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

RE: Font sizes

From: Paul Davis <paul@ten-20.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 17:21:36 +0100
To: "Ide Chantal" <c.ide@onf.ca>
Cc: "Bradley Dodd" <bdodd@adtek.u-net.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000c01c12f14$57b33be0$0200a8c0@paul2>
I believe the "serif" is the problem, (smaller fonts) unless of course as
Mike points out the user has reset their own browser. But then we assume
they can or know how to.


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Ide Chantal
Sent: 27 August 2001 17:01
To: Paul Davis
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: RE: Font sizes

Hi all,

I usually go with "sans serif" or "serif" without more precision. It seems
to me that we can preserve some design and at the same time allow the user
to keep their preferences. Of course, with only relative font sizes.

Can this cause accessibility problems?

Chantal Ide

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael R. Burks [mailto:mburks952@worldnet.att.net]
> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 8:26 AM
> To: Paul Davis
> Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Font sizes
> Paul,
> I don't disagree, the problem is of course that some can override by
> accident...my own personal preference is for Verdana or Arial.
> Lets see what we can come up with as a viable solution.
> Sincerely,
> Mike Burks
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Davis [mailto:paul@ten-20.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 8:08 AM
> To: mburks952@worldnet.att.net
> Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Font sizes
> Fine Mike,
> I have seen that point a few weeks ago on this list, and it's
> a valid one.
> However we assume as computer literate people this is easy
> and a simple task
> to reset browser settings. The problem we have here in this
> case is that
> older and possibly lower vision users are scared stiff to play with
> software, thinking their computer will blow up or just die
> through abuse.
> Not funny (he says smiling) but very true. We all tend to
> forget that simple
> to us is not always simple to others. Some of the people I meet are
> seriously impressed with their ability to shut down then
> start up a computer
> without scan disk running.
> Newer users I have spoken to are surprised when a drop down
> box appears
> never mind investigating tools and options. I recently
> chatted with a person
> who believed she has been surfing for a year now and was
> disappointed with
> what was there, truth was she had not actually escaped BT's
> web site. The
> look on her face was worth a picture as I added search engines to her
> favorites and reset her home page.
> I do not think I am being condescending here, but telling it
> how it is. In
> ''75 I had a dispute with head office who could not
> understand why I was
> having recruiting problems for domestic staff for the team
> houses in the
> Iranian desert. "Just advertise" they said from a comfortable
> office in
> London. This assumed that local cooks and houseboys could
> read. Not the
> case.
> To a certain extent the same principle applies here. We
> assume a level of
> competence that is not always there.
> I think.............
> smiles
> Paul
Received on Monday, 27 August 2001 12:18:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:14 UTC