Font accessibility

[Gian Wild]

Hi

Does anyone have some research or evidence about the accessibility of different fonts? We have come across a very thin-lined font and we have been asked for proof that it is harder to read than normal font.

Thanks
Gian

(Sorry for cross-posting)

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

[Olaf Drümmer]

Some fonts are more legible than others. This has been addressed by various standards, for example in the field of ergonomics and also in the context of regulation for labels on food or pharmaceutical items.

That much said - legibility as such is a usability aspect not an accessibility aspect. Accessibility rules though could build on top of usability aspects and require a heighten degree of usability.

It is important to understand that legibility rules depends a lot on context: viewing distance, amount of text, purpose of the information conveyed, etc. A long text benefits from a different font than the four letters 'STOP' on a stop sign.


Olaf

Post by Gian Wild
Hi
Does anyone have some research or evidence about the accessibility of different fonts? We have come across a very thin-lined font and we have been asked for proof that it is harder to read than normal font.
Thanks
Gian
(Sorry for cross-posting)
Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

[Gijs Veyfeyken]

Hi,

Related: I've searched for an answer to the serif versus sans-serif font question in the past.
There is no conclusive evidence from user research that I could find indicating one is better (easier to read) then the other.
In conclusion, I pretty much agree with this article:
https://axesslab.com/fonts-dont-matter/

Kind regards,

Gijs

Post by Olaf Drümmer
Some fonts are more legible than others. This has been addressed by various standards, for example in the field of ergonomics and also in the context of regulation for labels on food or pharmaceutical items.
That much said - legibility as such is a usability aspect not an accessibility aspect. Accessibility rules though could build on top of usability aspects and require a heighten degree of usability.
It is important to understand that legibility rules depends a lot on context: viewing distance, amount of text, purpose of the information conveyed, etc. A long text benefits from a different font than the four letters 'STOP' on a stop sign.
Olaf

Post by Gian Wild
Hi
Does anyone have some research or evidence about the accessibility of different fonts? We have come across a very thin-lined font and we have been asked for proof that it is harder to read than normal font.
Thanks
Gian
(Sorry for cross-posting)
Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

[Olaf Drümmer]

It's inappropriate to make this topic (choice of font versus other typographical aspects) an either or question. The fact that aspect A may matter more than aspect B is no justification to not care about aspect B.

One aspect that is very often ignroed when it should not: context.

Needs of a low vision person are different form needs of a dyslexic person. Even for people with low vision there are different types of low vision that may benefit from different (possibly mutually exclusive) aspects (I know of people who benefit from low contrast whereas others prefer as much contrast as they can get). Not a single of these variations is wrong or irrelevant. Nonetheless it is necessary to find middle ground for a form of presentation (e.g. for print, which is obviosuly difficult to reformat; for electronic devices adjusting presentation is also often limited) that works best for most.

There are many other context aspects: type of text, situation in which text is viewed, relevance of text (e.g. emergency sign versus pharmaceutical label versus novel), apparatus used for viewing (screen, printout, with or without magnifying glass,...), lighting, quiet environment versus 'rough' environment, ...

Also, make sure to understand that the Latin script is different from other scripts, whether CJK, Vietnames, Thai, Myanmar, ... or whatever. There are probably more people by default using non-Latin scripts than people using Latin script... Rules may have to vary between scripts.

Olaf

Post by Gijs Veyfeyken
Hi,
Related: I've searched for an answer to the serif versus sans-serif font question in the past.
There is no conclusive evidence from user research that I could find indicating one is better (easier to read) then the other.
https://axesslab.com/fonts-dont-matter/ <https://axesslab.com/fonts-dont-matter/>
Kind regards,
Gijs

Post by Olaf Drümmer
Some fonts are more legible than others. This has been addressed by various standards, for example in the field of ergonomics and also in the context of regulation for labels on food or pharmaceutical items.
That much said - legibility as such is a usability aspect not an accessibility aspect. Accessibility rules though could build on top of usability aspects and require a heighten degree of usability.
It is important to understand that legibility rules depends a lot on context: viewing distance, amount of text, purpose of the information conveyed, etc. A long text benefits from a different font than the four letters 'STOP' on a stop sign.
Olaf

Post by Gian Wild
Hi
Does anyone have some research or evidence about the accessibility of different fonts? We have come across a very thin-lined font and we have been asked for proof that it is harder to read than normal font.
Thanks
Gian
(Sorry for cross-posting)
Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

[Mohsen Mahjoobnia]

AS Olaf greatly mentioned its not one or the other. If I may add, when
consulting designers, would advice to provide alternative formats and
option to user to change the: font, color contrast size and etc. I believe
its about giving equal opportunities vs. making accessibility based on
common or assumed user edge case. Give alternatives!

That being said, when it comes to print and graphic design we need to be
more mindful (specially when we can't provide alternatives to our users),
CNIB has great suggestions:

"Avoid complicated or decorative fonts. Choose standard fonts with easily
recognizable upper and lower case characters. Arial and Verdana are good
choices." CNIB
<http://www.cnib.ca/en/services/resources/Clearprint/Documents/CNIB%20Clear%20Print%20Guide.pdf>
<
http://www.cnib.ca/en/services/resources/Clearprint/Documents/CNIB%20Clear%20Print%20Guide.pdf
Choosing an Accessible Font
<http://www.reciteme.com/common/ckeditor/filemanager/userfiles/Accessible_Font_PDF-2.pdf>
<
http://www.reciteme.com/common/ckeditor/filemanager/userfiles/Accessible_Font_PDF-2.pdf
Accessible Graphic Design
<https://www.rgd.ca/database/files/library/RGD_AccessAbility_Handbook.pdf>
<https://www.rgd.ca/database/files/library/RGD_AccessAbility_Handbook.pdf>

WebAim <https://webaim.org/techniques/fonts/> Font Readability <
https://webaim.org/techniques/fonts/ >

Which Are More Legible: Serif or Sans Serif Typefaces?
<
http://alexpoole.info/blog/which-are-more-legible-serif-or-sans-serif-typefaces/
Cheers

M

Post by Olaf Drümmer
It's inappropriate to make this topic (choice of font versus other
typographical aspects) an either or question. The fact that aspect A may
matter more than aspect B is no justification to not care about aspect B.
One aspect that is very often ignroed when it should not: context.
Needs of a low vision person are different form needs of a dyslexic
person. Even for people with low vision there are different types of low
vision that may benefit from different (possibly mutually exclusive)
aspects (I know of people who benefit from low contrast whereas others
prefer as much contrast as they can get). Not a single of these variations
is wrong or irrelevant. Nonetheless it is necessary to find middle ground
for a form of presentation (e.g. for print, which is obviosuly difficult to
reformat; for electronic devices adjusting presentation is also often
limited) that works best for most.
There are many other context aspects: type of text, situation in which
text is viewed, relevance of text (e.g. emergency sign versus
pharmaceutical label versus novel), apparatus used for viewing (screen,
printout, with or without magnifying glass,...), lighting, quiet
environment versus 'rough' environment, ...
Also, make sure to understand that the Latin script is different from
other scripts, whether CJK, Vietnames, Thai, Myanmar, ... or whatever.
There are probably more people by default using non-Latin scripts than
people using Latin script... Rules may have to vary between scripts.
Olaf
Hi,
Related: I've searched for an answer to the serif versus sans-serif font
question in the past.
There is no conclusive evidence from user research that I could find
indicating one is better (easier to read) then the other.
https://axesslab.com/fonts-dont-matter/
Kind regards,
Gijs
Some fonts are more legible than others. This has been addressed by
various standards, for example in the field of ergonomics and also in the
context of regulation for labels on food or pharmaceutical items.
That much said - legibility as such is a usability aspect not an
accessibility aspect. Accessibility rules though could build on top of
usability aspects and require a heighten degree of usability.
It is important to understand that legibility rules depends a lot on
context: viewing distance, amount of text, purpose of the information
conveyed, etc. A long text benefits from a different font than the four
letters 'STOP' on a stop sign.
Olaf
Hi
Does anyone have some research or evidence about the accessibility of
different fonts? We have come across a very thin-lined font and we have
been asked for proof that it is harder to read than normal font.
Thanks
Gian
(Sorry for cross-posting)
Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

--
----- Digital Signature -----


*Mohsen Mahjoobnia, *

Inclusive Integration and Virtual Reality Entrepreneur,

MDes, Inclusive Design, OCAD University

Connect on *LinkedIn* <http://ca.linkedin.com/in/moisenm>
Explorers Club <http://www.explorersclub.ca/> Member MI 2016
[image: explorers club of Canada] <http://www.explorersclub.ca/pages/>(Image:
logo of explorers club Canada, Blue maple leaf in center of a red compass.)



Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

The information contained in and transmitted with this e-mail is privileged
and confidential; intended only for the recipient(s) specified.

[Wayne Dick]

Hi All,
There is a great deal known about legibility of fonts. First and most
important is habit. Tinker the earliest researcher in legibility noted that
people performed best on fonts that were familiar. That was in his time,
and serif was perceived better. He also predicted that sans-serif could
replace serif given its increasing use. That being said, and the prevalence
of sans-serif on the web, I would guess that people perceive sans-serif
better these days.

Legibility is not a usability issue. It is a property of perception a
psychophysical and measurable quantity. Legibility is measured by reading
speed on text that is not challenging to comprehend. This test isolates all
but the perception of letters and words. There are many factors that
improve this perception. Letter spacing (until the integrity of words is
lost), and line spacing are well known entities.

Within the space of sans-serif certain conflict pairs are important. These
are pairs of letters and numbers that can be mistaken for each other. The
predominant pairs are, the lower case letter el (l), the upper case letter
I and the digit 1. Arial and Helvetica are terrible on this issue. The
letter O and the digit 0 get confused. The digit 5 and the letter S can be
confused. When picking a sans serif font check these first. Serif fonts
generally do not have this problem.

Arditi actually put serifs onto a sans-serif font and measured the
legibility. There was no difference.

Interchangeability: The width of fonts varies about 1 point for
non-decorative fonts. That is about 0.1em difference. I wrote a program
that measured this across all Google fonts. Times New Roman and Tahoma have
nearly identical space requirements. Verdana is an outlier. It requires 1.2
times the space of Times New Roman or Tahoma.

That is all I know.

