W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > site-comments@w3.org > December 2009

Re: Redesign Styles Hypocritical

From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 04:43:00 +0000
Message-ID: <4B207C54.1040203@splintered.co.uk>
To: Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net>
CC: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org, site-comments@w3.org, www-style@w3.org
On 10/12/2009 03:10, Felix Miata wrote:
> On 2009/12/09 21:59 (GMT) Patrick H. Lauke composed:
>> Accessibility rarely deals with absolutes, black/white situations.
>
> That may be true, but without question for sighted users legibility is
> fundamental to accessibility. Since he isn't there, the designer has no
> reasonable basis to determine that making his baseline text size anything
> other than 100% can improve or maintain legibility.

So there are shades of legibility then. So again, not binary 
accessible/inaccessible. Just ideal and not ideal?

>> Ok, this argument has been going around forever. It assumes that users
>> set their browser to their preferred font-size.
>
> To bring up this issue presumes a designer can or should do anything about
> what users do or don't do with their browser's default text size. Since the
> designer isn't there, he's in no position to determine the consequences
> outside his direct control, including whether a user needs or would rather
> something different than what he has. Thus it doesn't matter whether users
> know how or do or not. Any do, and they should be given deference.

The same could also be said for choice of colour, layout, ...

>> It also neglects the
>> fact that, for better or worse, the large majority of sites do (either
>> through px based fonts or something like font-size: 0.85em or whatever)
>> duck the standard body size from 100% on a regular basis.
>
> This paradigm has outlived its desirability.

"And still it moves". It may have outlived it, but it's still here in 
the web as it is today.

>> As they have to on the majority of other sites out there. Either that or
>> *they* would have to go into their preferences and change the default
>> text size, which I'd posit not many people even know how to do.
>
> And I posit that most of those who actually _need_ to will find out both that
> they can, and how to do it.

Ok, so assuming that users _do_ change their settings...while they're 
rummaging in preferences and settings, and they come across many (if not 
most) sites that still do the less desirable thing of setting sizes in 
pixels and/or below 100%, they would then also likely:

- in IE8, go to Tools > Internet Options > General > Accessibility > 
Ignore font sizes specified by webpages
- in Firefox, go to Tools > Options > Content > Advanced and set the 
Minimum font size
- (equivalent for other browsers)

?

P
-- 
Patrick H. Lauke
______________________________________________________________
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]

www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com | http://flickr.com/photos/redux/
______________________________________________________________
Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
______________________________________________________________
Received on Thursday, 10 December 2009 04:43:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 24 October 2012 16:21:32 GMT