E-mail List Archives

Re: Scaleable fonts for Priority 2 WAI guidelines


From: Paul Collins
Date: May 14, 2008 8:20AM

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.

2008/5/14 Rahul Gonsalves < <EMAIL 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