- From: <goliver@accease.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 17:51:34 -0800 (PST)
- To: rebecca@cwa.co.nz
- Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Hi Rebecca My take on this one is that 'it depends'. For me it depends on how the use of pixels (for borders, spacing etc.) affects the scaling (usually enlarging) process. For example, if you have a page which has links on it that are deliberately spaced to reduce the chance of clicking on the wrong link. Ideally when the font is enlarged the space between the links also enlarges to the same extent (thus presrving the advantage of the deliberately spaced links). You will have more idea about how this can be achieved technically than I do (ie can it be done with pixels or does it need em's ex's or %'s) and I need to find out :-) Cheers Graham On Tue, 26 February 2002, Rebecca Cox wrote > > > I had always thought of pixels as being an absolute unit for sizes - > but it looks like they're not. In the CSS2 spec, under the heading > 4.3.2 Lengths (http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/syndata.html#length-units) > it lists three "relative units" - em, ex, and pixels. > > Do people think therefore that using pixels would satisfy WCAG 3.4 > "use relative units...." ? I realise its best not to use pixels to > define font sizes, as Windows users then cannot enlarge the text. But > it would be good to be able to use them for other stuff (borders etc) > and still meet the accessibility checkpoint. > > Cheers > > Rebecca Cox AccEase Ltd : Making on-line information accessible Phone : +64 9 846 6995 Email : goliver@accease.com
Received on Monday, 25 February 2002 20:52:10 UTC