W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > July to September 2001

Re: [PROPOSAL] Checkpoint 4.1Configure text size.

From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:27:33 -0400
Message-ID: <3B4C9A95.D896D777@w3.org>
To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>, Tantek Celik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
"Ian B. Jacobs" wrote:
> 
> Jon Gunderson wrote:
> >
> > >I am uncomfortable with a scenario where the user has available
> > >9, 10, and 80 points only as I think that for many users, 80 points
> > >will not result in a usable environment, and 36 points would be
> > >a much better solution. In fact, 80 points would make browsing
> > >nearly unusable for many people.
> > >
> > >I think more granularity is required, and in the past we have
> > >not been able to establish with certainty any granularity other
> > >than "everything".
> > >
> >
> > JRG: If this is the case then our current wording would allow a conforming
> > user agent to offer just two choices, largest and smallest font size for a
> > particular font family (1 point and 80 point???), since this include the
> > full range of many operating systems.
> 
> Yes, that is absolutely the case if there are only two sizes
> available. But that's a limitation of the operating environment and
> the user agent shouldn't have to pay for it.

I didn't make my point:

 - On a system with only two font sizes, your statement is true. And
that's
   fine because the UA is limited by the operating system.
 - On a system with 50, a UA could not conform by providing only 2
sizes.

 _ Ian

-- 
Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Cell:                    +1 917 450-8783
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2001 14:27:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:58 GMT