Wayne

Post by Mohsen Mahjoobnia
AS Olaf greatly mentioned its not one or the other. If I may add, when
consulting designers, would advice to provide alternative formats and
option to user to change the: font, color contrast size and etc. I believe
its about giving equal opportunities vs. making accessibility based on
common or assumed user edge case. Give alternatives!
That being said, when it comes to print and graphic design we need to be
more mindful (specially when we can't provide alternatives to our users),
"Avoid complicated or decorative fonts. Choose standard fonts with easily
recognizable upper and lower case characters. Arial and Verdana are good
choices." CNIB
<http://www.cnib.ca/en/services/resources/Clearprint/Documents/CNIB%20Clear%20Print%20Guide.pdf>
<
http://www.cnib.ca/en/services/resources/Clearprint/Documents/CNIB%20Clear%20Print%20Guide.pdf
Choosing an Accessible Font
<http://www.reciteme.com/common/ckeditor/filemanager/userfiles/Accessible_Font_PDF-2.pdf>
<
http://www.reciteme.com/common/ckeditor/filemanager/userfiles/Accessible_Font_PDF-2.pdf
Accessible Graphic Design
<https://www.rgd.ca/database/files/library/RGD_AccessAbility_Handbook.pdf>
<https://www.rgd.ca/database/files/library/RGD_AccessAbility_Handbook.pdf
WebAim <https://webaim.org/techniques/fonts/> Font Readability <
https://webaim.org/techniques/fonts/ >
Which Are More Legible: Serif or Sans Serif Typefaces?
<
http://alexpoole.info/blog/which-are-more-legible-serif-or-sans-serif-typefaces/
Cheers
M

Post by Olaf Drümmer
It's inappropriate to make this topic (choice of font versus other
typographical aspects) an either or question. The fact that aspect A may
matter more than aspect B is no justification to not care about aspect B.
One aspect that is very often ignroed when it should not: context.
Needs of a low vision person are different form needs of a dyslexic
person. Even for people with low vision there are different types of low
vision that may benefit from different (possibly mutually exclusive)
aspects (I know of people who benefit from low contrast whereas others
prefer as much contrast as they can get). Not a single of these variations
is wrong or irrelevant. Nonetheless it is necessary to find middle ground
for a form of presentation (e.g. for print, which is obviosuly difficult to
reformat; for electronic devices adjusting presentation is also often
limited) that works best for most.
There are many other context aspects: type of text, situation in which
text is viewed, relevance of text (e.g. emergency sign versus
pharmaceutical label versus novel), apparatus used for viewing (screen,
printout, with or without magnifying glass,...), lighting, quiet
environment versus 'rough' environment, ...
Also, make sure to understand that the Latin script is different from
other scripts, whether CJK, Vietnames, Thai, Myanmar, ... or whatever.
There are probably more people by default using non-Latin scripts than
people using Latin script... Rules may have to vary between scripts.
Olaf
Hi,
Related: I've searched for an answer to the serif versus sans-serif font
question in the past.
There is no conclusive evidence from user research that I could find
indicating one is better (easier to read) then the other.
https://axesslab.com/fonts-dont-matter/
Kind regards,
Gijs
Some fonts are more legible than others. This has been addressed by
various standards, for example in the field of ergonomics and also in the
context of regulation for labels on food or pharmaceutical items.
That much said - legibility as such is a usability aspect not an
accessibility aspect. Accessibility rules though could build on top of
usability aspects and require a heighten degree of usability.
It is important to understand that legibility rules depends a lot on
context: viewing distance, amount of text, purpose of the information
conveyed, etc. A long text benefits from a different font than the four
letters 'STOP' on a stop sign.
Olaf
Hi
Does anyone have some research or evidence about the accessibility of
different fonts? We have come across a very thin-lined font and we have
been asked for proof that it is harder to read than normal font.
Thanks
Gian
(Sorry for cross-posting)
Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

--
----- Digital Signature -----
*Mohsen Mahjoobnia, *
Inclusive Integration and Virtual Reality Entrepreneur,
MDes, Inclusive Design, OCAD University
Connect on *LinkedIn* <http://ca.linkedin.com/in/moisenm>
Explorers Club <http://www.explorersclub.ca/> Member MI 2016
logo of explorers club Canada, Blue maple leaf in center of a red compass.)
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
The information contained in and transmitted with this e-mail is
privileged and confidential; intended only for the recipient(s) specified.

[Gian Wild]

Thanks Wayne!

Cheers,
Gian

From: Wayne Dick <***@gmail.com>
Sent: 22 June 2018 5:21 AM
To: ***@student.ocadu.ca
Cc: Olaf DrÃŒmmer <***@callassoftware.com>; ***@anysurfer.be; W3C WAI ig <w3c-wai-***@w3.org>; Gian Wild <***@accessibilityoz.com>
Subject: Re: Font accessibility

Hi All,
There is a great deal known about legibility of fonts. First and most important is habit. Tinker the earliest researcher in legibility noted that people performed best on fonts that were familiar. That was in his time, and serif was perceived better. He also predicted that sans-serif could replace serif given its increasing use. That being said, and the prevalence of sans-serif on the web, I would guess that people perceive sans-serif better these days.

Legibility is not a usability issue. It is a property of perception a psychophysical and measurable quantity. Legibility is measured by reading speed on text that is not challenging to comprehend. This test isolates all but the perception of letters and words. There are many factors that improve this perception. Letter spacing (until the integrity of words is lost), and line spacing are well known entities.

Within the space of sans-serif certain conflict pairs are important. These are pairs of letters and numbers that can be mistaken for each other. The predominant pairs are, the lower case letter el (l), the upper case letter I and the digit 1. Arial and Helvetica are terrible on this issue. The letter O and the digit 0 get confused. The digit 5 and the letter S can be confused. When picking a sans serif font check these first. Serif fonts generally do not have this problem.

Arditi actually put serifs onto a sans-serif font and measured the legibility. There was no difference.

Interchangeability: The width of fonts varies about 1 point for non-decorative fonts. That is about 0.1em difference. I wrote a program that measured this across all Google fonts. Times New Roman and Tahoma have nearly identical space requirements. Verdana is an outlier. It requires 1.2 times the space of Times New Roman or Tahoma.

That is all I know.

Wayne

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 7:21 AM Mohsen Mahjoobnia <***@student.ocadu.ca<mailto:***@student.ocadu.ca>> wrote:
AS Olaf greatly mentioned its not one or the other. If I may add, when consulting designers, would advice to provide alternative formats and option to user to change the: font, color contrast size and etc. I believe its about giving equal opportunities vs. making accessibility based on common or assumed user edge case. Give alternatives!

That being said, when it comes to print and graphic design we need to be more mindful (specially when we can't provide alternatives to our users), CNIB has great suggestions:

"Avoid complicated or decorative fonts. Choose standard fonts with easily recognizable upper and lower case characters. Arial and Verdana are good choices." CNIB <http://www.cnib.ca/en/services/resources/Clearprint/Documents/CNIB%20Clear%20Print%20Guide.pdf> <http://www.cnib.ca/en/services/resources/Clearprint/Documents/CNIB%20Clear%20Print%20Guide.pdf>

Choosing an Accessible Font<http://www.reciteme.com/common/ckeditor/filemanager/userfiles/Accessible_Font_PDF-2.pdf> <http://www.reciteme.com/common/ckeditor/filemanager/userfiles/Accessible_Font_PDF-2.pdf >

Accessible Graphic Design<https://www.rgd.ca/database/files/library/RGD_AccessAbility_Handbook.pdf>
<https://www.rgd.ca/database/files/library/RGD_AccessAbility_Handbook.pdf>

WebAim<https://webaim.org/techniques/fonts/> Font Readability <https://webaim.org/techniques/fonts/ >

Which Are More Legible: Serif or Sans Serif Typefaces?
<http://alexpoole.info/blog/which-are-more-legible-serif-or-sans-serif-typefaces/>

Cheers

M

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 6:24 AM, Olaf DrÃŒmmer <***@callassoftware.com<mailto:***@callassoftware.com>> wrote:
It's inappropriate to make this topic (choice of font versus other typographical aspects) an either or question. The fact that aspect A may matter more than aspect B is no justification to not care about aspect B.

One aspect that is very often ignroed when it should not: context.

Needs of a low vision person are different form needs of a dyslexic person. Even for people with low vision there are different types of low vision that may benefit from different (possibly mutually exclusive) aspects (I know of people who benefit from low contrast whereas others prefer as much contrast as they can get). Not a single of these variations is wrong or irrelevant. Nonetheless it is necessary to find middle ground for a form of presentation (e.g. for print, which is obviosuly difficult to reformat; for electronic devices adjusting presentation is also often limited) that works best for most.

There are many other context aspects: type of text, situation in which text is viewed, relevance of text (e.g. emergency sign versus pharmaceutical label versus novel), apparatus used for viewing (screen, printout, with or without magnifying glass,...), lighting, quiet environment versus 'rough' environment, ...

Also, make sure to understand that the Latin script is different from other scripts, whether CJK, Vietnames, Thai, Myanmar, ... or whatever. There are probably more people by default using non-Latin scripts than people using Latin script... Rules may have to vary between scripts.

Olaf


On 21. Jun 2018, at 11:28, Gijs Veyfeyken <***@anysurfer.be<mailto:***@anysurfer.be>> wrote:

Hi,

Related: I've searched for an answer to the serif versus sans-serif font question in the past.
There is no conclusive evidence from user research that I could find indicating one is better (easier to read) then the other.
In conclusion, I pretty much agree with this article:
https://axesslab.com/fonts-dont-matter/

Kind regards,

Gijs


On 21 Jun 2018, at 11:12, Olaf DrÃŒmmer <***@callassoftware.com<mailto:***@callassoftware.com>> wrote:

Some fonts are more legible than others. This has been addressed by various standards, for example in the field of ergonomics and also in the context of regulation for labels on food or pharmaceutical items.

That much said - legibility as such is a usability aspect not an accessibility aspect. Accessibility rules though could build on top of usability aspects and require a heighten degree of usability.

It is important to understand that legibility rules depends a lot on context: viewing distance, amount of text, purpose of the information conveyed, etc. A long text benefits from a different font than the four letters 'STOP' on a stop sign.


Olaf


On 21. Jun 2018, at 10:58, Gian Wild <***@accessibilityoz.com<mailto:***@accessibilityoz.com>> wrote:

Hi

Does anyone have some research or evidence about the accessibility of different fonts? We have come across a very thin-lined font and we have been asked for proof that it is harder to read than normal font.

