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 10:37:14 -0400
Message-ID: <D47827B1DE559D458AB76C6E6EADFC669CD689@tortugas.beacontec.com>
To: "'Robert Neff'" <robert.neff@uaccessit.com>, "'Chris O'Kennon'" <chris@vipnet.org>, "'Charles McCathieNevile'" <charles@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

Then the only solution would be to state that we can't code for Netscape 4.x
and to design accordingly, otherwise we will fail on that checkpoint. It
isn't a case of working around and using relative fonts - this is a case of
relative fonts being destroyed (use them and your page format is blown -
they don't work). But I hate to do that. I feel like I'm alienating a large
audience. Granted the page will still "work" but since the font that is
supposed to be a title may end up smaller than the text - I can't say it is
"usable".

Eugenia

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Neff [mailto:robert.neff@uaccessit.com]
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 10:17 AM
To: 'Chris O'Kennon'; Slaydon, Eugenia; 'Charles McCathieNevile'
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: magnifiers vs relative font-sizes


When programmers developing web sites and are using standards, there are
two concerns.
1.  When browsers do not always implement the standards
2.  How do you address old browsers? This is sometimes referred to as
backward compatibility.

This is not cut and dry and a business decision by the marketing or
program manager may be needed.  Here the target audience must be
considered and the role the expanded audience who you: (1) want to
attract, and (2) do not want to alienate.

As much as we want to be ubiquitous, web design is still a business and
cost must be projected and budgets met.  Therefore the decision to move
forward with standards must be one that can be supported and implemented
by the development team in the budget and time constraints.  Here, most
issues are lessons learned from development and feedback from the
audience, which correlate back to the target audience.  To address these
issues, the site maintenance budget and schedule must allot for the
changed. Issues that cannot be addressed through time, current
competencies, and architecture must be addressed in the redesign - AND
THIS NEEDS TO BE BUDGETED.

So by law, Federal Agencies in the United States must address 508
whereas commercial entities are more prone to consider their audience.
Hence, the moral of the story for the commercial audience - speak up and
provide feedback so you are part of the target audience.

Robert Neff
robert.neff@uaccessit.com
214.213.1979


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Chris O'Kennon
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 9:24 AM
To: 'Slaydon, Eugenia'; 'Charles McCathieNevile'
Cc: 'jonathan chetwynd'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: magnifiers vs relative font-sizes


On the one hand, I agree that many developers have trouble with the
implementation of standards because browsers just don't seem to agree on
what to do and how to do it.  It's probably the only business where no
one
steals good ideas from each other.  How difficult is it to just support
style sheets the same way?

On the other hand, many of these standards are tough because developers
are
used to just one way of doing things, and just one audience to do it
for.  I
only recently even started using style sheets, because I just found it
easier to hard code my font sizes into each page, so I'd know exactly
what
the layout would look like on every browser imaginable, and not have to
worry about which ones handled style sheets.  It may not be easy design
to
take so many variables into account when you create a site, but it's
good
design.  It sometimes takes longer than bosses may want, but if you end
up
with a site that looks good and works well for everyone - even if it
doesn't
look exactly the same for everyone - then you have a superior product.

Chris O'Kennon
Commonwealth of Virginia Webmaster/
VIPNet Portal Architect
www.myvirginia.org
 
______________________________________
"When people are free to do as they please, 
they usually imitate each other."


-----Original Message-----
From: Slaydon, Eugenia [mailto:ESlaydon@beacontec.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 8:31 AM
To: 'Charles McCathieNevile'
Cc: 'jonathan chetwynd'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: magnifiers vs relative font-sizes



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
have 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 to 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 information).

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...

Chaals

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.
>
>Eugenia
>
>-----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, and
>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
brief
>thread at www-style:
>
>scale: font-size to % of client window?
>
>
>
>thanks
>
>
>
>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,
France)
Received on Monday, 15 July 2002 10:24:51 GMT

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