W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2004

RE: question: fixed vs. liquid layout

From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 18:05:03 +0300
To: "'Marco Trevisan > Bazzmann|Mag'" <info@bazzmann.com>, 'Jim Thatcher' <jim@jimthatcher.com>
Cc: 'Gregg Vanderheiden' <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, 'W3C WAI' <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-id: <009901c453b3$4d9be410$340aa8c0@lisaibm>

In my mind there is no question, flexible and fluid,

give control to the user, not end content with fixed presentation.

that is, to me a guiding light of accessibility


The worst case of this I know of is people are currently using a visual
architecture (which is inaccessible), for
BILI (bidirectional languages) sites. Line brakes are all hard coded,
and table with , and the alignment sent to right. The words order is
encoded backwards but it looks Ok, because the line brakes are hard
coded.

Enlarge the font and it stops making any sense. The flow makes no sense
- so it is inaccessible. 

All the best,
lisa




> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Marco 
> Trevisan > Bazzmann|Mag
> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 10:14 AM
> To: Jim Thatcher
> Cc: 'Gregg Vanderheiden'; 'W3C WAI'
> Subject: Re: question: fixed vs. liquid layout
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Thatcher ha scritto:
> 
> > Hi Marco,
> 
> Hi Jim,
> 
> > Which is new and which is old? http://www.bazzmann.com/standard/ is 
> > what you call flexible, right? And this, 
> http://www.bazzmann.com/, is fixed.
> 
> The first ( 
> bazzmann.com/standard ) is the old.
> 
> > But I don't now which is new. Which one was more readable 
> and easier 
> > to use? I hope the flexible one, http://www.bazzmann.com/standard/, 
> > but am not sure.
> 
> Sounds really strange, but the fixed one is better for users. 
> But, note, I'm just talking about flexible or fixed width of 
> the design, not about contrast, colors and so on.
> 
> 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). Less width resulted more readable than "wide". 
> It's curious, and interesting in the same time.
> 
> Naturally this version is not the definitive one, we are 
> hardly working about set of stylesheets, testing our own CMS 
> (the engine of the current
> version) and typography, color, form, balance, contrast, 
> texture, compatibility, layout stability, usability and... 
> accessibility.
> 
> -- 
> 
> Aloha,
> Marco Trevisan
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> < Bazzmann|Mag > E' nato il design molecolare. | 
http://www.bazzmann.com < Bazzmann Srl > Design molecolare applicato.  |
http://www.bazzmann.it
Received on Wednesday, 16 June 2004 11:05:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:30 GMT