Thanks
Gian

(Sorry for cross-posting)

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
--
----- Digital Signature -----

Mohsen Mahjoobnia,

Inclusive Integration and Virtual Reality Entrepreneur,

MDes, Inclusive Design, OCAD University

Connect on LinkedIn<http://ca.linkedin.com/in/moisenm>
Explorers Club<http://www.explorersclub.ca/> Member MI 2016
[explorers club of Canada]<http://www.explorersclub.ca/pages/>(Image: logo of explorers club Canada, Blue maple leaf in center of a red compass.)



Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

The information contained in and transmitted with this e-mail is privileged and confidential; intended only for the recipient(s) specified.

[Pearson, Amy]

Good evening,
There is an interesting and informative review of the research in a thesis written just last month, available at https://mdsoar.org/handle/11603/10871 (full PDF at https://mdsoar.org/bitstream/handle/11603/10871/Accessible-Web-Typography_EMcCoy.pdf). The author covers typography (distinguishing between readability and legibility, among other factors) as well as various types of visual impairments and assistive technology devices. All very interesting, and there are a ton of references included.

Hope that helps! -amy

From: Wayne Dick <***@gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 3:28 PM
To: "***@student.ocadu.ca" <***@student.ocadu.ca>
Cc: Olaf DrÃŒmmer <***@callassoftware.com>, "***@anysurfer.be" <***@anysurfer.be>, W3C WAI ig <w3c-wai-***@w3.org>, "***@accessibilityoz.com" <***@accessibilityoz.com>
Subject: Re: Font accessibility
Resent-From: <w3c-wai-***@w3.org>
Resent-Date: Thursday, June 21, 2018 at 3:22 PM

Hi All,
There is a great deal known about legibility of fonts. First and most important is habit. Tinker the earliest researcher in legibility noted that people performed best on fonts that were familiar. That was in his time, and serif was perceived better. He also predicted that sans-serif could replace serif given its increasing use. That being said, and the prevalence of sans-serif on the web, I would guess that people perceive sans-serif better these days.

Legibility is not a usability issue. It is a property of perception a psychophysical and measurable quantity. Legibility is measured by reading speed on text that is not challenging to comprehend. This test isolates all but the perception of letters and words. There are many factors that improve this perception. Letter spacing (until the integrity of words is lost), and line spacing are well known entities.

Within the space of sans-serif certain conflict pairs are important. These are pairs of letters and numbers that can be mistaken for each other. The predominant pairs are, the lower case letter el (l), the upper case letter I and the digit 1. Arial and Helvetica are terrible on this issue. The letter O and the digit 0 get confused. The digit 5 and the letter S can be confused. When picking a sans serif font check these first. Serif fonts generally do not have this problem.

Arditi actually put serifs onto a sans-serif font and measured the legibility. There was no difference.

Interchangeability: The width of fonts varies about 1 point for non-decorative fonts. That is about 0.1em difference. I wrote a program that measured this across all Google fonts. Times New Roman and Tahoma have nearly identical space requirements. Verdana is an outlier. It requires 1.2 times the space of Times New Roman or Tahoma.

That is all I know.

Wayne

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 7:21 AM Mohsen Mahjoobnia <***@student.ocadu.ca<mailto:***@student.ocadu.ca>> wrote:
AS Olaf greatly mentioned its not one or the other. If I may add, when consulting designers, would advice to provide alternative formats and option to user to change the: font, color contrast size and etc. I believe its about giving equal opportunities vs. making accessibility based on common or assumed user edge case. Give alternatives!

That being said, when it comes to print and graphic design we need to be more mindful (specially when we can't provide alternatives to our users), CNIB has great suggestions:

"Avoid complicated or decorative fonts. Choose standard fonts with easily recognizable upper and lower case characters. Arial and Verdana are good choices." CNIB <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.cnib.ca_en_services_resources_Clearprint_Documents_CNIB-2520Clear-2520Print-2520Guide.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=XuwJK26h77xqxpbZGgbjkdqHiCAgI8ShbCmQt4lrFlM&r=tiiG6CtCRwkAAfg7l5RDEw&m=hV9nm9eokh6jsJX3efMcz5ZKmBzv61YfWN1AnBlwMzM&s=h9JOx2iXwfIMzHRJ8Ef67Wsbqvq6Fje6_-L3J7mv_A8&e=> <http://www.cnib.ca/en/services/resources/Clearprint/Documents/CNIB%20Clear%20Print%20Guide.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.cnib.ca_en_services_resources_Clearprint_Documents_CNIB-2520Clear-2520Print-2520Guide.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=XuwJK26h77xqxpbZGgbjkdqHiCAgI8ShbCmQt4lrFlM&r=tiiG6CtCRwkAAfg7l5RDEw&m=hV9nm9eokh6jsJX3efMcz5ZKmBzv61YfWN1AnBlwMzM&s=h9JOx2iXwfIMzHRJ8Ef67Wsbqvq6Fje6_-L3J7mv_A8&e=>>

Choosing an Accessible Font<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.reciteme.com_common_ckeditor_filemanager_userfiles_Accessible-5FFont-5FPDF-2D2.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=XuwJK26h77xqxpbZGgbjkdqHiCAgI8ShbCmQt4lrFlM&r=tiiG6CtCRwkAAfg7l5RDEw&m=hV9nm9eokh6jsJX3efMcz5ZKmBzv61YfWN1AnBlwMzM&s=rrdfemnU1xSJExofUVoQkVI4hR-xnwNA8E1lOn3GLX8&e=> <http://www.reciteme.com/common/ckeditor/filemanager/userfiles/Accessible_Font_PDF-2.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.reciteme.com_common_ckeditor_filemanager_userfiles_Accessible-5FFont-5FPDF-2D2.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=XuwJK26h77xqxpbZGgbjkdqHiCAgI8ShbCmQt4lrFlM&r=tiiG6CtCRwkAAfg7l5RDEw&m=hV9nm9eokh6jsJX3efMcz5ZKmBzv61YfWN1AnBlwMzM&s=rrdfemnU1xSJExofUVoQkVI4hR-xnwNA8E1lOn3GLX8&e=> >

Accessible Graphic Design<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rgd.ca_database_files_library_RGD-5FAccessAbility-5FHandbook.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=XuwJK26h77xqxpbZGgbjkdqHiCAgI8ShbCmQt4lrFlM&r=tiiG6CtCRwkAAfg7l5RDEw&m=hV9nm9eokh6jsJX3efMcz5ZKmBzv61YfWN1AnBlwMzM&s=T6B2_GuavjYqIjwuvL_u5eYDGE0lWv25Ghz1fDKTieY&e=>
<https://www.rgd.ca/database/files/library/RGD_AccessAbility_Handbook.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.rgd.ca_database_files_library_RGD-5FAccessAbility-5FHandbook.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=XuwJK26h77xqxpbZGgbjkdqHiCAgI8ShbCmQt4lrFlM&r=tiiG6CtCRwkAAfg7l5RDEw&m=hV9nm9eokh6jsJX3efMcz5ZKmBzv61YfWN1AnBlwMzM&s=T6B2_GuavjYqIjwuvL_u5eYDGE0lWv25Ghz1fDKTieY&e=>>

WebAim<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__webaim.org_techniques_fonts_&d=DwMFaQ&c=XuwJK26h77xqxpbZGgbjkdqHiCAgI8ShbCmQt4lrFlM&r=tiiG6CtCRwkAAfg7l5RDEw&m=hV9nm9eokh6jsJX3efMcz5ZKmBzv61YfWN1AnBlwMzM&s=moJjZqdOodLfK8Fj-l_gerzbN4OQFiRSv2nnhQnyiBM&e=> Font Readability <https://webaim.org/techniques/fonts/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__webaim.org_techniques_fonts_&d=DwMFaQ&c=XuwJK26h77xqxpbZGgbjkdqHiCAgI8ShbCmQt4lrFlM&r=tiiG6CtCRwkAAfg7l5RDEw&m=hV9nm9eokh6jsJX3efMcz5ZKmBzv61YfWN1AnBlwMzM&s=moJjZqdOodLfK8Fj-l_gerzbN4OQFiRSv2nnhQnyiBM&e=> >

Which Are More Legible: Serif or Sans Serif Typefaces?
<http://alexpoole.info/blog/which-are-more-legible-serif-or-sans-serif-typefaces/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__alexpoole.info_blog_which-2Dare-2Dmore-2Dlegible-2Dserif-2Dor-2Dsans-2Dserif-2Dtypefaces_&d=DwMFaQ&c=XuwJK26h77xqxpbZGgbjkdqHiCAgI8ShbCmQt4lrFlM&r=tiiG6CtCRwkAAfg7l5RDEw&m=hV9nm9eokh6jsJX3efMcz5ZKmBzv61YfWN1AnBlwMzM&s=fpcv5Ji8RmWE8E1DgWVNZ9gx-dtR0IkIopzOJP1OjvE&e=>>

Cheers

M

On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 6:24 AM, Olaf DrÃŒmmer <***@callassoftware.com<mailto:***@callassoftware.com>> wrote:
It's inappropriate to make this topic (choice of font versus other typographical aspects) an either or question. The fact that aspect A may matter more than aspect B is no justification to not care about aspect B.

One aspect that is very often ignroed when it should not: context.

Needs of a low vision person are different form needs of a dyslexic person. Even for people with low vision there are different types of low vision that may benefit from different (possibly mutually exclusive) aspects (I know of people who benefit from low contrast whereas others prefer as much contrast as they can get). Not a single of these variations is wrong or irrelevant. Nonetheless it is necessary to find middle ground for a form of presentation (e.g. for print, which is obviosuly difficult to reformat; for electronic devices adjusting presentation is also often limited) that works best for most.

There are many other context aspects: type of text, situation in which text is viewed, relevance of text (e.g. emergency sign versus pharmaceutical label versus novel), apparatus used for viewing (screen, printout, with or without magnifying glass,...), lighting, quiet environment versus 'rough' environment, ...

Also, make sure to understand that the Latin script is different from other scripts, whether CJK, Vietnames, Thai, Myanmar, ... or whatever. There are probably more people by default using non-Latin scripts than people using Latin script... Rules may have to vary between scripts.

