On Jun 7, 2007, at 1:26 AM, Paul Novitski wrote:
> I've never understood the sense of that criterion, e.g. "the page
> should survive two [or three] font size enlargements." Doesn't that
> depend entirely on what size the smallest font on the page is?
Indeed, it does. We need the real font to be of a readable size,
which means the degree of resizability in itself doesn't really matter.
> If my vision were so weak that I needed to enlarge text to 1/2-inch
> type on the screen, it wouldn't matter whether that required one
> click or ten, I'd still need it to become that large. It's not the
> number of enlargements that's relevant, it's the size of the
> resulting type.
I agree 100%.
> What I don't know is if there's any kind of a minimum font size that
> we should ensure our readers can achieve. I doubt that there is one,
> given the variation in vision impairments, but I'll be curious to
> know what others think.
I use 200% of the default - which on my OS results in 'font-size:
32px', for 'minimum font size' testing. This is based on what I use
as "normal" font-family - 'georgia', and I adjust slightly for
readability when I use font-families with smaller x-height.
Such a test should - in my opinion - not result in severe layout-
breaking or overlapping and such.
I don't expect a layout, any layout, to survive such a test in a
"pixel-perfect" manner, but well enough to not cause reading problems
This should cover the need for resizing for normally aging eyes. for
visitors up to at least 90 years of age, and I intend to be in, or
pass, that age - one day :-)
There will always be visitors who need more - larger real font size,
Browser-options and AT should cover those needs - as long as we don't
build barriers into our designs.
Georg (on vacation in USA - using a borrowed address to respond ;-) )
IE7 information -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/