E-mail List Archives

Re: Scaleable fonts for Priority 2 WAI guidelines

for

From: Steve Green
Date: May 14, 2008 8:50AM


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



-----Original Message-----
From: <EMAIL REMOVED>
[mailto: <EMAIL REMOVED> ] On Behalf Of Paul Collins
Sent: 14 May 2008 15:19
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Re: [WebAIM] Scaleable fonts for Priority 2 WAI guidelines

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 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-audi
> o-contrast-scale.html 4.
> http://wcagsamurai.org/errata/errata.html#GL1.1-corr
>