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

RE: magnifiers vs relative font-sizes

From: Slaydon, Eugenia <ESlaydon@beacontec.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 08:30:55 -0400
Message-ID: <D47827B1DE559D458AB76C6E6EADFC669CD685@tortugas.beacontec.com>
To: "'Charles McCathieNevile'" <charles@w3.org>
Cc: "'jonathan chetwynd'" <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

But to say that a site absolutely will not meet standards if it doesn't use
relative font-sizes is a big deal. As a developer I am told that I must make
the site look right, work, meet standards AND do so in NN 4.x and above and
IE 4.x and above. Netscape 4.x doesn't just not support relative font sizes
- it destroys them. So what is the lowly developer to do? I think one of the
reasons that developers don't follow accessibility standards is because they
can be so difficult to implement. Granted the newer browsers are going to
make that easier but most developers aren't given the option of coding for
their favorite browser. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:charles@w3.org]
Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 9:48 PM
To: Slaydon, Eugenia
Cc: 'jonathan chetwynd'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: magnifiers vs relative font-sizes

No, it is saying that people who use Netscape 4.x browsers shouldn't expect
it to handle HTML and CSS very well under certain circumstances. I don't
any problem with people using Netscape 4.x (or any other browser) if they
happen to like it and it suits their needs, but I have a big problem with
people turning up with broken systems and expecting that the Web be broken
match. As well as with sites that do break the Web to match such systems.
They tend to be simple problems - I think the most common is "I can't make a
payment here so I will go find another provider". I don't expect peoploe to
resolve the problems caused by bugs in my browser (the one that annoys me
most is missing some CSS-positioning, although it isn't more than cosmetic
until people try to use presentation to convey critical structure

I have a strong reason for preferring relative font-sizes - they are what I
need to be able to keep reading for the day. In fact some of my browsers do
pretty good zooming. The ones that require proper coding...


On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, Slaydon, Eugenia wrote:

>I still have a problem with pushing for relative font-sizes in CSS because
>it is destroyed in Netscape. Saying that you must use relative font sizes
>instead of absolute for accessibility is the same as saying you aren't
>allowed to use a Netscape 4.x browser.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: jonathan chetwynd [mailto:j.chetwynd@btinternet.com]
>Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 10:23 AM
>To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
>Subject: magnifiers vs relative font-sizes
>Does anyone have strong reasons for preferring relative font-sizes to a
>screen maginifier?
>if so what are they?
>For magnifiers:
>There is a serious conflict between the necessity of
>keeping everything on one page, and allowing users to control font size.
>for people with severe learning difficulties, this is particularly acute.
>magnifiers, allow one to gain a feel for the whole document, whilst
>enlarging a part.
>setting the font size to large makes the document larger than the screen,
>one looses the ability to percieve the whole.
>further, a great number of people don't appreciate that there is more than
>one can see.
>from an offline discussion with Boris Zbarsky, following from a recent
>thread at www-style:
>scale: font-size to % of client window?
>jonathan chetwynd

Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409
134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI  fax: +33 4 92 38
78 22
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,
Received on Monday, 15 July 2002 08:18:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:42 UTC