W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2002

Re: Checkpoint 3.4 relative vs absolute

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 19:25:37 +1000
Message-ID: <15630.64657.476701.412658@jdc.local>
To: "Virant, Michael W" <Virant.Michael.W@edumail.vic.gov.au>
Cc: "'w3c-wai-gl@w3.org'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Virant, Michael W writes:
 > 
 > Please confirm that absolute values in a CSS file still pass checkpoint 3.4 as
 > long as I've validated that the rendered content is usable.

That seems to be what WCAG 1.0 is saying, as I read the checkpoint.

Note that WCAG 2.0, which is still under development, will be much
clearer in specifying the conditions that must be met in order for a
checkpoint to be satisfied. Meanwhile, I would suggest interpreting
WCAG 1.0 by looking at the purpose of the checkpoint, rather than
by trying to interpret the language in a strict or pedantic fashion. I
am in no way suggesting that you have been doing the latter; rather, I
am merely indicating that when questions arise, it is best to consider
the rationale of the requirement and to interpret the text
accordingly. Of course, you are welcome to raise questions, as in this case.

Checkpoint 3.4 is concerned to ensure that, when a user specifies a
large font size in their personal style sheet or configuration
settings, the document will still be rendered properly, with styles
being applied correctly. If absolute units are used, enlarging the
font will often be disastrous to the presentation. Thus I would
suggest checking that the presentation still "works" reasonably well if the user
specifies relatively large font sizes. If so, then (as I read the
checkpoint), you will have met the requirement.

Note: the above are my personal views and do not necessarily represent
a consensus opinion on the part of the WCAG working group.
Received on Tuesday, 18 June 2002 05:25:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:19 GMT