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

Re: Px and WCAG 1 checkpoint 3.4

From: chaals <charles@sidar.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:39:22 +0100
To: "Bailey, Bruce" <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <opskjpnwv9bsnqqv@saturne.sophia.w3.org>

Well, I think it would be great if the WCAG group did more maintenance  
work on WCAG 1, but they have to look at their own resources and set their  
priorities as they see fit. And since I am not in a position to offer them  
any resources, I just expect to live with the decisions they have made.

In some sense a goal of the EuroAccessibility Consortium was to clarify  
amongst ourselves these maintenance questions, and then offer the results  
to the WCAG group as something where most of the work had been done for  
them and they could simply say "yea" or "nay" to each point. But  
unfortunately that has also proven difficult through resource constraints.

cheers

Chaals

On Fri, 7 Jan 2005 10:39:53 -0500, Bailey, Bruce <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>  
wrote:

> 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:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2004JanMar/0187
>> According to the CSS specification, as Joe [Clark] points out, px is a  
>> relative unit.
> [snip]
>> 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.



-- 
Charles McCathieNevile                 Fundacion Sidar
charles@sidar.org                      http://www.sidar.org
Received on Thursday, 13 January 2005 14:44:20 GMT

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