- From: David Perrell <davidp@earthlink.net>
- Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 08:38:24 -0700
- To: <wmperry@aventail.com>, "Chris Lilley" <Chris.Lilley@sophia.inria.fr>
- Cc: "Paul Prescod" <papresco@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca>, "Todd Fahrner" <fahrner@pobox.com>, <www-style@w3.org>, <Jukka.Korpela@hut.fi>
William M. Perry wrote: > This will really only help with well-written author stylesheets. I > haven't done a sampling, but if anybody has, I'd be interested in the > percentage of sheets that actually _use_ relative font sizing versus the 'I > want this 26pt, dammit' philosophy. "26pt" _is_ relative on a computer display. A display resolves to pixels, not points, and the displayed size of a point should be adjustable in the UI. I think defense of cascading stylesheets on behalf of the visually impaired is a bit specious. A graphical web browser typically uses an operating system's UI, and adjustments for accessibility -- including contrast enhancement -- need to be done globally. Just for the hell of it, I set my 82 ppi display as 300 pixels per inch in Win95. Text spec'd as 10pt then measures more than 36pt at the display surface, and is quite legible from 15ft away. (Text spec'd in pixels and most bitmaps do not change, but, surprisingly, some of the icons are resized.) (WARNING!!! for anyone who wants to try this: Be sure you know how to navigate the dialog box for setting the display using the keyboard. The dialog box becomes much larger than the display area, and you will not be able to see the controls that you used to make the adjustment! You will be stuck with huge type FOREVER!!!) The point is, stylesheets are not the place where visually-impaired people will adjust their display, because without a sufficiently adjusted display they won't be using a browser at all. David Perrell
Received on Thursday, 24 April 1997 11:48:49 UTC