Thread Subject: Re: FONT SIZE 1-G

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Sat, Mar 22 2008 9:35 AM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: None
• Previous message in thread: Rex Lint: "Re: FONT SIZE 1-G"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

Rex,



Can you run that by us again? If there are two products that both meet
the needs of the government procurement and one is not accessible to people
with low vision and the other is not - so the government buys the one that
people with low vision can use - - is your concern that no -one can use
the one that wasn't selected? Isn't that true of every purchase? If
one product (with same functionality) is always less expensive and wins --
how would the situation be any different?



Isn't the purpose of 508 to get the E&IT that is in the government to be
more accessible by having it be the version (that meet the use requirements)
that is the more accessible version?



If there is something important about a product that prevents it from
meeting some of the provisions (e.g. size, the fact that it is a color
matching task, etc) then it would be in the requirements.



But all 'tie goes to the runner' are supposed to tip to the accessible side.




So I'm not sure I follow. ALL of the provisions are provisions that
can't be met by some product or another.





All of that being said - - there is still work to be done on the FONT SIZE
provision. For one thing, the notes that were supposed to be helpful and
were suggested by various people from both consumer and industry side seem
to be causing much of the problem. Also, the fact that a cell phone keypad
can be operable (with learning and a large scale cue card) is not captured
and it should be.




Gregg
-- ------------------------------
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 Rex Lint
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 7:13 AM
To: 'TEITAC Committee'
Cc: 'Rebecca Schwartz'
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] FONT SIZE 1-G

Gregg said,





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.



Any time the product fails to meet the guideline and there are products that
DO meet the guideline, then the federal government will be obligated to buy
the second, NOT THE FIRST. This means not only will low-vision people be
unable to use them, NO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE WILL EITHER. So using the "well,
your product will just fail" doesn't mean people with disabilities won't
have access to them, no one in the target population of buyers will, unless
the procurement specifies the size as a imperative feature. If it's just a
"nice to have," then the gov't is prohibited from buying by 508.



-Rex-



Rex Lint, Consultant

26 Brek Drive

Merrimack, NH 03054

PH: 603-860-7651



From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 8:30 AM
To: 'TEITAC Committee'
Cc: 'Rebecca Schwartz'
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] FONT SIZE 1-G



Thanks Mary,



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
this.



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
an issue.





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
-- ------------------------------
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
Mary-AMB004
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 7:01 PM
To: TEITAC Committee
Cc: Rebecca Schwartz
Subject: [teitac-committee] FONT SIZE 1-G



TEITAC Members,



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 product B.
* 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
widespread option.

* 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 keys.

* 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
telephony.

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
address all.

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





No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1335 - Release Date: 3/19/2008
9:54 AM



No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1335 - Release Date: 3/19/2008
9:54 AM

• Next message in Thread: None
• Previous message in Thread: Rex Lint: "Re: FONT SIZE 1-G"