- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 04:24:39 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Jamie Mackay <Jamie.Mackay@mch.govt.nz>
- cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
I think we are getting away from the start of the discussion here. The question was what font should be used in general, and the common thread of the answer is that in general it is helpful to let the user decide what font they like n their system and keep it, since readability of fonts is partially determined by technology but substantially (I claimed) determined by what people are used to. By all means use style effects that help clarify the information structure - this is why CSS was produced. The point is that assuming one kind of font or other suits all users is a fallacy - so as you point out, follow accessibiltiy guidelines for them. If people want bland uniformity they can use Lynxand PINE (as I am right now) but providing content that transforms gracefully to a more visual metaphor is helpful. cheers Charles McCN On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Jamie Mackay wrote: <snip> 'I agree with the others...use default and let the users system choose the font' </snip> While I am all for creating accessible websites, I hear the sound of baby's going down the gurgler on this one. I think the ability to use different fonts is an important aesthetic consideration in the way I design webpages - though of course these should always be set as font-families with the default sans-serif as an option. As long as fonts are defined using CSS and sizes are defined at a reasonable size by ems or percentages I can't see any reason to discard them for the rather bland uniformaty of default fonts for everyone. Jamie Mackay -- Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles phone: +61 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI fax: +1 617 258 5999 Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia (or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Wednesday, 29 August 2001 04:24:43 UTC