Re: Redesign Styles Hypocritical

On 2009/12/01 22:56 (GMT-0600) Ian Jacobs composed:

> Alan Gresley composed:

>> Patrick H. Lauke composed:

>>> Gérard Talbot composed:

>>>> I want to repeat that this font-size:13px is going against each  
>>>> and all of
>>>> WCAG 1 & 2 articles, guidelines, checkpoints, examples, tips, etc..

>>> No, that is your opinion. Particularly with regards to WCAG 2.

>> I would some agree with Gérard here.

> I just thought I would let people know that I am following this  
> thread. I imagine we will make some changes but (1) I don't know which  
> ones yet and (2) I don't have a time frame.

Referring back to the original thread post I don't seem
to see in the replies any mention of who has the responsibility or authority
for the site styles, or in which forum they get discussed prior to
implementation. Has any representative from that class of persons weighed in
here? Is Ian Jacobs "the rep"?

What actually lead to me starting this thread was a WD mailing list post
archived at and
accessible only if a subscriber to that list, which is apparently open to
anyone to do at .

The relevant comments there are:

> It's not just my opinion either. It seems to be that of the W3C  
> among others
> who actually understand both the nature of the web and its potential:

They don't even follow that advice. The font-size declared on the body
of the homepage is 13px (pixels!)

The questions, if not already apparent from reading this thread, are:

1-How does the W3 reconcile the message
with the site styles it uses?
2-Should the W3 site styles be changed to conform to the recommendation of
that URL?
3-Should the recommendations of that URL be revoked?
4-Should the W3 be a showcase of _best_ practices?

For those not intimate with the real world use of the the current (px text
sizing) styles in a high resolution environment, I offer the following:

It is a table of contextual screenshots of the W3 home page with descriptions
and observations of it following various alterations in browser settings. The
Linux/KDE3 environment used to make them is unaltered from the as delivered
from vendor state WRT text sizing: system menu text is set to 10pt. To fully
comprehend what it is designed to show requires following the instructions
following the image table. High bandwidth connection and plenty of RAM very
highly recommended, as high resolution screenshots of a complete high
resolution desktop are quite large even after active efforts to reduce file size.

To be clear, it's my contention that sizing web page text in px (or pt or mm
or in), not withstanding the various capabilities of web browsers to "resize"
or not:

1-is rude, in that it totally disregards the users' browsing environments
2-being rude cannot be considered a "best practice"

Regarding resizability via the user's browser:

1- states: "a good design should look
good without requiring the user to enlarge or reduce the text size" (polite)
2-text "resizing" and sizing via alteration of the browser's default are
equivalent in result, the sole difference being that the former is done via
user action following loading each new web page, while the latter is normally
done in advance, and when done in advance requires no user action on loading
each new page
3-setting main content text to any size other than 100%/1em/medium
functionally necessitates user action by every user who either has
affirmatively set his browser according to his liking, and every user who is
content with his browser settings as provided to him
"   We have no government armed with power capable of
contending with human passions unbridled by morality and
religion."                  John Adams, 2nd US President

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

Felix Miata  ***

Received on Monday, 7 December 2009 18:57:40 UTC