W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > January to March 1999

RE: UA ISSUE OF THE WEEK: Table element access

From: Denis Anson <danson@miseri.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 08:17:01 -0500
To: "Charles McCathieNevile" <charles@w3.org>, "Charles (Chuck) Oppermann" <chuckop@microsoft.com>
Cc: "WAI UA group" <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Rather than think in terms of font size, it might make more sense to think
in terms of viewport bandwidth.  By which I mean, if the display shows less
than 40 characters per line, and fewer than 12 lines on the screen at a

The advantage of thinking in these terms is that we address the real issue,
which is the fact that the browser can render only a small amount of
information at a time.  This would include screen magnified browsers, large
font sizes, and small screen sizes also.

I recognize that modern displays can't be thought of in terms of 80x24
character grids, but that does convey, in a general way, the issues of
limited window size.

Denis Anson, MS, OTR
Assistant Professor
Computer Access Specialist
College Misericordia
301 Lake Street
Dallas, PA 18612

The International Organization of Assistive Technology Professionals

Member since 1989

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ua-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Charles McCathieNevile
Sent: Monday, January 11, 1999 6:09 PM
To: Charles (Chuck) Oppermann
Cc: WAI UA group
Subject: RE: UA ISSUE OF THE WEEK: Table element access

On Mon, 11 Jan 1999, Charles (Chuck) Oppermann wrote:

  I simply don't understand the proposal.  It appears that all the
  Checkpoints, from 1 through 8 only apply to specialized browsers and not
  mainstream browsers such as Internet Explorer.  Am I understanding this

CMN:: Not quite. The way I read Magnified screen means that a large font
size (say 48+ point, although there is no good way of defining this) on a
'mainstream browser' would qualify - in which case they all apply to IE,
unless you make it restrict available font sizes. I don't think that is
the intended result. Hence my 'counter proposal' (I know it is long, but I
did think quite hard before I wrote it, so I hope people will actually
read to the end. Or even read the proposal itself, which is quite short,
and skip the preamble)

Charles McCN

--Charles McCathieNevile -  mailto:charles@w3.org
phone: * +1 (617) 258 0992 *  http://purl.oclc.org/net/charles
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative -  http://www.w3.org/WAI
545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, USA

Received on Tuesday, 12 January 1999 08:15:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:38:21 UTC