Redesign Styles Hypocritical

I guess I must not have been subscribed to the right mailing list while the
redesign was going on. Apparently the fact that I noticed on
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/site-comments/2009Sep/0005.html didn't
get seen by the right people.

How on earth does the W3 reconcile the new styles' "body: font: 13px..." in
http://www.w3.org/2008/site/css/advanced with best practices as expressed on
http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/font-size ? How is 13px in the new better than user
default in the old? If not better, then why changed?

Quoting that URL:

'Size: respect the users' preferences, avoid small size for content

    * As a base font size for a document, 1em (or 100%) is equivalent to
setting the font size to the user's preference. Use this as a basis for your
font sizes, and avoid setting a smaller base font size
    * Avoid sizes in em smaller than 1em for text body, except maybe for
copyright statements or other kinds of "fine print."'

How does this hypocrisy happen? Why does the W3 need to be as rude as most of
the rest of the web? Is it really possible to meet WCAG 2.0 while setting
font sizes in px? Even if technically allowable, does it meet the
accessibility spirit?

Is there some reason for not maximizing readability? Gray (#333) text on
white background, though technically meeting the luminosity threshhold,
really doesn't, since that standard presumes out-of-the-box settings on a
brand new LCD, not one that is correctly set for an environment that is not
as bright as a retail store shelf, or a faded older one whose brightness and
contrast are already maximized to insufficient effect.
-- 
The husband should fulfill his marital duty to
his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.
			1 Corinthians 7:3 NIV

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

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

Received on Saturday, 28 November 2009 17:05:55 UTC