Olaf


On 21. Jun 2018, at 11:28, Gijs Veyfeyken <***@anysurfer.be<mailto:***@anysurfer.be>> wrote:

Hi,

Related: I've searched for an answer to the serif versus sans-serif font question in the past.
There is no conclusive evidence from user research that I could find indicating one is better (easier to read) then the other.
In conclusion, I pretty much agree with this article:
https://axesslab.com/fonts-dont-matter/<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__axesslab.com_fonts-2Ddont-2Dmatter_&d=DwMFaQ&c=XuwJK26h77xqxpbZGgbjkdqHiCAgI8ShbCmQt4lrFlM&r=tiiG6CtCRwkAAfg7l5RDEw&m=hV9nm9eokh6jsJX3efMcz5ZKmBzv61YfWN1AnBlwMzM&s=huwhCQCG2S-l0qAhgPFjZnQrrQLZlmDxplcPVGR7FqU&e=>

Kind regards,

Gijs


On 21 Jun 2018, at 11:12, Olaf DrÃŒmmer <***@callassoftware.com<mailto:***@callassoftware.com>> wrote:

Some fonts are more legible than others. This has been addressed by various standards, for example in the field of ergonomics and also in the context of regulation for labels on food or pharmaceutical items.

That much said - legibility as such is a usability aspect not an accessibility aspect. Accessibility rules though could build on top of usability aspects and require a heighten degree of usability.

It is important to understand that legibility rules depends a lot on context: viewing distance, amount of text, purpose of the information conveyed, etc. A long text benefits from a different font than the four letters 'STOP' on a stop sign.


Olaf


On 21. Jun 2018, at 10:58, Gian Wild <***@accessibilityoz.com<mailto:***@accessibilityoz.com>> wrote:

Hi

Does anyone have some research or evidence about the accessibility of different fonts? We have come across a very thin-lined font and we have been asked for proof that it is harder to read than normal font.

Thanks
Gian

(Sorry for cross-posting)

Get Outlook for iOS<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__aka.ms_o0ukef&d=DwMFaQ&c=XuwJK26h77xqxpbZGgbjkdqHiCAgI8ShbCmQt4lrFlM&r=tiiG6CtCRwkAAfg7l5RDEw&m=hV9nm9eokh6jsJX3efMcz5ZKmBzv61YfWN1AnBlwMzM&s=lPMclPk7Nm1ruWSukusYLn7Xc3_tB7gxsyCrtNEOVow&e=>
--
----- Digital Signature -----

Mohsen Mahjoobnia,

Inclusive Integration and Virtual Reality Entrepreneur,

MDes, Inclusive Design, OCAD University

Connect on LinkedIn<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ca.linkedin.com_in_moisenm&d=DwMFaQ&c=XuwJK26h77xqxpbZGgbjkdqHiCAgI8ShbCmQt4lrFlM&r=tiiG6CtCRwkAAfg7l5RDEw&m=hV9nm9eokh6jsJX3efMcz5ZKmBzv61YfWN1AnBlwMzM&s=kp-wOLxPmvZIjpKwe3Px6qcPgwlKT49lSgoO9CUaHSw&e=>
Explorers Club<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.explorersclub.ca_&d=DwMFaQ&c=XuwJK26h77xqxpbZGgbjkdqHiCAgI8ShbCmQt4lrFlM&r=tiiG6CtCRwkAAfg7l5RDEw&m=hV9nm9eokh6jsJX3efMcz5ZKmBzv61YfWN1AnBlwMzM&s=XWtZHRbA2AXepQF4E0P9d_4hlRBmbAbN-9Du1yPxy4o&e=> Member MI 2016
[explorers club of Canada]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.explorersclub.ca_pages_&d=DwMFaQ&c=XuwJK26h77xqxpbZGgbjkdqHiCAgI8ShbCmQt4lrFlM&r=tiiG6CtCRwkAAfg7l5RDEw&m=hV9nm9eokh6jsJX3efMcz5ZKmBzv61YfWN1AnBlwMzM&s=lj_fquJ-dvTM_qRbCI3rOis_wBE4XCNlBzn5WNmQCQk&e=>(Image: logo of explorers club Canada, Blue maple leaf in center of a red compass.)



Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

The information contained in and transmitted with this e-mail is privileged and confidential; intended only for the recipient(s) specified.

________________________________
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

[Jonathan Avila]

* That much said - legibility as such is a usability aspect not an accessibility aspect. Accessibility rules though could build on top of usability aspects and require a heighten degree of usability.

I'd say legibility is an accessibility issue because it affects people with disabilities at a disproportional level. A font that is legible for a fully sighted person may be totally unusable by someone with low vision. I think the reason this has not been addressed for web content is that historically browsers have provided the ability for users to apply their own styles and fonts and thus this has allowed these issues to become more usability type issues. However there are situations where the user cannot overwrite the font such as embedded content, native content, print content, etc. there is also a trend away from user agents allowing user level style sheets and pages also preventing extensions like Stylish to add document level styles.

Jonathan
From: Olaf Drümmer <***@callassoftware.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 5:12 AM
To: Gian Wild <***@accessibilityoz.com>; w3c WAI List <w3c-wai-***@w3.org>
Cc: Olaf Drümmer <***@callassoftware.com>
Subject: Re: Font accessibility

Some fonts are more legible than others. This has been addressed by various standards, for example in the field of ergonomics and also in the context of regulation for labels on food or pharmaceutical items.

That much said - legibility as such is a usability aspect not an accessibility aspect. Accessibility rules though could build on top of usability aspects and require a heighten degree of usability.

It is important to understand that legibility rules depends a lot on context: viewing distance, amount of text, purpose of the information conveyed, etc. A long text benefits from a different font than the four letters 'STOP' on a stop sign.


Olaf


On 21. Jun 2018, at 10:58, Gian Wild <***@accessibilityoz.com<mailto:***@accessibilityoz.com>> wrote:

Hi

Does anyone have some research or evidence about the accessibility of different fonts? We have come across a very thin-lined font and we have been asked for proof that it is harder to read than normal font.

Thanks
Gian

(Sorry for cross-posting)

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

[Phill Jenkins]

Jonathan wrote:
. . . I think the reason [font accessibility] has not been addressed for
web content is that historically browsers have provided the ability for
users to apply their own styles and fonts and thus this has allowed these
issues to become more usability type issues. However there are situations
where the user cannot overwrite the font such as embedded content, native
content, print content, etc. there is also a trend away from user agents
allowing user level style sheets and pages also preventing extensions like
Stylish to add document level styles.

Reply:
we cannot advocate for or allow a trend of a one size font fits all.
Jonathan, I'm not saying that is what you're saying, but I am trying to
use your observations that we as a community need to keep advocating for
the browsers and user agents and assistive technologies to solve this
need. Font selection should not ever primarily be a content or web author
responsibility / issue. Sure its a consideration, and sure there is a
font selection that fits *most* users, or *many* users, but accessibility
is about adapting the content to fit *all users* or at least as many users
as possible. Font selection should always start with the browser, user
agent, and user selection and then only be a content issue when the font
is *locked* by the author / content developer. Same with magnification,
and the same with contrast - meaning that the content and web author's
responsibility is to allow for changes and adaptions of their content by
the user agent's settings for font, contrast, and magnification.

If there is a "trend away from user agents allowing user level style
sheets . . . " then perhaps that is a problem that we as a community have
caused or at least should be advocating against!, and a lot louder than it
seems we are asking authors to settle on or choose some single font that
fits many users. Where is the movement to require UAAG compliance of the
small number of browser manufactures? Sure, there are print choices that
can't be changed once printed, and PowerPoint font choices that can't be
changed during actual presentations, but when we're talking about digital
accessibility, web accessibility, that is when I try to advocate 1st and
foremost for adaptability, not a one-size-fits-all single font choice
approach.

What do you mean by "embedded content" and "native content"? Shouldn't the
browser or user agent be able to override that content's font too? If
it should, or could, but isn't, then we as a community should be advocate
for it. As that late night legal commercial goes, "We demand justice!"
from the browsers.

btw, the Texas Governors Committee on Persons with Disabilities did some
research and recommend Verdana fonts for all their PowerPoint
presentations and printed materials. See
https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/organization/.../19_PP_02.docx

We have a resource about Contacting Organizations about Inaccessible
Websites; we need one about Contacting Organizations about Inaccessible
Browsers!

Possible ways to send issues to the browsers:
Send feedback about Google Chrome at
https://www.google.com/accessibility/get-in-touch.htm
Send feedback about Microsoft Edge at
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/accessibility
Send feedback about Mozilla Firefox at
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Accessibility

___________
Regards,
Phill Jenkins
Check out the new system for requesting an IBM product Accessibility
Conformance Report VPAT® at able.ibm.com/request
***@us.ibm.com
Senior Engineer & Accessibility Executive
IBM Research Accessibility



From: Jonathan Avila <***@levelaccess.com>
To: "Olaf Drümmer" <***@callassoftware.com>, Gian Wild
<***@accessibilityoz.com>, w3c WAI List <w3c-wai-***@w3.org>
Date: 06/21/2018 10:13 PM
Subject: RE: Font accessibility



That much said - legibility as such is a usability aspect not an
accessibility aspect. Accessibility rules though could build on top of
usability aspects and require a heighten degree of usability.

I?d say legibility is an accessibility issue because it affects people
with disabilities at a disproportional level. A font that is legible for
a fully sighted person may be totally unusable by someone with low vision.
I think the reason this has not been addressed for web content is that
historically browsers have provided the ability for users to apply their
own styles and fonts and thus this has allowed these issues to become more
usability type issues. However there are situations where the user cannot
overwrite the font such as embedded content, native content, print
content, etc. there is also a trend away from user agents allowing user
level style sheets and pages also preventing extensions like Stylish to
add document level styles.

Jonathan
From: Olaf Drümmer <***@callassoftware.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 5:12 AM
To: Gian Wild <***@accessibilityoz.com>; w3c WAI List <w3c-wai-***@w3.org>
Cc: Olaf Drümmer <***@callassoftware.com>
Subject: Re: Font accessibility

Some fonts are more legible than others. This has been addressed by
various standards, for example in the field of ergonomics and also in the
context of regulation for labels on food or pharmaceutical items.

That much said - legibility as such is a usability aspect not an
accessibility aspect. Accessibility rules though could build on top of
usability aspects and require a heighten degree of usability.

It is important to understand that legibility rules depends a lot on
context: viewing distance, amount of text, purpose of the information
conveyed, etc. A long text benefits from a different font than the four
letters 'STOP' on a stop sign.


Olaf


On 21. Jun 2018, at 10:58, Gian Wild <***@accessibilityoz.com> wrote:

Hi

Does anyone have some research or evidence about the accessibility of
different fonts? We have come across a very thin-lined font and we have
been asked for proof that it is harder to read than normal font.

