Re: RE: best body text font size?

O.K. I'm back, and I'll comment on this thing, and try not to get myself
into too much trouble! I'll just state my simple opinion --nothing
more, and I won't be playing the politically correct, or incorrect game,
I'll just describe an issue the way I see it --the way it appears from
my perspective, and as you know, we each, depending on our position in life,
have a unique one.

Brett, you started it with your statement:

"This allows for people with disabilities etc. to still be able to read the
text."

but don't fret, Brett, because it's not your fault, it's just this "thing,"
and it's becoming universal, without anyone really giving it too much
thought. I kinda feel that one's being slipped in on us, so thanks for your
statement.

Now... this all leads up to this thing, this *term*, that I have so much
trouble with, and it goes like this: "People with disabilities." Then, it
gets bigger, and goes on to: "Accessible for people with disabilities."

So, let's start with this word: "disabilities." It's has a very broad
meaning, don't you think so? Heck, "disability" could probably describe what
we've all had at one time or another, because by the current definition of
"disability," we all have, or have had one or several. Again, it's a word
with a very broad, easy to qualify for meaning.

What one may visualize when thinking of "disability," however, may actually
be the more physically serious: Acute Spinal Problems, Loss of Limb, Brittle
Bones, Severe Arthritis, Severe Burn, Multiple Sclerosis, Hemophilia, Heart
Disease, Muscular Dystrophy, Spina Bifida, Epilepsy, Spinal Cord Injury,
Deafness, Emphysema, Blindness. "Accessibility" in Web design for "people
with disabilities," is helpful to but a few of the hundreds of
thousands/millions of people in these areas.

As you know, there has been legislation requiring government Web sites to be
in compliance with standards of Web design that are deemed "accessible" to
"people with disabilities." When one begins to examine the written material,
they find numerous "possible" scenarios (some rather unusual) of "people
with disabilities" using the Web, and how different design techniques may
*theoretically* work, but there is nothing absolute.

In fact, the problem with the "term" is its lack of integrity, because
Web sites that are deemed "accessible to people with disabilities," really
are not *helpful* to most "people with disabilities" like the term suggests.
Although a Web site may be "accessible," wasn't it "accessible" before it
was redesigned to be "accessible to the disabled?" Follow me? It may be
helpful to people with some visual impairments (visual
disability --singular), but it is not helpful to the *majority* of "people
with disabilities" --plural.

So... Isn't this legislation kind of the "long way around" the issue? And
was it won by the less than honest use of the term "people with
disabilities," a broad term that would appeal to broader support than a term
such as: "accessible to the visually impaired" (many of whom may do just as
well adjusting their machines for easier viewing)? Couldn't we have
taken all the money that went into that legislation and the revamped Web
sites, and better served the people *who could really use the benefit* (such
as people with visual impairment) by putting it into an industry that
specializes in new and improved technologies that are incorporated into
devices and software that would translate *any* Web page, for any user
depending on his/her individual requirements? "Jaws" for the blind is a
start, but there's certainly plenty of room for improvement and expansion!

Why change established protocol all over the Web, and cramp the style of
talented designers for the very few, who more likely would be better served
by a niche industry providing tools to match specific needs? Why handicap
the majority of viewers by confining their Internet experience to restricted
design methods? Do we want this requirement trend to carry from government
Web sites to the private sector? And why give the character-challenged
a new and easier justification to file lawsuits and win them? It just
doesn't make sense to me. It's a one-size-fits-all fix in a world where one
size definitely does not fit all.

What's the best body text font size? -the one that Joe and Josie Viewer
likes best for *whatever* reason. Perhaps Brett's statement should have
read: "This keeps it easier to read." instead of: "This allows for people
with disabilities etc. to still be able to read the text." --eh, Brett?

And that's my 2 cents. It's not perfect, but you get my drift...

Peace and safety be with you all,
Lauren



----- Original Message -----
From: "Lauren Hanka" <bluejay(at)starband.net>
To: <x_670(at)mtv.com>; <hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2001 11:41 PM
Subject: Re: RE: best body text font size?


> Hi Brett,
>
> I'm really not picking on you... there's more to this "description," than
> meets the eye (oops! --no pun, really! :) ), and tomorrow, when I'm fresh,
> and have a few minutes to think, I will compose something that defines my
> thoughts on the matter. Your post was only a catalyst, so please don't
take
> my fire personally.
>
> Contrary to what some here think, I didn't take you the wrong way --I knew
> what you meant, but I purposely left "visual disability" off my "list" to
> generate thought regarding a term which is becoming universally
accepted --a
> term that has no integrity, and I'll say a little more tomorrow...
>
> You will have to forgive my tardy reply... my computer has been giving me
> some problems, and on the 3rd, it finally had a major system crash --I've
> been busy picking up the pieces ever since...
>
> Lauren, who hasn't gotten "spell checker" to work yet...
>
>
> > Wooooooahhhhhh Geez
> >
> > Way too take that the wrong way Lauren. Thanks Rebecca for thinking
> > about it :)
> >
> > Obviously I didn't mean that it was definately for every disability.
> > I only said "This allows for people with
> > disabilities etc."
> >
> > I did not say it was by any means 100% fullproof or the perfect
> > solution or something like that. I simply meant that it is for people
> > who do not have perfect vision (or similar). I'm sorry I didn't word
> > it correctly. All I meant was that in the Desktop Publishing industry
> > it is commonly known that size 12 is the standard for body text. The
> > reason for this is in the human eye. It is easier for the eye to read
> > size 12 than any other size, just the same as it is easier for it to
> > read Serif fonts rather than Sans Serif (in large quantities like
> > body text).
> >
> > In future I think you need to just think about what someone has said
> > first before reacting to it. I would never ever intentionally say
> > something rude on a list such as this. Sorry for the confusion
> >
> > Later,
> > Brett
> >
> > ---- Begin Original Message ----
> >
> > From: Rebecca Campbell <Rebecca.Campbell(at)trustvesta.com>
> > Sent: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 09:43:18 -0700
> > To: "'Lauren Hanka'" <bluejay(at)starband.net>, hwg-techniques(at)hwg.org
> > Subject: RE: best body text font size?
> >
> >
> > <<and do they need to be a combination of two or more of the above in
> > order
> > for this to be so? Or is this popular and poorly considered statement
> > just
> > meant to be insulting?>>
> >
> > Oh, come on!  It should be clear that, in the context of a font-size
> > discussion for web design the diabilities mentioned deal with vision
> > impairment.  Just because someone words their sentences in a manner
> > that
> > requires us to infer meaning (which all of us should be able to do)
> > does not
> > mean that they were being insensitive or attempting to offend anybody.
> >
> > If you are looking to take offense, you can (and will) find every
> > situation
> > offensive.  Seems like a waste of energy to me, though.
> >
> > Rebecca
> > http://www.nerdygirl.com
>
>

HWG hwg-techniques mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA