- From: Matt May <mcmay@bestkungfu.com>
- Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 17:32:52 -0700
- To: <A.Flavell@physics.gla.ac.uk>
- Cc: "W3c-Wai-Gl" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@a5.ph.gla.ac.uk> > It isn't an "absolute length unit" in the CSS sense, however. Per spec, perhaps not, but in implementation, where WCAG is meant to point out accessibility problems, it is usually done in an absolute or near-absolute fashion. Worse, use of px is commonly symptomatic of a design team trying to generate pixel-perfect designs, which is a much more far-reaching disease, responsible for all manner of things we'd like to snuff out for accessibility concerns, such as layout tables, large numbers of spacers, authoring to browser idiosyncrasies rather than to spec, and so on. All symptoms like these need to be addressed in WCAG; even issues that arose as well-meaning additions to specs but caused problems of their own, such as the <Q> tag, have to be covered. If there's a gap between the CSS spec and its implementation, as there appears to be here, we've got to steer content providers around it. > > The major issue is that pixel-sized fonts can't be resized using the font > > tools in the browser. > > If the browser does what CSS asks of it, then clearly you have a > problem; but any decent browser ought to have SOME ability for the > user to take control when the author's presentation isn't accessible > to them. Ought to, yes, but again, oughtas belong in the User Agent Accessibility Guidelines, not WCAG. As it is right now, the user controls for setting font sizes in Netscape 4.x and IE 4-5.x don't change px-sized fonts, so that needs to be addressed for content providers to make their pages more accessible. > > So if I have my browser's font set to "Largest", and > > you have your fonts set to "8px", what I'll see is 8px no matter how I try > > to resize. > > This is so for NN4.* versions, for example. Turn off CSS and the > problem is solved. Then again, turning off CSS in NN 4 also turns off JavaScript. And while we say pages should be able to work without certain technologies in use, that's suggested so that people can choose not to use those technologies, not so they can be forced by the content to turn them off. > > A user's only theoretical way around this would be to use a > > client-side style sheet, which is still unsupported in most browsers; > > Unfortunately, this cannot actually work in general, because the > CSS-styled page is liable to use all kinds of specificities that will > take priority over the more generic settings that a client stylesheet > can set. Only if the author has been a good guy and used relative > sizing techniques (percent, em/ex, larger/smaller, inherit) is the > cascade going to be susceptible to user influence in that way. > > To overrule authors who have created high-specificity absolute-sized > font sizing, you need stronger medicine than just tossing a user > stylesheet into the CSS cascade, if I'm not mistaken. The !important declaration[1] in a client-side style sheet would take precedence over a server-side style sheet in CSS2, even if the author declares something "!important". This was done specifically for accessibility. (In CSS1, author !important declarations overrode user declarations.) [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/cascade.html#important-rules - m
Received on Sunday, 6 May 2001 20:35:18 UTC