Thanks
Gian

(Sorry for cross-posting)

Get Outlook for iOS

[Sean Murphy (seanmmur)]

I have an historical question in relation to font, resizing of text, ETc. Why hasn't magnification software been included in the standards as they do assist with all of these types of issues. They also go far higher than 200% or 400%. As there are users who require the really large text like 8 times magnification. By the standards this group of users are sort of left out.

I was partly wondering why the ownership is placed on the browser and not the assistive tech magnification software.

Also did resizing of images get into v2.1?


[Loading Image...]




Sean Murphy
SR ENGINEER.SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
***@cisco.com<mailto:***@cisco.com>
Tel: [phone]










Cisco Systems, Inc.
The Forum 201 Pacific Highway
ST LEONARDS
2065
Australia
cisco.com



[Loading Image...]

Think before you print.

This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.
Please click here<http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/about/legal/terms-sale-software-license-agreement/company-registration-information.html> for Company Registration Information.







From: Phill Jenkins <***@us.ibm.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 26 June 2018 9:03 AM
To: Jonathan Avila <***@levelaccess.com>
Cc: Gian Wild <***@accessibilityoz.com>; Olaf Drümmer <***@callassoftware.com>; w3c WAI List <w3c-wai-***@w3.org>; Ron Lucey <***@gov.texas.gov>
Subject: RE: Font accessibility

Jonathan wrote:

. . . I think the reason [font accessibility] has not been addressed for web content is that historically browsers have provided the ability for users to apply their own styles and fonts and thus this has allowed these issues to become more usability type issues. However there are situations where the user cannot overwrite the font such as embedded content, native content, print content, etc. there is also a trend away from user agents allowing user level style sheets and pages also preventing extensions like Stylish to add document level styles.

Reply:

we cannot advocate for or allow a trend of a one size font fits all. Jonathan, I'm not saying that is what you're saying, but I am trying to use your observations that we as a community need to keep advocating for the browsers and user agents and assistive technologies to solve this need. Font selection should not ever primarily be a content or web author responsibility / issue. Sure its a consideration, and sure there is a font selection that fits *most* users, or *many* users, but accessibility is about adapting the content to fit *all users* or at least as many users as possible. Font selection should always start with the browser, user agent, and user selection and then only be a content issue when the font is *locked* by the author / content developer. Same with magnification, and the same with contrast - meaning that the content and web author's responsibility is to allow for changes and adaptions of their content by the user agent's settings for font, contrast, and magnification.

If there is a "trend away from user agents allowing user level style sheets . . . " then perhaps that is a problem that we as a community have caused or at least should be advocating against!, and a lot louder than it seems we are asking authors to settle on or choose some single font that fits many users. Where is the movement to require UAAG<https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/uaag/>compliance of the small number of browser manufactures? Sure, there are print choices that can't be changed once printed, and PowerPoint font choices that can't be changed during actual presentations, but when we're talking about digital accessibility, web accessibility, that is when I try to advocate 1st and foremost for adaptability, not a one-size-fits-all single font choice approach.

What do you mean by "embedded content" and "native content"? Shouldn't the browser or user agent be able to override that content's font too? If it should, or could, but isn't, then we as a community should be advocate for it. As that late night legal commercial goes, "We demand justice!" from the browsers.

btw, the Texas Governors Committee on Persons with Disabilities did some research and recommend Verdana fonts for all their PowerPoint presentations and printed materials. See https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/organization/.../19_PP_02.docx<https://www.google.com/url?q=https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/organization/disabilities/19_PP_02.docx&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjp5Pz67e_bAhWwxFkKHQLTDygQFggOMAQ&client=internal-uds-cse&cx=002666182470826170590:zn4eerpozui&usg=AOvVaw2o1cqgYAQqE5Z6r_YA1kg1>

We have a resource about Contacting Organizations about Inaccessible Websites<https://www.w3.org/WAI/teach-advocate/contact-inaccessible-websites/>; we need one about Contacting Organizations about Inaccessible Browsers!

Possible ways to send issues to the browsers:

Send feedback about Google Chrome athttps://www.google.com/accessibility/get-in-touch.htm

Send feedback about Microsoft Edge at https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/accessibility

Send feedback about Mozilla Firefox at https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Accessibility

___________
Regards,
Phill Jenkins
Check out the new system for requesting an IBM product Accessibility Conformance Report VPAT®at able.ibm.com/request<https://able.ibm.com/request/>
***@us.ibm.com<mailto:***@us.ibm.com>
Senior Engineer & Accessibility Executive
IBM Research Accessibility



From: Jonathan Avila <***@levelaccess.com<mailto:***@levelaccess.com>>
To: "Olaf Drümmer" <***@callassoftware.com<mailto:***@callassoftware.com>>, Gian Wild <***@accessibilityoz.com<mailto:***@accessibilityoz.com>>, w3c WAI List <w3c-wai-***@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-***@w3.org>>
Date: 06/21/2018 10:13 PM
Subject: RE: Font accessibility
________________________________


* That much said - legibility as such is a usability aspect not an accessibility aspect. Accessibility rules though could build on top of usability aspects and require a heighten degree of usability.


I'd say legibility is an accessibility issue because it affects people with disabilities at a disproportional level. A font that is legible for a fully sighted person may be totally unusable by someone with low vision. I think the reason this has not been addressed for web content is that historically browsers have provided the ability for users to apply their own styles and fonts and thus this has allowed these issues to become more usability type issues. However there are situations where the user cannot overwrite the font such as embedded content, native content, print content, etc. there is also a trend away from user agents allowing user level style sheets and pages also preventing extensions like Stylish to add document level styles.



Jonathan

From:Olaf Drümmer <***@callassoftware.com<mailto:***@callassoftware.com>>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 5:12 AM
To: Gian Wild <***@accessibilityoz.com<mailto:***@accessibilityoz.com>>; w3c WAI List <w3c-wai-***@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-***@w3.org>>
Cc: Olaf Drümmer <***@callassoftware.com<mailto:***@callassoftware.com>>
Subject: Re: Font accessibility



Some fonts are more legible than others. This has been addressed by various standards, for example in the field of ergonomics and also in the context of regulation for labels on food or pharmaceutical items.



That much said - legibility as such is a usability aspect not an accessibility aspect. Accessibility rules though could build on top of usability aspects and require a heighten degree of usability.



It is important to understand that legibility rules depends a lot on context: viewing distance, amount of text, purpose of the information conveyed, etc. A long text benefits from a different font than the four letters 'STOP' on a stop sign.





Olaf





On 21. Jun 2018, at 10:58, Gian Wild <***@accessibilityoz.com<mailto:***@accessibilityoz.com>> wrote:



Hi



Does anyone have some research or evidence about the accessibility of different fonts? We have come across a very thin-lined font and we have been asked for proof that it is harder to read than normal font.



Thanks

Gian



(Sorry for cross-posting)



Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

[Jonathan Avila]

Increased text size really needs to be done without horizontal scrolling - that is why the browser is the best place to support this rather than assistive technology which often sits at the platform level.

On a related note increased text size can be met through some platform settings such as larger text options that are supported by browsers.

Jonathan

Jonathan Avila
Chief Accessibility Officer
Level Access
***@levelaccess.com
703.637.8957 office

Visit us online:
Website<http://www.levelaccess.com/> | Twitter<https://twitter.com/LevelAccessA11y> | Facebook<https://www.facebook.com/LevelAccessA11y/> | LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/level-access> | Blog<http://www.levelaccess.com/blog/>

Looking to boost your accessibility knowledge? Check out our free webinars!<https://www.levelaccess.com/compliance-resources/webinars/>

The information contained in this transmission may be attorney privileged and/or confidential information intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited.

From: Sean Murphy (seanmmur) <***@cisco.com>
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2018 7:41 PM
To: Phill Jenkins <***@us.ibm.com>; Jonathan Avila <***@levelaccess.com>
Cc: Gian Wild <***@accessibilityoz.com>; Olaf Drümmer <***@callassoftware.com>; w3c WAI List <w3c-wai-***@w3.org>; Ron Lucey <***@gov.texas.gov>
Subject: RE: Font accessibility

I have an historical question in relation to font, resizing of text, ETc. Why hasn't magnification software been included in the standards as they do assist with all of these types of issues. They also go far higher than 200% or 400%. As there are users who require the really large text like 8 times magnification. By the standards this group of users are sort of left out.

I was partly wondering why the ownership is placed on the browser and not the assistive tech magnification software.

Also did resizing of images get into v2.1?


[https://www.cisco.com/c/dam/m/en_us/signaturetool/images/banners/standard/02_standard_ciscoblue02.png]




Sean Murphy
SR ENGINEER.SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
***@cisco.com<mailto:***@cisco.com>
Tel: [phone]










Cisco Systems, Inc.
The Forum 201 Pacific Highway
ST LEONARDS
2065
Australia
cisco.com



[http://www.cisco.com/assets/swa/img/thinkbeforeyouprint.gif]

Think before you print.

This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, use, distribution or disclosure by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.
Please click here<http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/about/legal/terms-sale-software-license-agreement/company-registration-information.html> for Company Registration Information.







From: Phill Jenkins <***@us.ibm.com<mailto:***@us.ibm.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, 26 June 2018 9:03 AM
To: Jonathan Avila <***@levelaccess.com<mailto:***@levelaccess.com>>
Cc: Gian Wild <***@accessibilityoz.com<mailto:***@accessibilityoz.com>>; Olaf Drümmer <***@callassoftware.com<mailto:***@callassoftware.com>>; w3c WAI List <w3c-wai-***@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-***@w3.org>>; Ron Lucey <***@gov.texas.gov<mailto:***@gov.texas.gov>>
Subject: RE: Font accessibility

Jonathan wrote:

. . . I think the reason [font accessibility] has not been addressed for web content is that historically browsers have provided the ability for users to apply their own styles and fonts and thus this has allowed these issues to become more usability type issues. However there are situations where the user cannot overwrite the font such as embedded content, native content, print content, etc. there is also a trend away from user agents allowing user level style sheets and pages also preventing extensions like Stylish to add document level styles.

Reply:

we cannot advocate for or allow a trend of a one size font fits all. Jonathan, I'm not saying that is what you're saying, but I am trying to use your observations that we as a community need to keep advocating for the browsers and user agents and assistive technologies to solve this need. Font selection should not ever primarily be a content or web author responsibility / issue. Sure its a consideration, and sure there is a font selection that fits *most* users, or *many* users, but accessibility is about adapting the content to fit *all users* or at least as many users as possible. Font selection should always start with the browser, user agent, and user selection and then only be a content issue when the font is *locked* by the author / content developer. Same with magnification, and the same with contrast - meaning that the content and web author's responsibility is to allow for changes and adaptions of their content by the user agent's settings for font, contrast, and magnification.

