Thread Subject: Re: TEXT SIZE 1-G

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Sun, Mar 23 2008 11:35 AM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: Mike Paciello: "Re: TEXT SIZE 1-G"
• Previous message in thread: Diane Golden: "Re: TEXT SIZE 1-G"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

Hi Diane

I understand your discomfort. We really looked at this with vision experts
and the problem with specifying font size is that you also end up having to
specify stroke width and font type etc. Depending on font face (type and
stem etc) you have larger or smaller letters with the same visibility. And
that would be too restrictive.

The 3.5 distance gives a good measure for readability. It doesn't have to
do with near or distant vision. 20/20 means the person has good vision at
that distance. And it isn't a simulation of disability either. It IS a
good way to get a single method that balances all of the factors that make a
character legible.

Relying on the FPC doesn't work - because that is so non-specific that
engineers don't know what to do with it unless you have a method like this
for them to rely on. And I thought you said that at your state level you
don't even use the FCP.

So - all tolled, this seems to be the best approach - and superior to just
specifying font size --- or the more restrictive font type, stem, size,
weight etc. I too would like a nice clean number. But it appears that doing
that would unnecessarily limit industry which we don't want to do.

Note that the new proposed compromise limits it to public and shared
products.



Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
If Attachment is a mail.dat try http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Diane Golden
> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 11:19 AM
> To: 'TEITAC Committee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] TEXT SIZE 1-G
>
> 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.
>
> Diane
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
> Gregg Vanderheiden
> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2008 7:30 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
>
>
>

• Next message in Thread: Mike Paciello: "Re: TEXT SIZE 1-G"
• Previous message in Thread: Diane Golden: "Re: TEXT SIZE 1-G"