W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2002

Re: pixels are relative unit??

From: <goliver@accease.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:51:34 -0800 (PST)
To: rebecca@cwa.co.nz
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-Id: <20020225175135.26978.c000-h015.c000.wm@mail.accease.com.criticalpath.net>
Hi Rebecca
My take on this one is that 'it depends'.
For me it depends on how the use of pixels (for
borders, spacing etc.) affects the scaling (usually
enlarging) process.
For example, if you have a page which has links on it
that are deliberately spaced to reduce the chance of
clicking on the wrong link.
Ideally when the font is enlarged the space between the
links also enlarges to the same extent (thus presrving
the advantage of the deliberately spaced links).
You will have more idea about how this can be achieved
technically than I do (ie can it be done with pixels or
does it need em's ex's or %'s) and I need to find out


On Tue, 26 February 2002, Rebecca Cox wrote

> I had always thought of pixels as being an absolute
unit for sizes - 
> but it looks like they're not. In the CSS2 spec,
under the heading 
> 4.3.2 Lengths
> it lists three "relative units" - em, ex, and pixels.
> Do people think therefore that using pixels would
satisfy WCAG 3.4 
> "use relative units...." ?  I realise its best not to
use pixels to 
> define font sizes, as Windows users then cannot
enlarge the text. But 
> it would be good to be able to use them for other
stuff (borders etc) 
> and still meet the accessibility checkpoint.
> Cheers
> Rebecca Cox

AccEase Ltd : Making on-line information accessible
Phone : +64 9 846 6995
Email : goliver@accease.com
Received on Monday, 25 February 2002 20:52:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:17 UTC