If there is a "trend away from user agents allowing user level style sheets . . . " then perhaps that is a problem that we as a community have caused or at least should be advocating against!, and a lot louder than it seems we are asking authors to settle on or choose some single font that fits many users. Where is the movement to require UAAG<https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/uaag/>compliance of the small number of browser manufactures? Sure, there are print choices that can't be changed once printed, and PowerPoint font choices that can't be changed during actual presentations, but when we're talking about digital accessibility, web accessibility, that is when I try to advocate 1st and foremost for adaptability, not a one-size-fits-all single font choice approach.

What do you mean by "embedded content" and "native content"? Shouldn't the browser or user agent be able to override that content's font too? If it should, or could, but isn't, then we as a community should be advocate for it. As that late night legal commercial goes, "We demand justice!" from the browsers.

btw, the Texas Governors Committee on Persons with Disabilities did some research and recommend Verdana fonts for all their PowerPoint presentations and printed materials. See https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/organization/.../19_PP_02.docx<https://www.google.com/url?q=https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/organization/disabilities/19_PP_02.docx&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjp5Pz67e_bAhWwxFkKHQLTDygQFggOMAQ&client=internal-uds-cse&cx=002666182470826170590:zn4eerpozui&usg=AOvVaw2o1cqgYAQqE5Z6r_YA1kg1>

We have a resource about Contacting Organizations about Inaccessible Websites<https://www.w3.org/WAI/teach-advocate/contact-inaccessible-websites/>; we need one about Contacting Organizations about Inaccessible Browsers!

Possible ways to send issues to the browsers:

Send feedback about Google Chrome athttps://www.google.com/accessibility/get-in-touch.htm

Send feedback about Microsoft Edge at https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/accessibility

Send feedback about Mozilla Firefox at https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Accessibility

___________
Regards,
Phill Jenkins
Check out the new system for requesting an IBM product Accessibility Conformance Report VPAT®at able.ibm.com/request<https://able.ibm.com/request/>
***@us.ibm.com<mailto:***@us.ibm.com>
Senior Engineer & Accessibility Executive
IBM Research Accessibility



From: Jonathan Avila <***@levelaccess.com<mailto:***@levelaccess.com>>
To: "Olaf Drümmer" <***@callassoftware.com<mailto:***@callassoftware.com>>, Gian Wild <***@accessibilityoz.com<mailto:***@accessibilityoz.com>>, w3c WAI List <w3c-wai-***@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-***@w3.org>>
Date: 06/21/2018 10:13 PM
Subject: RE: Font accessibility
________________________________


* That much said - legibility as such is a usability aspect not an accessibility aspect. Accessibility rules though could build on top of usability aspects and require a heighten degree of usability.


I'd say legibility is an accessibility issue because it affects people with disabilities at a disproportional level. A font that is legible for a fully sighted person may be totally unusable by someone with low vision. I think the reason this has not been addressed for web content is that historically browsers have provided the ability for users to apply their own styles and fonts and thus this has allowed these issues to become more usability type issues. However there are situations where the user cannot overwrite the font such as embedded content, native content, print content, etc. there is also a trend away from user agents allowing user level style sheets and pages also preventing extensions like Stylish to add document level styles.



Jonathan

From:Olaf Drümmer <***@callassoftware.com<mailto:***@callassoftware.com>>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 5:12 AM
To: Gian Wild <***@accessibilityoz.com<mailto:***@accessibilityoz.com>>; w3c WAI List <w3c-wai-***@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-***@w3.org>>
Cc: Olaf Drümmer <***@callassoftware.com<mailto:***@callassoftware.com>>
Subject: Re: Font accessibility



Some fonts are more legible than others. This has been addressed by various standards, for example in the field of ergonomics and also in the context of regulation for labels on food or pharmaceutical items.



That much said - legibility as such is a usability aspect not an accessibility aspect. Accessibility rules though could build on top of usability aspects and require a heighten degree of usability.



It is important to understand that legibility rules depends a lot on context: viewing distance, amount of text, purpose of the information conveyed, etc. A long text benefits from a different font than the four letters 'STOP' on a stop sign.





Olaf





On 21. Jun 2018, at 10:58, Gian Wild <***@accessibilityoz.com<mailto:***@accessibilityoz.com>> wrote:



Hi



Does anyone have some research or evidence about the accessibility of different fonts? We have come across a very thin-lined font and we have been asked for proof that it is harder to read than normal font.



Thanks

Gian



(Sorry for cross-posting)



Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

[Jonathan Avila]

Hi Phil,

By embeded I mean Chrome, Firefox, etc. views embedded into native apps like those on Windows and Mac. With IE you had a control panel option for IE and the settings (Internet Options) from that carried into embedded IE views with your preferences. Chrome and Firefox views don't seem to have that as far as I know.

Jonathan

From: Phill Jenkins <***@us.ibm.com>
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2018 7:03 PM
To: Jonathan Avila <***@levelaccess.com>
Cc: Gian Wild <***@accessibilityoz.com>; Olaf Drümmer <***@callassoftware.com>; w3c WAI List <w3c-wai-***@w3.org>; Ron Lucey <***@gov.texas.gov>
Subject: RE: Font accessibility

Jonathan wrote:

. . . I think the reason [font accessibility] has not been addressed for web content is that historically browsers have provided the ability for users to apply their own styles and fonts and thus this has allowed these issues to become more usability type issues. However there are situations where the user cannot overwrite the font such as embedded content, native content, print content, etc. there is also a trend away from user agents allowing user level style sheets and pages also preventing extensions like Stylish to add document level styles.

Reply:

we cannot advocate for or allow a trend of a one size font fits all. Jonathan, I'm not saying that is what you're saying, but I am trying to use your observations that we as a community need to keep advocating for the browsers and user agents and assistive technologies to solve this need. Font selection should not ever primarily be a content or web author responsibility / issue. Sure its a consideration, and sure there is a font selection that fits *most* users, or *many* users, but accessibility is about adapting the content to fit *all users* or at least as many users as possible. Font selection should always start with the browser, user agent, and user selection and then only be a content issue when the font is *locked* by the author / content developer. Same with magnification, and the same with contrast - meaning that the content and web author's responsibility is to allow for changes and adaptions of their content by the user agent's settings for font, contrast, and magnification.

If there is a "trend away from user agents allowing user level style sheets . . . " then perhaps that is a problem that we as a community have caused or at least should be advocating against!, and a lot louder than it seems we are asking authors to settle on or choose some single font that fits many users. Where is the movement to require UAAG<https://www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/uaag/>compliance of the small number of browser manufactures? Sure, there are print choices that can't be changed once printed, and PowerPoint font choices that can't be changed during actual presentations, but when we're talking about digital accessibility, web accessibility, that is when I try to advocate 1st and foremost for adaptability, not a one-size-fits-all single font choice approach.

What do you mean by "embedded content" and "native content"? Shouldn't the browser or user agent be able to override that content's font too? If it should, or could, but isn't, then we as a community should be advocate for it. As that late night legal commercial goes, "We demand justice!" from the browsers.

btw, the Texas Governors Committee on Persons with Disabilities did some research and recommend Verdana fonts for all their PowerPoint presentations and printed materials. See https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/organization/.../19_PP_02.docx<https://www.google.com/url?q=https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/organization/disabilities/19_PP_02.docx&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwjp5Pz67e_bAhWwxFkKHQLTDygQFggOMAQ&client=internal-uds-cse&cx=002666182470826170590:zn4eerpozui&usg=AOvVaw2o1cqgYAQqE5Z6r_YA1kg1>

We have a resource about Contacting Organizations about Inaccessible Websites<https://www.w3.org/WAI/teach-advocate/contact-inaccessible-websites/>; we need one about Contacting Organizations about Inaccessible Browsers!

Possible ways to send issues to the browsers:

Send feedback about Google Chrome athttps://www.google.com/accessibility/get-in-touch.htm

Send feedback about Microsoft Edge at https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/accessibility

Send feedback about Mozilla Firefox at https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Accessibility

___________
Regards,
Phill Jenkins
Check out the new system for requesting an IBM product Accessibility Conformance Report VPAT®at able.ibm.com/request<https://able.ibm.com/request/>
***@us.ibm.com<mailto:***@us.ibm.com>
Senior Engineer & Accessibility Executive
IBM Research Accessibility



From: Jonathan Avila <***@levelaccess.com<mailto:***@levelaccess.com>>
To: "Olaf Drümmer" <***@callassoftware.com<mailto:***@callassoftware.com>>, Gian Wild <***@accessibilityoz.com<mailto:***@accessibilityoz.com>>, w3c WAI List <w3c-wai-***@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-***@w3.org>>
Date: 06/21/2018 10:13 PM
Subject: RE: Font accessibility
________________________________


* That much said - legibility as such is a usability aspect not an accessibility aspect. Accessibility rules though could build on top of usability aspects and require a heighten degree of usability.


I'd say legibility is an accessibility issue because it affects people with disabilities at a disproportional level. A font that is legible for a fully sighted person may be totally unusable by someone with low vision. I think the reason this has not been addressed for web content is that historically browsers have provided the ability for users to apply their own styles and fonts and thus this has allowed these issues to become more usability type issues. However there are situations where the user cannot overwrite the font such as embedded content, native content, print content, etc. there is also a trend away from user agents allowing user level style sheets and pages also preventing extensions like Stylish to add document level styles.



Jonathan

From:Olaf Drümmer <***@callassoftware.com<mailto:***@callassoftware.com>>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 5:12 AM
To: Gian Wild <***@accessibilityoz.com<mailto:***@accessibilityoz.com>>; w3c WAI List <w3c-wai-***@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-***@w3.org>>
Cc: Olaf Drümmer <***@callassoftware.com<mailto:***@callassoftware.com>>
Subject: Re: Font accessibility



Some fonts are more legible than others. This has been addressed by various standards, for example in the field of ergonomics and also in the context of regulation for labels on food or pharmaceutical items.



That much said - legibility as such is a usability aspect not an accessibility aspect. Accessibility rules though could build on top of usability aspects and require a heighten degree of usability.



