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

RE: Re: question: fixed vs. liquid layout

From: Joe Clark <joeclark@joeclark.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2004 21:03:29 -0500 (CDT)
To: WAI-GL <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0406212059230.11476-100000@socrates.scdns.net>

>   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.

We've got a lot of those pages online already. And indeed, the correct 
accessibility method is a different CSS that reorders the layout.

> - pages that can be rendered linearly by user agents (regular or special)

"Linear" is the wrong concept. It misleads the Working Group.

> - 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.)

Oh, you must be kidding. Do you know anything whatsoever about stem widths
and what happens when such widths are mapped to pixel dimensions? Have you
even thought about what happens when you blow up text with thin strokes?

Just *please* do not pretend to know anything at all about typography, let 
alone onscreen type.

> - pages that allow text to reflow.

Reformat, more like it. Aries Arditi has a whole lot of advice on this 
that he will not publish. Cf.
<http://www.naarvoren.nl/artikel/high_accessibility.html>.

-- 

    Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org
    Accessibility <http://joeclark.org/access/>
    Expect criticism if you top-post
Received on Monday, 21 June 2004 22:03:36 GMT

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