Re: Minutes from 16 November 2000 WCAG WG telecon

At 12:00 PM +0000 11/23/00, Sean B. Palmer wrote:
>  > I don't agree with the conclusion that "+1" doesn't mean much.
>>  It's decently well defined enough and some browsers allow the
>  > users to set the scale explictly.
>Can you cite a reference for that fact (i.e. the definition)?

This is from the definition of <font> in HTML 4.01:
size  = cdata [CN]
Deprecated. This attribute sets the size of the font. Possible values:
*	An integer between 1 and 7. This sets the font to some fixed 
size, whose rendering depends on the user agent. Not all user agents 
may render all seven sizes.
*	A relative increase in font size. The value "+1" means one 
size larger. The value "-3" means three sizes smaller. All sizes 
belong to the scale of 1 to 7.

So "+1" means "one size larger."

<big> means:
BIG: Renders text in a "large" font.

>  > This argument seems to fold back on itself several times -- I don't
>>  see how <big> is any better than <font size="+1">; are you saying that
>  > <big> is semantic and not presentational?
>Well, <font size="+1"> implies an exact scale increase to the font, where as
><big> is a little more generic.

I'm confused, you said that <font> doesn't mean much, but now you claim
it means an exact scale increase? :)

>I agree. The problem is that there isn't really an equivalent...unless you
>used:-
>      <strong class="big"> and
>      @media screen { strong.big { font-weight: normal; font-size: 1.2em; } }
>but that's hardly an ideal solution.

That's a hack that abuses <strong>, CSS, and class, though. :)

>In the meantime, I feel that <big> is semantic enough to promote its use
>over <font size="+1">, but not perfect.

Why do you think it's semantic?  There is nothing semantic about
<big>.  It's a purely presentational tag.

>Great. I saw your little reply about Edapta to WL and it looks like a very
>neat system. In particular, I see it working very well sending over custom
>CSS sheets: if a user requests for example a ceratain colo(u)r font, Edapta
>could override the authors style sheet and send only a style sheet of that
>colo(u)r. Am I correct in thinking that? If so, great application!

Yep, and it can also call in parallel edaptors to convert images (if
so desired) to alter them to specific color settings.  For example,
if someone's color blind, we can invoke a filter program to bring out
the color for that specific person's contrast needs.

Is it done yet?  No, not by far yet -- we're still a 5 person company
at present.  But things are coming up very soon that will allow us to
devote a lot of resources to these problems and to see them deployed
in Internet software as early as second quarter 2001.

But -- back to WCAG. :)

--Kynn
-- 
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
http://www.kynn.com/

Received on Thursday, 23 November 2000 11:42:13 UTC