It is important to understand that legibility rules depends a lot on context: viewing distance, amount of text, purpose of the information conveyed, etc. A long text benefits from a different font than the four letters 'STOP' on a stop sign.





Olaf





On 21. Jun 2018, at 10:58, Gian Wild <***@accessibilityoz.com<mailto:***@accessibilityoz.com>> wrote:



Hi



Does anyone have some research or evidence about the accessibility of different fonts? We have come across a very thin-lined font and we have been asked for proof that it is harder to read than normal font.



Thanks

Gian



(Sorry for cross-posting)



Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

[Felix Miata]

Post by Phill Jenkins
we cannot advocate for or allow a trend of a one size font fits all.

IMO this is qualifiedly false, depending on the definition of "size".

The whole problem of font sizes dates back to the incorporation of the CSS1 spec
in web browsers, specifically, the px unit, and its perfect disregard of the
UA's default text size.

If the rem unit and its kin were the only permissible units for sizing anything
other than bitmap images, at least 90% of font size problems would instantly
disappear (as would display density issues, and computer software as impediment
to technological display advancements).

With the rem unit, the user gets to pick the ideal physical size of the sizing
unit, whilst the perspectives, which are what the designer is really interested
in, are under the control of the designer - WIN-WIN!

If you don't believe me, take a look inside these two very simple examples I
made many moons ago and have not since touched:

http://fm.no-ip.com/Auth/Sites/dlviolin.html
http://fm.no-ip.com/Auth/Sites/Ksc/

All the design-side solutions and workarounds I've seen for text size problems,
including in particular "responsive design", to me look like _literally_ trying
to push rope.

[Phill Jenkins]

Yes Felix, I was referring to "one size" metaphorically, not literally
"font size" in pixels or EM's, but that "one font style" that would not
fits everyone needs as discussed throughout the thread.

And, your example "zoom's" nicely in Chrome and Firefox to 200% so I can
view the page in the "size" that fits my need's best too.
___________
Regards,
Phill Jenkins
Slack: #accessibility-at-ibm
Check out the new system for requesting an IBM product Accessibility
Conformance Report VPAT® at able.ibm.com/request
***@us.ibm.com
Senior Engineer & Accessibility Executive
IBM Research Accessibility



From: Felix Miata <***@earthlink.net>
To: w3c-wai-***@w3.org
Date: 06/25/2018 07:51 PM
Subject: Re: Font accessibility

Post by Phill Jenkins
we cannot advocate for or allow a trend of a one size font fits all.

IMO this is qualifiedly false, depending on the definition of "size".

The whole problem of font sizes dates back to the incorporation of the
CSS1 spec
in web browsers, specifically, the px unit, and its perfect disregard of
the
UA's default text size.

If the rem unit and its kin were the only permissible units for sizing
anything
other than bitmap images, at least 90% of font size problems would
instantly
disappear (as would display density issues, and computer software as
impediment
to technological display advancements).

With the rem unit, the user gets to pick the ideal physical size of the
sizing
unit, whilst the perspectives, which are what the designer is really
interested
in, are under the control of the designer - WIN-WIN!

If you don't believe me, take a look inside these two very simple examples
I
made many moons ago and have not since touched:

http://fm.no-ip.com/Auth/Sites/dlviolin.html

http://fm.no-ip.com/Auth/Sites/Ksc/


All the design-side solutions and workarounds I've seen for text size
problems,
including in particular "responsive design", to me look like _literally_
trying
to push rope.

[Felix Miata]

Post by Phill Jenkins
Yes Felix, I was referring to "one size" metaphorically, not literally
"font size" in pixels or EM's, but that "one font style" that would not
fits everyone needs as discussed throughout the thread.
And, your example "zoom's" nicely in Chrome and Firefox to 200% so I can
view the page in the "size" that fits my need's best too.

If you need to zoom, then something's wrong. :-p The foundational presumption is
that personal computing device users personalize their devices, so that
everything personalized that is not usurped by something else displays and works
optimally. That includes rejecting various as-shipped defaults by the device
owner selecting better-suited alternatives, browser default text size in particular.

[Chaals Nevile]

Post by Felix Miata

Post by Phill Jenkins
Yes Felix, I was referring to "one size" metaphorically, not literally
"font size" in pixels or EM's, but that "one font style" that would not
fits everyone needs as discussed throughout the thread.
And, your example "zoom's" nicely in Chrome and Firefox to 200% so I can
view the page in the "size" that fits my need's best too.

If you need to zoom, then something's wrong. :-p

True. But *what* is wrong turns out to be important.

Post by Felix Miata
The foundational presumption is that personal computing device users
personalize their devices,
so that everything personalized that is not usurped by something else
displays and works optimally.

The conclusion is correct, but we have learned that in practice the
foundational assumption is not.

Of the many reasons, a couple of very strong ones:
1. There are a lot of computing devices that are not personal but which
people are required to use. Content that might end up on one must provide
its own solution. People get used to that being the answer so expect it to
be that way.

2. People's visual needs change very dynamically. Time of day, ambient
light conditions (which can be related), fatigue levels, and the nature of
the task they are doing all impact how people trade off variations between
more screen space, more contrast, more content, and having to mess around
with their device instead of performing the task at hand.

Peronalisation of most devices is hard enough that in particular having to
mess with it to meet changing needs is something people avoid.

(As a random example I am typing this with a very white screen, because I
am in the dark and cannot see things cmpletely external to the computer
otherwise, and the most comfortable trade off wight now is to have my
screen "too bright". Other times I would avoid that, e.g. having it too
dark to preserve battery. Because reality is messy).

cheers

[Wayne Dick]

The temporal fluctuation of need something that almost everyone with low
vision experiences. This happens through the day, and over years. Over the
years I have used less and less saturation with my colors. Font size is
another. In the morning I only need 300% as the day goes on font size goes
up. Things like letter-spacing depend on the available font families. I
also used to go down to 250%, but no more. I have a few font families I
like: PT Sans, Open Sans, Tahoma. Since each applications gives you a very
limited choice I pick the closest to one of these three. Comic sans is
actually a very good font for distinguishing letters. Each time I use an
application I pick the closest thing to what really works for me.

If you take another person with visual acuity the same as me who also has
retina scotoma and weirdly you'll find a host of other choices.

Best Wayne

Post by Chaals Nevile

Post by Felix Miata

Post by Phill Jenkins
Yes Felix, I was referring to "one size" metaphorically, not literally
"font size" in pixels or EM's, but that "one font style" that would not
fits everyone needs as discussed throughout the thread.
And, your example "zoom's" nicely in Chrome and Firefox to 200% so I can
view the page in the "size" that fits my need's best too.

If you need to zoom, then something's wrong. :-p

True. But *what* is wrong turns out to be important.

Post by Felix Miata
The foundational presumption is that personal computing device users
personalize their devices,
so that everything personalized that is not usurped by something else
displays and works optimally.

The conclusion is correct, but we have learned that in practice the
foundational assumption is not.
1. There are a lot of computing devices that are not personal but which
people are required to use. Content that might end up on one must provide
its own solution. People get used to that being the answer so expect it to
be that way.
2. People's visual needs change very dynamically. Time of day, ambient
light conditions (which can be related), fatigue levels, and the nature of
the task they are doing all impact how people trade off variations between
more screen space, more contrast, more content, and having to mess around
with their device instead of performing the task at hand.
Peronalisation of most devices is hard enough that in particular having to
mess with it to meet changing needs is something people avoid.
(As a random example I am typing this with a very white screen, because I
am in the dark and cannot see things cmpletely external to the computer
otherwise, and the most comfortable trade off wight now is to have my
screen "too bright". Other times I would avoid that, e.g. having it too
dark to preserve battery. Because reality is messy).
cheers
--
Chaals: Charles (McCathie) Nevile find more at https://yandex.com
Using Opera's long-abandoned mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
Is there really still nothing better?

[Patrick H. Lauke]

On 26/06/2018 01:46, Felix Miata wrote:
[...]

Post by Felix Miata
If you don't believe me, take a look inside these two very simple examples I
http://fm.no-ip.com/Auth/Sites/dlviolin.html
http://fm.no-ip.com/Auth/Sites/Ksc/
All the design-side solutions and workarounds I've seen for text size problems,
including in particular "responsive design", to me look like _literally_ trying
to push rope.

For what it's worth, your two example sites are near enough unusable on
small-screen/mobile devices. Maybe that rope should have been pushed a
little bit further with media queries (aka "responsive design).

P

[Wayne Dick]

Felix's examples work well at 320 CSS px. I just tried them.

Chrome, x500%, my resolution 1600x900.

Wayne

Post by Felix Miata
[...]

Post by Felix Miata
If you don't believe me, take a look inside these two very simple

examples I

Post by Felix Miata
http://fm.no-ip.com/Auth/Sites/dlviolin.html
http://fm.no-ip.com/Auth/Sites/Ksc/
All the design-side solutions and workarounds I've seen for text size

problems,

Post by Felix Miata
including in particular "responsive design", to me look like _literally_

trying

Post by Felix Miata
to push rope.

For what it's worth, your two example sites are near enough unusable on
small-screen/mobile devices. Maybe that rope should have been pushed a
little bit further with media queries (aka "responsive design).
P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke
http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com

[Patrick H. Lauke]

Post by Wayne Dick
Felix's examples work well at 320 CSS px. I just tried them.
Chrome, x500%, my resolution 1600x900.

But not on a mobile device at this point (as it missed meta viewport
directives, to start with). Can also be verified using device emulation
in developer tools.

P

[Jonathan Avila]

I can't provide you proof but I can speak from personal experience that thin line fonts are much harder for me to read. Overly bold fonts are a problem as well because the shape of the letter then is harder to distinguish.

Jonathan

From: Gian Wild <***@accessibilityoz.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 4:59 AM
To: w3c-wai-***@w3.org
Subject: Font accessibility

Hi

Does anyone have some research or evidence about the accessibility of different fonts? We have come across a very thin-lined font and we have been asked for proof that it is harder to read than normal font.

Thanks
Gian

(Sorry for cross-posting)

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

[Karlen Communications]

I can chime in - I have difficulty reading sans-serif fonts because I can't
distinguish letter combinations like dl - to me it appears as a single
letter if the ligatures are not present. I also find thin fonts, even if
serif, difficult to read. Visually, they seem to blend into the background
too much. It is kind of like trying to see a twig in the grass versus a
branch.



