- From: David Dorward <david@us-lot.org>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 10:47:00 +0100
- To: 'W3C WAI' <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
On 16 Jun 2004, at 08:13, Marco Trevisan > Bazzmann|Mag wrote:
> Sounds really strange, but the fixed one is better for users.
I disagree.
> The first one, at 1024x768, use about 126 chars width (the flash news
> of
> W3C, for example), the second one about 80 chars width (50 chars if you
> increase font up to 150% of normal size).
The number of characters on a line varies with font size.
In a fixed width layout, the physical line length can not be easily
modified by the user.
In a flexible width layout, the physical line length can be easily
modified (within the limits of the hardware) by resizing the browser
window.
If the font size used by the author[1] is too small or large for the
reader, then the reader is likely[2] to alter their font size. This
might well set the number of characters on the line to something
difficult to read. It is only with a flexible layout that the user
could adjust the line length to compensate.
[1] Which may be the default font size on their system, a font size
specified in absolute units in the page style sheet, or their default
font size modified by relative units in the page style sheet. i.e.
Whatever font size they are creating their design based on.
[2] Assuming a user who knows how to use their software
--
David Dorward
<http://dorward.me.uk/>
<http://blog.dorward.me.uk/>
Received on Wednesday, 16 June 2004 05:49:12 UTC