- From: Ian B. Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 14:22:11 -0400
- To: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
- CC: Tantek Celik <tantek@cs.stanford.edu>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Jon Gunderson wrote: > > >I am uncomfortable with a scenario where the user has available > >9, 10, and 80 points only as I think that for many users, 80 points > >will not result in a usable environment, and 36 points would be > >a much better solution. In fact, 80 points would make browsing > >nearly unusable for many people. > > > >I think more granularity is required, and in the past we have > >not been able to establish with certainty any granularity other > >than "everything". > > > > JRG: If this is the case then our current wording would allow a conforming > user agent to offer just two choices, largest and smallest font size for a > particular font family (1 point and 80 point???), since this include the > full range of many operating systems. Yes, that is absolutely the case if there are only two sizes available. But that's a limitation of the operating environment and the user agent shouldn't have to pay for it. - Ian -- Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs Cell: +1 917 450-8783
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2001 14:22:14 UTC