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

RE: Re: question: fixed vs. liquid layout

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 2004 09:07:29 -0500
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <auto-000073212130@spamarrest.com>

In all these discussions, we should keep in mind that when we are saying
that it is not good for accessibility etc we are talking in relative terms. 

I think it is better to say "it is more accessible if...."  unless we are
talking about an absolute access problem (not even perceivable).  Having to
use the horizontal scroll bar to read something is not an absolute bar --
but it can be pretty close for people with very low vision unless they have
proper tools that will realign them to the beginning of the next line.
However if we design our pages correctly this could be done.   However if
you add a second column of text, it is much harder for the tool and the
person to figure out what is going on.   Try setting your window width down
to one forth of the screen.   Now look through a soda straw and use that
vision with horizontal scrolling and tackle some sites.     Maybe not
absolutely inaccessible but largely unusable.... and therefore largely
inaccessible.

SO - back to what is good or better.  

I won't say what is 'good enough' but I suggest that better is 

- pages that can be rendered linearly by user agents (regular or special)
- pages that allow text to be easily resized (and change font face so a good
stroke width can be used if authors like to use a thin letter.)
- pages that allow text to reflow.    
 
Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
Received on Saturday, 19 June 2004 10:07:43 GMT

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