W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2005

RE: Image Galleries, Alt vs caption.

From: Francois Jordaan <Francois.Jordaan@wheel.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 14:17:34 -0000
Message-ID: <DB5599985CAE3C4B82D1A47B8DEA8D82128E85@virgo.intranet.wheel.co.uk>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Cc: "'Bailey, Bruce'" <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>, "John Foliot - WATS.ca" <foliot@wats.ca>, "B.K. DeLong" <bkdelong@pobox.com>
> > The W3C has specified 16px/96ppi
> 
> Okay, but 11px/16px is 0.6875 not .76.
> If B.K. meant 11pt (and not 11px) the base font size should 
> be about 0.92 em.
> 
> Francois, is .76 fairly arbitrary or did you calculate it 
> somehow?  (If the latter, please provide the math.)

I agree this has become very off-topic, but I'm replying to the list in
order to correct some errors in my earlier email.

Indeed, .76em normally renders as 12px, and not 11px as I said.

And I can't remember where that figure came from originally (perhaps trial &
error), but since the W3C default 1em = 16px, as John pointed out, a more
correct figure would be 12/16 = .75em. Then 11px text would be 11/16 =
.69em. 

Due to rounding, .76em still results in 12px text, and .7em would result in
11px text. In a Windows environment anyway, with hinted fonts. Perhaps on
the Mac OS X, which I don't think uses font hinting, .69em and .7em may
actually look slightly different.

> This is apparently an IE hack.
> http://clagnut.com/blog/348/#c790

Also to clarify: The IE hack in question comes down to the importance of
declaring a relative font size for BODY in the CSS, to overcome a bug in IE.
If you use relative font sizes in your CSS, and you resize the text in
IE/Windows, the sizing increments are so large that the 'smaller' setting
already results in illegibly small text. This bug goes away if you have a
declare relative font size for BODY. Even BODY { font-size: 100% } fixes the
bug, even though it obviously doesn't do anything else.

For a demonstration, compare these 2 pages...
http://www.fjordaan.net/tests/fontsize-em.html
http://www.fjordaan.net/tests/fontsize-em-perc3.html
...by resizing the text in IE/Windows.

> Links from that page also point out that 76% is as small as 
> it is safe to go.  It also becomes apparent that the 
> prevailing attitude among web designers is that the default 
> font size is just too large and must not be left alone.  * deep sigh *

It's true that most designers consider the default font sizes too large.
Especially where Verdana, a large-bodied face, is concerned. Fortunately
this trend is decreasing, along with the greater adoption of relative font
sizes (resizable in IE/Win), as accessibility awareness increases. (And
screen resolutions increase.)

Lately I've had more acceptance from designers when recommending a body text
font-size of .75em (12px) Verdana, as opposed to the general favourite of
11px, or heaven forbid, 10px. Recommendations for other font faces may
differ.

francois

Wheel Group, Beaumont House, Kensington Village, Avonmore Road, London W14
8TS
 
T +44 (0)20 7348 1000    F +44 (0)20 7348 1111
D +44 (0)20 7348 1049
francois.jordaan@wheel.co.uk
www.wheel.co.uk
 


_____________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for viruses by MessageLabs.
Received on Wednesday, 5 January 2005 14:12:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:19 GMT