W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2000

Re: css and width in pixels

From: <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 12:26:04 -0400
To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <852568FD.005A47C4.00@d54mta03.raleigh.ibm.com>



At 07:34 AM 6/12/2000 , David Poehlman wrote:
>how does this affect accessibility?
>I'll research it but it is a good question.

Kynn wrote:
>Pixel-width specifications in CSS have the potential to
>decrease accessibility to people with low vision, who may
>have specified a larger font size.  Designs that are based
>on "absolute units" such as pixels do not scale up well when
>the user changes the font size -- a better approach would
>be to use "relative units" such as ems (the width of a
>capital letter M) or exes (the height of lowercase x).
>
>These scale relative to the base font, and thus if you change
>the size of that, the rest of the page should stay in
>proportion.

PJ:
Kynn, good explanation, but do you have any information on which browsers
support ems and exes?

The resource I use at
http://webreview.com/wr/pub/guides/style/mastergrid.html is somewhat
detailed and lists Nav4 -partial, IE3- partial, IE4- yes, IE5- yes, Opr3-
yes on the Windows platform, but is also confusing when listing exes as
quirky on all browsers because exes are not technically one half of ems per
the note?
[See the last section on the page at  6.1  Length Units ]
They also have a nice test suite at
http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/current/sec61.htm

Regards,
Phill Jenkins
IBM Accessibility Center - Special Needs Systems
http://www.ibm.com/able
Received on Tuesday, 13 June 2000 12:29:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:49 GMT