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

Re: CSS Accessibility Analyzer

From: Maurizio Boscarol <maurizio@usabile.it>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 12:14:11 +0100
Message-ID: <004601c3f47e$011de960$87c82a97@mshome.net>
To: "Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG" <rscano@iwa-italy.org>, "Jens Meiert" <jens.meiert@erde3.com>
Cc: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

> > CSS Techniques: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-CSS-TECHS/#units
>
> Well, I'm not very convinced of these techniques. Absolute units are not
> to
> be equated with inaccessibility.
>
> Roberto:
> Instead I agree with techniques doc where said: "Only use absolute
> length units when the physical characteristics of the output medium are
> known, such as bitmap images."  If u create a div with width=750px; u make
problems to people with
> differen resolutions than 800 x 600 or more...


If you mix up togheter jpeg and gif images in a css layout sometimes you
need to use px in the layout in order to achieve an acceptable result. In
sec. 508, i.e., pixel are not considered harmful for layout. Furthermore, in
the wcag 1.0, px are relative units. So there's a potential ambiguity with
the techniques.
Are the techniques normative or only consultive? Are the technique right or
wrong? pixel for font cause only IE/win not to resize text. This is bad, but
it depends on user agent. In the past someone in the wcag-wg said that a
user agent problem should not be of our interest... ;-)
Pixel in the layout width are bad only if they prevent the text to be
resized in a good way.

Pixel in the margin and padding are no bad at all in most cases.

I think a better technique or a clarifying is needed...

Bye

Maurizio Boscarol
Received on Monday, 16 February 2004 05:49:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:17:55 UTC