Re: For want of a better word

On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 12:04:03PM +0100, Rotan Hanrahan wrote:
> "Scale" refers to gross adjustments to size with respect to an agreed base. Thus 
> "100%" would refer to the base size. There is no necessary implication that "100%" 
> means legible, though this would be a natural assumption.

If my 100% sized text is not legible it's a UA bug, aka a "serious
deficiency".

> So, I would recommend that you define a base size, or at least some concept of a 
> base size, that refers to the optimal size for visual reading on a device. Declare 
> this base to be 100%, and then use the term "scale" to refer to relative sizes 
> expressed in percentage w.r.t. the base.

The UA or rather device vendor should define this base.

> Personally, I find the inability of a client device to scale text (or images) 
> locally to be a serious deficiency.

Me too. But their defaults better be good at least.

> Finally, if it were possible, I would devise a solution whereby my preferred visual 
> range could be expressed, and then the active components (server, adaptation, 
> client) would cooperate to scale text within this range as part of the presentation 
> of content. But who would want to undergo an eye exam each time you start using a 
> browser?

It doesn't have to be so specific. Couldn't I just plug in a value like
"Text zoom" in Mozilla (how comparable is "zoom" and "scale" ?) as 110%.
So once the style sheet definition has influenced the base
representation, my setting simply modifies it again.

I am concerned about the "intermediate" adaption doing more harm than
good. 

 * The author could just define base adjustments that suit his
   design. 

 * The device vendor *should* choose a base that best suites the
   device. 

 * The user could choose a modifier to best suite their eyesight.


Of course the UA should remember my setting if I changed it. It also
should be as easy to do on a mobile device as changing the volume. :)

Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2004 07:39:04 UTC