RE: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2010-01-27

>-----Original Message-----
>From: www-style-request@w3.org [mailto:www-style-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of fantasai
>Sent: Thursday, February 04, 2010 3:55 PM
>To: www-style@w3.org
>Subject: [CSSWG] Minutes and Resolutions 2010-01-27

>Summary:
>
>   - Discussed pts vs pixels thread:
>       http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2010Jan/0058.html
>     Proposal is to fix 96px per inch. Whether inches fixed to reality
>     or pixels fixed to screen res / viewing distance may vary (print
>     would match real inches, screens align with viewing distance +
>     screen res).

This was a thorough discussion and I appreciate the committee's work.

There are accessibility issues for low-vision associated with dpi.  I 
run my monitor at 1680 by 1050 because that is the native LCD resolution

and provides the clearest type.  Because at 96dpi this produces type
that 
is smaller than is comfortable for me, I set Windows to 120dpi.  Because

this still produces type that is not quite big enough for me, I set 
Mozilla to a minimum font size of 18pt, which causes most pages 
using absolute layout to break.

I don't use zoom in my browser because (1) it has to be done
site-by-site, 
while setting a minimum font size is universal and (2) it usually
results 
in horizontal scrolling for a non-maximized 1080-pixel-wide browser, and

I strongly dislike horizontal scrolling; using a minimum font size (or 
zoom text only) forces reflow.

Perhaps what is needed for an end-user style sheet is a way to force
zoom, 
force reflow on zoom, and force divs that are newly overlapped by this 
process out of the way.

Hope this helps,
Charles Belov
SFMTA Webmaster
www.sfmta.com/webmaster

Received on Monday, 8 February 2010 23:04:55 UTC