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

[Janina Sajka <janina@freestandards.org>]

Agree with the move to 12-point type.

I also had the question of "Who is this for?" when I read the draft.
Perhaps we're aiming at several audiences without complete clarity as to
the appropriate guidance that should pertain to each?

*	Authoring Tools Developers: These need to be told the kind of
*	markup we require. I think they also need to be encouraged to
*	think in terms of "Good Authoring Practices Wizzards." We have
*	spell check, we have grammar check. How about "Good Structure
*	Check?" Check for multiple <Enter> that might really be a
*	Ctrl-L; multiple 0X20 that might really be an Indent or at least
*	a Tab.

*	Advice To Authors: How to choose styles and practices that
*	support accessibility. This is the font guidance, and the
*	annotation of graphix guidance. It will look a lot like WCAG, I
*	think.

Peter Korn writes:
> Hi Dave,
> 
> I have no problem moving to a larger font size for our own document.  I 
> have tagged the body of the text of our guidelines documet as the "Text 
> Body" style, which is is now set to 12 point Arial.  We'll need to do 
> alot more style work - perhaps part of the editing phase (Dave - the 
> bold headings in your section 3.2.4 probably should have a formal 
> style).  I've likewise altered the table of contents styles (levels 
> 1..3) to be 12 point.
> 
> 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.  I can see 
> suggesting 12 point as the default size.  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.
> 
> 
> Peter
> 
> P.S. I've finished my first pass at chapter 1, and am working on chapter 2.
> >On 02/10/06, Malte Timmermann <Malte.Timmermann@sun.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>> 3.2.3: work with font sizes of at least 12 point..
> >>>> => So why do we use 10 in normal text??? ;)
> >>>> I think a lot of people use 10, so I wouldn't recommend 12 here, but
> >>>> recommend to ODF implementors to offer a zoom mode.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I disagree with this.
> >>> Because a lot of people do it doesn't help with accessibility.
> >>>
> >>OK, but then stop using 10pt in our document.
> >
> >
> >Yes please Peter/Rich?
> >
> >RNIB has a standard of 14 point which we class as 'clear' print
> >required for all internal documents.
> >
> >regards
> >
> >

-- 

Janina Sajka				Phone: +1.202.595.7777
Partner, Capital Accessibility LLC	http://CapitalAccessibility.Com

Marketing the Owasys 22C talking screenless cell phone in the U.S. and Canada--Go to http://ScreenlessPhone.Com to learn more.

Chair, Accessibility Workgroup		Free Standards Group (FSG)
janina@freestandards.org		http://a11y.org