Re: [office-accessibility] Malte's comments on latest draft

["Dave Pawson" <dave.pawson@gmail.com>]

On 03/10/06, Peter Korn <Peter.Korn@sun.com> wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> I have no problem moving to a larger font size for our own document.

I've heard the phrase 'eating our own dogfood'. Unsure if its applicabe
(I had to have it explained :-)

>
> I am somewhat uncertain about some of what is in 3.2.  The main focus I
> think of this document is ODF implementors, with advice on helping them
> help authors (and readers).  It doesn't make sense to tell an
> implementor to create text in at least 12 point size.
It does to me (as Malte pointed out, most office apps default to 10 pt
as \tex did)

I can see
> suggesting 12 point as the default size.
Thats the goal. If you want an example, use me. I'm getting to be
comfortable with 14 point now.


And I can see having a "put
> this ODF app into a 'good for generating accessible content'"
> switch/mode - especially important for organizations like Massachusetts
> who want an easy way to choose a style sheet for making good content (in
> fact, perhaps several sets, including the "for creating large print
> books" set, vs. "standard accessible documents" [vs. legalease text in
> the myopia 6 font :-)]).  But... going beyond that seems to me to be
> appropriate for a slightly different document.

I think we are agreeing on the point. I'm against having it as a 'special'
for low or poor vision users. I call it politeness, hence I'd prefer to
offer a suggestion that it be the default? I'm happy to have you reword it
though Peter.
  I guess we can throw bricks again with your wording :-)


>
>
> Peter
>
> P.S. I've finished my first pass at chapter 1, and am working on chapter 2.

Do we need to give the TC a heads up that it's on its way (we did say end
of the month).


regards




-- 
Dave Pawson
XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
http://www.dpawson.co.uk