W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2007

Re: web accessibility: reports from Québec and Belgium

From: David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk>
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 07:56:25 +0000
Message-ID: <475659A9.1030804@david-woolley.me.uk>
To: WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>

Christophe Strobbe wrote:

> 1. 99% of the evaluated sites had invalid code (HTML and/or CSS).

I think this needs to be split.  Some sites fail this test because they 
use proprietary extensions, for which the vendor doesn't supply a DTD, 
but those extension fail degraded.  I still have the impression that 
most web sites also have structural errors, as well as well formed but 
unknown elements and attributes.

> 6. 82% of the evaluated sites used absolute units for fonts (pixels, 
> points, etcetera).

Although, in my view, pixels are an absolute unit when used on display 
devices, according to the specification they are relative, because, over 
the full range of resolutions achchievable when one includes print 
devices, they approximate a fixed fraction of the display device width.

I have several times seen this used as excuse for using pixels. I've 
also seen the zoom facility (which introduces scrolling problems) as 
excuse for allowing pixels (and that from one of the major W3C list 
contributors).


-- 
David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
Received on Wednesday, 5 December 2007 07:56:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:27 GMT