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

Re: Selecting font family

From: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 20:06:14 -0500
Message-Id: <Version.32.20001102184847.03ff7f00@pop.iamdigex.net>
To: WAI Mailing list <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Please read the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines draft which is
currently in
Last Call.

If what it says there don't address this issue adequately, please holler.  

Where the font family causes a problem, the user should have an expeditious
way
to gain relief.  But hopefully that doesn't require denying the author access
to fonts in styling.

Al

At 02:15 PM 2000-11-02 +0000, Brian Kelly wrote:
>On a related topic.
>
>If an author specifies a font family using CSS, I understand that it is not
>possible for an end user to change the font easily - the user must have a
>local CSS file available (which I suspect not many do) and know how to
>choose it.
>
>Does specification of a font family cause accessibility problems?
>
>Should font families (e.g. Times, Arial, etc) be omitted from CSS (as I have
>heard suggested)?  Or would this be unacceptable for those concerned about
>the design, and possibly case accessibility problems for users who don't
>know how to change the default settings?
>
>Or am I mistaken in how CSS values can be changed?
>
>ta
>
>Brian
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>Brian Kelly
>UKOLN
>University of Bath
>BATH
>BA2 7AY
>Email: B.Kelly@ukoln.ac.uk
>Phone: (+44) 1225 323943
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
>To: <sifyalok@sify.com>
>Cc: "WAI Mailing list" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
>Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 2:03 PM
>Subject: Re: fixed width Vs relative sizing
>
>
>> As you say, using the available space is also helpful. On a 1600x1200
>> browser, it is possible to use a large font, and take the available
>> space. But again, with a fixed width layout, this may only appear in half
>the
>> screen, which is a big waste.
>>
>> In fact, the most common way of doing fixed widths is to have tables for
>> column layout. This is not ideal anyway, but if it is going to be used
>then
>> tables are pretty good at reflowing content in most browsers that support
>> them.
>>
>> Cheers (and I think you should revalue it to a few more cents ;-)
>>
>> Charles
>>
>> On 2 Nov 2000 sifyalok@sify.com wrote:
>>
>>   Though I do not agree to the fact so much, but
>>   one reason is that in lower resolutions than what
>>   the site has been designed for, fixed size will
>>   give horizontal scrolling.
>>
>>   Another reason could be greater use of available
>>   space at any resolution.
>>
>>   However,
>>   Working in percentage mode, might increase blank
>>   spaces, and disrupt the layout as well, thus
>>   affecting accessability in a different way
>>
>>   I believe that one has to focus on audience and
>>   then take such decisions. Generalizing, is
>>   probably not the right thing here.
>>
>>   just my 2 cents..
>>
>>   Cheers
>>   alokjain
>>   Cognitive Consulatnt
>>   Satyam Infoway Ltd.
>>   India
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>   Quoting Anthony Quinn <anthony@frontend.com>:
>>
>>   > Hi All,
>>   >
>>   > I\'m new to this group and was wondering if
>>   anyone can explain (in non
>>   > technical lingo please) why fixed width sizing
>>   of web pages is a bad thing
>>   > for accessibility.
>>   >
>>   > thanks in advance,
>>   >
>>   > Anthony
>>   >
>>   >
>>   __________________________________________________
>>   _____
>>   >
>>   >  Anthony Quinn                     UI Design
>>   Manager
>>   >
>>   >    Frontend ~ Usability Engineering & Interface
>>   Design
>>   >    40 Westland Row, Dublin 2, Republic of
>>   Ireland
>>   >
>>   >           Visit our Usability InfoCentre at:
>>   >
>>  
<http://www.frontend.com/usability_infocentre/>http://www.frontend.com/usabi
lity_infocentre/
>>   >
>>   >  anthony.quinn@frontend.com       tel: +353 1
>>   241 1600
>>   >  <http://www.frontend.com/>http://www.frontend.com          fax: +353 1
>>   241 1601
>>   >
>>   __________________________________________________
>>   _____
>>   >
>>   >
>>
>>
>>   -----------------------------------------------------
>>   This mail sent through  <http://www.sify.com/>http://www.sify.com
>>
>>
>> --
>> Charles McCathieNevile    <mailto:charles@w3.org>mailto:charles@w3.org   
phone: +61 (0) 409 134
>136
>> W3C Web Accessibility Initiative
><http://www.w3.org/WAI>http://www.w3.org/WAI
>> Location: I-cubed, 110 Victoria Street, Carlton VIC 3053, Australia
>> September - November 2000:
>> W3C INRIA, 2004 Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,
>France
>>
>>
>  
Received on Thursday, 2 November 2000 19:37:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:50 GMT