W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2004

Re: fixed font size

From: Steven Dale <sdale@stevendale.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 16:06:57 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <1104.>
To: <j@simweed.com>
Cc: <wai-ig@cookiecrook.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>, <joeclark@joeclark.org>


   And isnt that what we are after here?  Accessibility?  Sounds to me
like many so called experts on here want the prestige without doing the
work.  Joe Clark, for example, showed a very arrogant and unrealistic
demand for everyone to make people upgrade.  Did it occur to him or
anyone out there, how much software is available to Win9X that works
beautifully but doesnt work (and has no alternatives) in Win XP (fofr
example Dragon Dictate, which works well with some speech problems,
where Dragon NatSpeaking does not).  I surely would expect a better
answer to many of these questions on this list.

  PX are not a fixed size hardware wise.  But is that really the point? 
Why waste time arguing about what PX are or are not.  Let's discuss if
PX can be used or not in an accessible manner.


Julian Scarlett said:
> James Craig wrote:
> Most require the user to take control of their software.
>> James
> Which most people aren't capable of doing let alone have an interest. A
> lot of people on this list seem to forget just how much knowledge they
> have by virtue of they're interest in this field.
> Ask most ICT professionals how to implement user CSS for instance and
> they won't have a clue.
> Web acessibility is a bl**dy specialised field and users should not have
>  to know very much in order to enjoy the benefits of the web.
> Stupid little things like specifying px in css when you *know* what
> effect it has in the most prevalent browser (by a massive margin) just
> strikes me as assinine and down-right perverse. Especially when ther's
> absolutely no need.
> J.
Received on Tuesday, 6 April 2004 16:07:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:28 UTC