Re: Undoubtedly, an oversimplification ...

I would think there'd be a compelling reason to support this because of Responsive Web Design, too; using ems and %, rather than px is important there as well.

Mike


On Saturday, May 3, 2014 6:28 PM, Jonathan Avila <jon.avila@ssbbartgroup.com> wrote:
 
[Felix wrote] stressing the importance legibility, which in large part
means strongly discouraging use of the CSS px unit.

I do think this is an area of SC 1.4.4 Resize Text that needs to be
revisited.  Currently the failures allow for meeting this requirement by
working with browser zoom features.  Browser zoom features introduce
horizontal scrolling and simply scale the content rather than responding
to the users display and needs.  The success criteria as written may allow
for broader interpretation -- so I encourage you to share your thoughts
with the WCAG working group.

Jonathan


-----Original Message-----
From: Felix Miata [mailto:mrmazda@earthlink.net]
Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2014 3:05 PM
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: Undoubtedly, an oversimplification ...

On 2014-05-03 10:28 (GMT-0400) accessys@smart.net composed:

> how do we encourage/educate/mandate accessible practices and usable
websites for all.??

WCAG is broken, built on a poor foundation. It lacks stress on legibility
as the foundation for most else that affects usability and accessibility.

1: Who are the majority of web developers and stylists? Not the blind. Not
the low vision. Quite the opposite: they are those who are comfortable
sitting in front of computer displays most of every working day. This
translates to high vision, average or better. Also these people are detail
oriented, comfortable and aware generally with things small. This
situation needs to be stressed, highlighted, in order that these people
remain conscious at all times of the vastness of the number of people who
see less well than they do, and the desirability of things bigger than
what they themselves are comfortable with, what they consider to be
optimal.

2: What makes the web different from what went before? Billboards, book
pages, newspaper columns, boxcovers and the like all have a *fixed*
*physical* *size* that needs to be taken into account during the design
process. Fixed physical size is absent on the web. This absence is a
valuable feature that needs to be embraced during design, and stressed in
WCAG. Embracing it means divorcing any semblance of absolute size from
design, that is, ensuring sizing within design is limited to relationships
among design components. Doing this means not being concerned at all with
how many pixels are required to produce the individual object sizes and
the overall physical size of a whole page on the screen the designer is
viewing while working. Instead, sizing needs to be done with an adaptable
unit whose size is determined according to the physical conditions of the
user and his viewing device.
Until user agents are universally able to scale device px to CSS px using
non-integer values, the px unit is wholly incapable of this. Even if it
could, it would still be inappropriate, because the px unit disregards
whatever optimal happens to be at the viewer end. Rem, em, ex & % have
neither of those problems inherent, so they need to be the units used in
producing the desired relationships within any design. Those units
automatically scale the relationships to fit the physics of the viewing
hardware, and the preferences and other characteristics of the viewer,
producing the highest likelihood of optimal physical size, and minimizing
usability and accessibility limitations stemming from physical sizing.

So, start by fixing WCAG's foundation, by emphasizing the foundation of
accessibility, and usability, stressing the importance legibility, which
in large part means strongly discouraging use of the CSS px unit.
--
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are
persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

  Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/