Re: Technique 3.4.1 Check document for relative units of measure

640x480 is not the lowest resolution monitor. Any more than IE is the browser
everyone uses.

If the font size changes and the table size doesn't then the layout may/will
change anyway.

The navigation images issue is related to the use of images of text. Is there
a problem that it causes to have 80% of my 320x240 screen taken up by a
navbar? (I think so...)

Chaals

On Thu, 28 Sep 2000, Chris Ridpath wrote:

  Could there be some cases where an absolute size in tables and framesets may
  be appropriate?
  
  An absolute size is OK if:
  
  If the table contains a form - the author may not want the form layout to be
  changed by a table changing size.
  If the table column or frame contains images (navigation buttons for
  example) that are a set size - the other table columns or frames may change
  size but the column containing the images should stay put.
  If the entire table or frameset size is less than 640 X 480 pixels - this
  will fit on the lowest resolution monitor.
  
  Chris
  
  
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "Michael Cooper" <mcooper@cast.org>
  To: "WAI ER IG List" <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
  Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2000 10:38 AM
  Subject: RE: Technique 3.4.1 Check document for relative units of measure
  
  
  > For Bobby, I went through the HTML spec and we've only implemented the
  > requirement to have relative size units for those elements that support
  > them. When we originally had it for any size attribute, every table
  border,
  > cellspacing, cellpadding, etc. attribute got called out, even width and
  > height for images!. But in HTML, there are no relative sizes you can
  define
  > for those attributes. In CSS, there are (and by the way, you can use a
  > fractional em, like "border: .1em"), so if we were evaluating CSS I would
  > say border, padding, margin etc. should be covered.
  >
  > The only elements and attributes we check for absolute size, then, are:
  >
  > COL - width, charoff
  > COLGROUP - width, charoff
  > HR - width
  > FRAMESET - rows, cols
  > IFRAME - width, height
  > TABLE - width
  > TBODY - charoff
  > TH - width, height, charoff
  > TFOOT - charoff
  > THEAD - charoff
  > TD - width, height, charoff
  > TR - height, charoff
  >
  > Michael
  >
  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: w3c-wai-er-ig-request@w3.org
  > [mailto:w3c-wai-er-ig-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Chris Ridpath
  > Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2000 12:07 PM
  > To: WAI ER IG List
  > Subject: Technique 3.4.1 Check document for relative units of measure
  >
  >
  > Could the 'border' attribute be an exception to this rule? It's a common
  > practice to use 1 or 2 for a table/image/frame border to indicate that
  there
  > should be some sort of thin line surrounding the object. If we do require
  a
  > relative measure for a border, what would it be? (I think that an 'em' or
  > 'ex' would be too large to replace a 1 pixel border.)
  >
  > Chris
  >
  >
  

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    mailto:charles@w3.org    phone: +61 (0) 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative                      http://www.w3.org/WAI
Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
September - November 2000: 
W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France

Received on Thursday, 28 September 2000 12:12:59 UTC