Re: magnifiers vs relative font-sizes

Chaals,

you've stated a personal reason, fair enough.

Do you recognise that this is causing problems?

My problem is that, I wish to offer a virtual keyboard,
now Hakon Lie has suggested that CSS3 might offer something that scales text
to the client window size, which is great, for us.
However, for the present, I'm having to use a fixed font, because if the
user has control, and it is set to very large, then the keyboard isn't all
viewable.
and my users would not know there was more outside the window, or how to set
the font size smaller.
because this is a college it is impractical to set these things.

jonathan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>
To: "Slaydon, Eugenia" <ESlaydon@beacontec.com>
Cc: "'jonathan chetwynd'" <j.chetwynd@btinternet.com>; <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 2:48 AM
Subject: RE: magnifiers vs relative font-sizes


>
> No, it is saying that people who use Netscape 4.x browsers shouldn't
expect
> it to handle HTML and CSS very well under certain circumstances. I don't
have
> any problem with people using Netscape 4.x (or any other browser) if they
> happen to like it and it suits their needs, but I have a big problem with
> people turning up with broken systems and expecting that the Web be broken
to
> match. As well as with sites that do break the Web to match such systems.
> They tend to be simple problems - I think the most common is "I can't make
a
> payment here so I will go find another provider". I don't expect peoploe
to
> resolve the problems caused by bugs in my browser (the one that annoys me
> most is missing some CSS-positioning, although it isn't more than cosmetic
> until people try to use presentation to convey critical structure
> information).
>
> I have a strong reason for preferring relative font-sizes - they are what
I
> need to be able to keep reading for the day. In fact some of my browsers
do
> pretty good zooming. The ones that require proper coding...
>
> Chaals
>
> On Fri, 12 Jul 2002, Slaydon, Eugenia wrote:
>
> >I still have a problem with pushing for relative font-sizes in CSS
because
> >it is destroyed in Netscape. Saying that you must use relative font sizes
> >instead of absolute for accessibility is the same as saying you aren't
> >allowed to use a Netscape 4.x browser.
> >
> >Eugenia
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: jonathan chetwynd [mailto:j.chetwynd@btinternet.com]
> >Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 10:23 AM
> >To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> >Subject: magnifiers vs relative font-sizes
> >
> >
> >Does anyone have strong reasons for preferring relative font-sizes to a
> >screen maginifier?
> >
> >if so what are they?
> >
> >
> >For magnifiers:
> >
> >There is a serious conflict between the necessity of
> >keeping everything on one page, and allowing users to control font size.
> >
> >for people with severe learning difficulties, this is particularly acute.
> >
> >magnifiers, allow one to gain a feel for the whole document, whilst
> >enlarging a part.
> >setting the font size to large makes the document larger than the screen,
> >and
> >one looses the ability to percieve the whole.
> >further, a great number of people don't appreciate that there is more
than
> >one can see.
> >
> >
> >from an offline discussion with Boris Zbarsky, following from a recent
brief
> >thread at www-style:
> >
> >scale: font-size to % of client window?
> >
> >
> >
> >thanks
> >
> >
> >
> >jonathan chetwynd
> >
> >
>
> --
> Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409
134 136
> W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI  fax: +33 4 92
38 78 22
> Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
> (or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex,
France)
>
>

Received on Monday, 15 July 2002 02:23:55 UTC