W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2001

Re: CSS - font-size

From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 22:39:28 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <200104042139.f34LdSV23806@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> 
> You like that PDF, don't you, David?

This was an on list reply to an off list reply.  The two basic points 
were that page description languages better fit what people are trying
to do with web sites and that (at least for major contractors) the 
bidding process and the nature of fixed priced contracts favours giving
exactly what the client explicitly asks for and no more.  Hence, if the
client asks for pixel perfect, you don't suggest that it might not be
the best thing.

With regard to PDF one has to offset the few people who accidentally
get converted to the real nature of HTML against the extra time that
might go into accessibility when people are not fighting against the
tool they are using.

The situation is not clear cut (PDF has not had the investment that has
gone into the big 2 browsers) and I originally went off list because I
didn't want to cover all angles.  PDF doesn't fully cover what designers
now try to do with "dynamic HTML".

> I think that your description holds true for many large corporations, though
> not all. Even there, I suspect that there's room to maneuver.

Again I didn't really want to get into the exceptions, although as
exceptions to the exceptions, I would point out that many small company
web sites get written by people in ISPs who are out to impress the
customer at minimum cost, e.g. by cutting up a brochure image into
a table mosaic (I'm thinking of a case where they managed to use percentage
widths, so it broke for more than 800x600!) or by people fresh out of
school without the maturity to do anything other than a WYSIWYG design.
Received on Wednesday, 4 April 2001 17:43:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:54 GMT