Cheers, Karen



From: Jonathan Avila <***@levelaccess.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 11:09 PM
To: Gian Wild <***@accessibilityoz.com>; w3c-wai-***@w3.org
Subject: RE: Font accessibility



I can't provide you proof but I can speak from personal experience that thin
line fonts are much harder for me to read. Overly bold fonts are a problem
as well because the shape of the letter then is harder to distinguish.



Jonathan



From: Gian Wild <***@accessibilityoz.com <mailto:***@accessibilityoz.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 4:59 AM
To: w3c-wai-***@w3.org <mailto:w3c-wai-***@w3.org>
Subject: Font accessibility



Hi



Does anyone have some research or evidence about the accessibility of
different fonts? We have come across a very thin-lined font and we have been
asked for proof that it is harder to read than normal font.



Thanks

Gian



(Sorry for cross-posting)



Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

[Wayne Dick]

Hi Again,
I would like to reinforce Jon's observation. Legibility is an accessibility
issue because it is completely defined by perception, one of POUR.

I really think choice is the key issue. Karen likes serif because of
conflict pairs that occur more frequently with sans-serif fonts. I like
sans-serif with thinner letters because it is clean and I can detect the
differences in letters better. Jon likes a thick sans-serif font. If you
have not looked at the Low Vision Requirements
<https://www.w3.org/TR/low-vision-needs/> doc from the Low Vision Task
force you might find it interesting.

When we formed the low vision task force we invited lots of accessibility
experts with low vision. Once in a meeting we each described our
preferences for accommodations. Of the eight members with low vision no
two had the same preferences.

Here are some good practices:

- Since fonts people need can vary in width by a factor of 1.2 and
letter-spacing can be increased by an additional 0.12em, make sure to
enable change when the length of text changes. Text boxes and hard wired
positioned fields are a problem with this.
- When you use icon fonts use the ARIA parameter "role='img'".
- If any other unusual use of font family where the exact font family is
critical to the meaning, again use "role='img'". Example: Mathematical
alphabets fall in this category. The capital "N" used to express the
natural numbers comes from a special alphabet. The "N" I used would not be
appropriate if I didn't define "N stands for the natural numbers". The
font family should never be changed in these cases. Each letter is an icon
for a concept. Setting "role='img'" will say to the assistive technology
that this font family must be seen exactly as it is, because the font
family conveys meaning.

People like me are working on browser extensions to enable people to change
font family to suit their individual needs will require information like
that.

That's probably TMI, Sorry,

Wayne

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 5:32 AM Karlen Communications <

I can chime in – I have difficulty reading sans-serif fonts because I
can’t distinguish letter combinations like dl – to me it appears as a
single letter if the ligatures are not present. I also find thin fonts,
even if serif, difficult to read. Visually, they seem to blend into the
background too much. It is kind of like trying to see a twig in the grass
versus a branch.
Cheers, Karen
*Sent:* Thursday, June 21, 2018 11:09 PM
*Subject:* RE: Font accessibility
I can’t provide you proof but I can speak from personal experience that
thin line fonts are much harder for me to read. Overly bold fonts are a
problem as well because the shape of the letter then is harder to
distinguish.
Jonathan
*Sent:* Thursday, June 21, 2018 4:59 AM
*Subject:* Font accessibility
Hi
Does anyone have some research or evidence about the accessibility of
different fonts? We have come across a very thin-lined font and we have
been asked for proof that it is harder to read than normal font.
Thanks
Gian
(Sorry for cross-posting)
Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

[Jonathan Avila]

* Jon likes a thick sans-serif font


Actually that’s not quite what I said. I don’t like thin fonts. I like standard/normal font weights. As mentioned thicker too bold fonts lose the character shape and so I don’t like thick fonts. I think there is a balance in the middle that works best for me.

Jonathan

From: Wayne Dick <***@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2018 4:23 PM
To: ***@karlencommunications.com
Cc: Jonathan Avila <***@levelaccess.com>; ***@accessibilityoz.com; W3C WAI ig <w3c-wai-***@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Font accessibility

Hi Again,
I would like to reinforce Jon's observation. Legibility is an accessibility issue because it is completely defined by perception, one of POUR.

I really think choice is the key issue. Karen likes serif because of conflict pairs that occur more frequently with sans-serif fonts. I like sans-serif with thinner letters because it is clean and I can detect the differences in letters better. Jon likes a thick sans-serif font. If you have not looked at the Low Vision Requirements<https://www.w3.org/TR/low-vision-needs/> doc from the Low Vision Task force you might find it interesting.

When we formed the low vision task force we invited lots of accessibility experts with low vision. Once in a meeting we each described our preferences for accommodations. Of the eight members with low vision no two had the same preferences.

Here are some good practices:

* Since fonts people need can vary in width by a factor of 1.2 and letter-spacing can be increased by an additional 0.12em, make sure to enable change when the length of text changes. Text boxes and hard wired positioned fields are a problem with this.
* When you use icon fonts use the ARIA parameter "role='img'".
* If any other unusual use of font family where the exact font family is critical to the meaning, again use "role='img'". Example: Mathematical alphabets fall in this category. The capital "N" used to express the natural numbers comes from a special alphabet. The "N" I used would not be appropriate if I didn't define "N stands for the natural numbers". The font family should never be changed in these cases. Each letter is an icon for a concept. Setting "role='img'" will say to the assistive technology that this font family must be seen exactly as it is, because the font family conveys meaning.
People like me are working on browser extensions to enable people to change font family to suit their individual needs will require information like that.

That's probably TMI, Sorry,

Wayne

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 5:32 AM Karlen Communications <***@karlencommunications.com<mailto:***@karlencommunications.com>> wrote:
I can chime in – I have difficulty reading sans-serif fonts because I can’t distinguish letter combinations like dl – to me it appears as a single letter if the ligatures are not present. I also find thin fonts, even if serif, difficult to read. Visually, they seem to blend into the background too much. It is kind of like trying to see a twig in the grass versus a branch.

Cheers, Karen

From: Jonathan Avila <***@levelaccess.com<mailto:***@levelaccess.com>>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 11:09 PM
To: Gian Wild <***@accessibilityoz.com<mailto:***@accessibilityoz.com>>; w3c-wai-***@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-***@w3.org>
Subject: RE: Font accessibility

I can’t provide you proof but I can speak from personal experience that thin line fonts are much harder for me to read. Overly bold fonts are a problem as well because the shape of the letter then is harder to distinguish.

Jonathan

From: Gian Wild <***@accessibilityoz.com<mailto:***@accessibilityoz.com>>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 4:59 AM
To: w3c-wai-***@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-***@w3.org>
Subject: Font accessibility

Hi

Does anyone have some research or evidence about the accessibility of different fonts? We have come across a very thin-lined font and we have been asked for proof that it is harder to read than normal font.

Thanks
Gian

(Sorry for cross-posting)

Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

[Phill Jenkins]

Wayne,
that is not too much information (TMI)! please do provide that feedback to
the top 4 browsers so they can include the extension as a native feature,
instead of yet another extension to install and be maintained by the user:


Google Chrome at
https://www.google.com/accessibility/get-in-touch.htm
Microsoft Edge at
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/accessibility
Mozilla Firefox at
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Accessibility
Apple Safari at https://www.apple.com/feedback/safari.html

and also make sure NVDA, ZoomText, JAWS, etc. support role='img', I'm not
sure that is the case today.
___________
Regards,
Phill Jenkins
Check out the new system for requesting an IBM product Accessibility
Conformance Report VPAT® at able.ibm.com/request
***@us.ibm.com
Senior Engineer & Accessibility Executive
IBM Research Accessibility



From: Wayne Dick <***@gmail.com>
To: ***@karlencommunications.com
Cc: Jonathan Avila <***@levelaccess.com>,
***@accessibilityoz.com, W3C WAI ig <w3c-wai-***@w3.org>
Date: 06/22/2018 03:29 PM
Subject: Re: Font accessibility



Hi Again,
I would like to reinforce Jon's observation. Legibility is an
accessibility issue because it is completely defined by perception, one
of POUR.

I really think choice is the key issue. Karen likes serif because of
conflict pairs that occur more frequently with sans-serif fonts. I like
sans-serif with thinner letters because it is clean and I can detect the
differences in letters better. Jon likes a thick sans-serif font. If you
have not looked at the Low Vision Requirements doc from the Low Vision
Task force you might find it interesting.

When we formed the low vision task force we invited lots of accessibility
experts with low vision. Once in a meeting we each described our
preferences for accommodations. Of the eight members with low vision no
two had the same preferences.

Here are some good practices:
Since fonts people need can vary in width by a factor of 1.2 and
letter-spacing can be increased by an additional 0.12em, make sure to
enable change when the length of text changes. Text boxes and hard wired
positioned fields are a problem with this.
When you use icon fonts use the ARIA parameter "role='img'".
If any other unusual use of font family where the exact font family is
critical to the meaning, again use "role='img'". Example: Mathematical
alphabets fall in this category. The capital "N" used to express the
natural numbers comes from a special alphabet. The "N" I used would not be
appropriate if I didn't define "N stands for the natural numbers". The
font family should never be changed in these cases. Each letter is an icon
for a concept. Setting "role='img'" will say to the assistive technology
that this font family must be seen exactly as it is, because the font
family conveys meaning.
People like me are working on browser extensions to enable people to
change font family to suit their individual needs will require information
like that.

That's probably TMI, Sorry,

Wayne

On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 5:32 AM Karlen Communications <
***@karlencommunications.com> wrote:
I can chime in ? I have difficulty reading sans-serif fonts because I
can?t distinguish letter combinations like dl ? to me it appears as a
single letter if the ligatures are not present. I also find thin fonts,
even if serif, difficult to read. Visually, they seem to blend into the
background too much. It is kind of like trying to see a twig in the grass
versus a branch.

Cheers, Karen

From: Jonathan Avila <***@levelaccess.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 11:09 PM
To: Gian Wild <***@accessibilityoz.com>; w3c-wai-***@w3.org
Subject: RE: Font accessibility

I can?t provide you proof but I can speak from personal experience that
thin line fonts are much harder for me to read. Overly bold fonts are a
problem as well because the shape of the letter then is harder to
distinguish.

Jonathan

From: Gian Wild <***@accessibilityoz.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 4:59 AM
To: w3c-wai-***@w3.org
Subject: Font accessibility

Hi

Does anyone have some research or evidence about the accessibility of
different fonts? We have come across a very thin-lined font and we have
been asked for proof that it is harder to read than normal font.

Thanks
Gian

(Sorry for cross-posting)

Get Outlook for iOS