RE: magnifiers vs relative font-sizes

I have always found this to be a problem.

What I have ended up doing is continued to use tables for layout
purposes so that the design is not completely destroyed in Netscape. I
continue to use CSS to control fonts.

Where this has been done I have always provided an explanation somewhere
on the site as to why this has been done.

Gian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: robert.neff [mailto:robert.neff@uaccessit.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 16 July 2002 12:42 AM
> To: ESlaydon; chris; charles
> Cc: w3c-wai-gl
> Subject: RE: magnifiers vs relative font-sizes
> 
> 
> 
> Would be interesting approach if web sites would start putting up
> disclaimers that said, "We code in accord with the W3C or 508 
> standards
> and thus are not responsible for how the content is displayed on
> non-compatible web browsers." 
> 
> Robert Neff
> robert.neff@uaccessit.com
> 214.213.1979
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Slaydon, Eugenia [mailto:ESlaydon@beacontec.com] 
> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 10:37 AM
> To: 'Robert Neff'; 'Chris O'Kennon'; 'Charles McCathieNevile'
> Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: RE: magnifiers vs relative font-sizes
> 
> Then the only solution would be to state that we can't code 
> for Netscape
> 4.x
> and to design accordingly, otherwise we will fail on that 
> checkpoint. It
> isn't a case of working around and using relative fonts - 
> this is a case
> of
> relative fonts being destroyed (use them and your page format 
> is blown -
> they don't work). But I hate to do that. I feel like I'm alienating a
> large
> audience. Granted the page will still "work" but since the 
> font that is
> supposed to be a title may end up smaller than the text - I 
> can't say it
> is
> "usable".
> 
> Eugenia
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Neff [mailto:robert.neff@uaccessit.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 10:17 AM
> To: 'Chris O'Kennon'; Slaydon, Eugenia; 'Charles McCathieNevile'
> Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: RE: magnifiers vs relative font-sizes
> 
> 
> When programmers developing web sites and are using 
> standards, there are
> two concerns.
> 1.  When browsers do not always implement the standards
> 2.  How do you address old browsers? This is sometimes referred to as
> backward compatibility.
> 
> This is not cut and dry and a business decision by the marketing or
> program manager may be needed.  Here the target audience must be
> considered and the role the expanded audience who you: (1) want to
> attract, and (2) do not want to alienate.
> 
> As much as we want to be ubiquitous, web design is still a 
> business and
> cost must be projected and budgets met.  Therefore the 
> decision to move
> forward with standards must be one that can be supported and 
> implemented
> by the development team in the budget and time constraints.  
> Here, most
> issues are lessons learned from development and feedback from the
> audience, which correlate back to the target audience.  To 
> address these
> issues, the site maintenance budget and schedule must allot for the
> changed. Issues that cannot be addressed through time, current
> competencies, and architecture must be addressed in the redesign - AND
> THIS NEEDS TO BE BUDGETED.
> 
> So by law, Federal Agencies in the United States must address 508
> whereas commercial entities are more prone to consider their audience.
> Hence, the moral of the story for the commercial audience - 
> speak up and
> provide feedback so you are part of the target audience.
> 
> Robert Neff
> robert.neff@uaccessit.com
> 214.213.1979
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Chris O'Kennon
> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 9:24 AM
> To: 'Slaydon, Eugenia'; 'Charles McCathieNevile'
> Cc: 'jonathan chetwynd'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: RE: magnifiers vs relative font-sizes
> 
> 
> On the one hand, I agree that many developers have trouble with the
> implementation of standards because browsers just don't seem 
> to agree on
> what to do and how to do it.  It's probably the only business where no
> one
> steals good ideas from each other.  How difficult is it to 
> just support
> style sheets the same way?
> 
> On the other hand, many of these standards are tough because 
> developers
> are
> used to just one way of doing things, and just one audience to do it
> for.  I
> only recently even started using style sheets, because I just found it
> easier to hard code my font sizes into each page, so I'd know exactly
> what
> the layout would look like on every browser imaginable, and 
> not have to
> worry about which ones handled style sheets.  It may not be 
> easy design
> to
> take so many variables into account when you create a site, but it's
> good
> design.  It sometimes takes longer than bosses may want, but 
> if you end
> up
> with a site that looks good and works well for everyone - even if it
> doesn't
> look exactly the same for everyone - then you have a superior product.
> 
> Chris O'Kennon
> Commonwealth of Virginia Webmaster/
> VIPNet Portal Architect
> www.myvirginia.org
>  
> ______________________________________
> "When people are free to do as they please, 
> they usually imitate each other."
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Slaydon, Eugenia [mailto:ESlaydon@beacontec.com] 
> Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 8:31 AM
> To: 'Charles McCathieNevile'
> Cc: 'jonathan chetwynd'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> Subject: RE: magnifiers vs relative font-sizes
> 
> 
> 
> But to say that a site absolutely will not meet standards if 
> it doesn't
> use
> relative font-sizes is a big deal. As a developer I am told 
> that I must
> make
> the site look right, work, meet standards AND do so in NN 4.x 
> and above
> and
> IE 4.x and above. Netscape 4.x doesn't just not support relative font
> sizes
> - it destroys them. So what is the lowly developer to do? I 
> think one of
> the
> reasons that developers don't follow accessibility standards 
> is because
> they
> can be so difficult to implement. Granted the newer browsers are going
> to
> make that easier but most developers aren't given the option of coding
> for
> their favorite browser. 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles McCathieNevile [mailto:charles@w3.org]
> Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 9:48 PM
> To: Slaydon, Eugenia
> Cc: 'jonathan chetwynd'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
> 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)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>