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

RE: Px and WCAG 1 checkpoint 3.4

From: Bailey, Bruce <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:39:53 -0500
Message-ID: <CCDBDCBFA650F74AA88830D4BACDBAB5076DDF2A@wdcrobe2m02.ed.gov>
To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@sidar.org>
Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

Maybe this should be escalated to GL, I will leave that judgment call to you Chaals!  The GL folks are, of course, a little bit busy at the moment with WCAG2.  At this point I am skeptical that they will EVER get back to incorporating the errata and "lessons learned" into a WCAG1.1.

>From URL:
> According to the CSS specification, as Joe [Clark] points out, px is a relative unit.
> I propose that the results of Tim's work be considered as an erratum on
> checkpoint 3.4 to clarify when relative [as in ems and %] units should be used. (I don't think
> it will take weeks, but it's a decent contribution to put in the hours that
> it will take).

Joe Clark (in his characteristically charming fashion) had claimed this would take "weeks" earlier in the thread.  With some regret, one must concede that "weeks" has slipped into about year. 

I humbly suggest that WCAG1 should use some other term for the preferred units other than "relative".  How about "user scaleable units"?

It also occurs to me that specifying where exactly using px is okay is quite tricky.  The task can't be accomplished just by listing elements (that take measurements and attributes) and simply saying "yes" or "no".  The example I gave with table columns is just one tricky instance.  Normally column widths should be specified with <strike>relative</strike> readily user scaleable units, but if only icons are to appear in certain columns, the using px for the width of that COL is probably actually preferable to ems or percent.
Received on Friday, 7 January 2005 15:40:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:30 UTC