, it would not
I would also note that the larger the keypad and device and the larger the
characters are on a screen in a public place, the greater the opportunity
for violations of privacy.
Mary Brooner, TIA representative to the TEITAC
- Next message in Thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: TEXT SIZE 1-G"
- Previous message in Thread: None