WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

RE: WAI needs to rethink and revisit (was Printable character between adjacent links)

for

From: John Foliot - bytown internet
Date: May 17, 2002 7:42AM

> > I am currently embroiled in a debate with an associate over
> > the use (or non-use) of fixed font sizes. His argument is that if he
> > does not use fixed font sizes in his stylesheets that the "display"
> becomes
> > unpredictable in different browers/OS implementations.
>
> Well, they are unpredictable indeed, as far as the author is
> concerned. What
> is your associate trying to prove?

That he is right <grin>. At issue is the fact that the "rulebook" being
authored to has contradictions within it. On one hand it states that all
Priority 1 and 2 Guidelines must be treated as Standards - they must be met.
But elsewhere the rules state that "Body text should be 'sans-serif', set at
approximately 10-point type size and controlled through Cascading Style
Sheets."

He argues that using relative font sizes across multiple browsers and
platforms creates wildly varying results, and in fact presents usability
issues to, by his numbers, 40% of his user base (he's not wrong). He's
trying to reach the "approxiametly 10 point" mark, and if he looses a few
users because of it, it's the lesser of 2 evils in his mind.

>
> > He points to the WAI Guidelines
> > wording as justification: (This statement is found in the Guidelines
> > (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/)) "3.4 Use relative rather
> > than absolute units in mark-up language attribute values and
> style sheet
> > property values.
>
> I wouldn't say this is wrong. It just has an implied condition,
> which should
> be made explicit: _if_ you suggest font sizes at all (and you should
> normally do that for _parts_ of a document only).

Part of the issue. He wants Body {font-size: 10pt.}

Also part of my posting. The WAI Guidelines are being rapidly adopted by
many organizations as "Standards", yet often the language of the checkpoint
is not the official language of "Standards" authoring. The US Section 508
had a problem with the "flicker" checkpoint(WAI 7.1)... they re-wrote it to
set specific frequency rates.

> For example, if you wish
> to make some text appear in smaller print, use font-size:80% rather than
> font-size:10pt. Isn't the rationale behind this obvious?

To us, yes, to "them", not always...

>
> > "- - If absolute units are used,
> > validate that the rendered content is usable"
>
> Now _that's_ obscure. Note the word "usable". A switch to usability in an
> accessibility document is a bit alarming. Absolute units cannot possibly
> result in universal accessibility. I guess this formulation results from a
> compromise, and actually means something like this: "If however you use
> absolute units (and we're here having a quarrel on whether you ever should
> do that, but maybe someone is pointing at you with a gun), at
> least try and
> make sure they are accessible to the great majority, by using sufficiently
> large font size (and we can't agree on a specific recommendation here)."

Exactly my point. If the W3C/WAI could only go back with the understanding
that many governments and organizations are embracing their Recommendations
(Guidelines) as Standards, but because of this the wording most be more
precise and avoid ambiguity. It's not a question of re-writing the
Checkpoints, simply reviewing and perhaps modifying the language.

>
> The practical side of my mind sees the point here. We cannot change
> everything at once, and if people use fixed font sizes, it's
> better to make
> them use reasonably large sizes, like 12pt or 14pt.
>
> > How can we, as committed developers and advocates, influence
> > the W3C to revisit their wording? Thoughts?
>
> Make your company join the W3C, and join the WAI working group.
> It will take
> money and work, of course. With much smaller investments, and with smaller
> chances of success, you could participate in the WAI Interest Group (a
> mailing list):
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/IG/

Jukka, as I am a company of one, I think I will be restricted to joining the
mailing list <smile>. However, if enough of us start to raise the concern
over the language being used, perhaps the W3C will hear us.


JF


>
> --
> Jukka Korpela
> TIEKE Tietoyhteiskunnan kehitt