E-mail List Archives
RE: WAI needs to rethink and revisit (was Printable character between adjacent links)
From: Kevin Spruill
Date: May 20, 2002 7:32AM
- Next message: Kilcommons,Cath: "RE: evaluating new site"
- Previous message: Kevin Spruill: "Re: Database question"
- Next message in Thread: Jon Gunderson: "RE: WAI needs to rethink and revisit (was Printable character between adjacent links)"
- Previous message in Thread: None
- View all messages in this Thread
I'm confused - the WAI recommendation is to use relative font sizes, but
your colleague cites that recommendation as a reason to use fixed fonts?
This recommendation reads to me as saying:
1. Use relative fonts
2. If you choose to use fixed fonts instead, validate to assure that
the content is accessible
Seems to me the first part trumps the second... hence my confusion over
the the justification in using fixed font size. (Will we ever be done
with this "argument") :)
The WAI is in fact reviewing all of the WCAG 1.0 guidelines - you can
review the WCAG 2.0 draft at the site, wherein a lot of the things that
have been discussed on the list, have been revised.
HK
Kevin Spruill
National Library of Medicine
OCCS
<EMAIL REMOVED>
(301) 402-9708
(301) 402-0367 (fax)
www.nlm.nih.gov
>>> <EMAIL REMOVED> 05/17/02 09:02AM >>>
Hear, hear!!
I am currently embroiled in a debate with an associate over the use (or
non-use) of fixed font sizes. His argument is that if he does not use
fixed
font sizes in his stlyesheets that the "display" becomes unpredictable
in
different browers/OS implementations. He points to the WAI Guidelines
wording as justification: (This statement is found in the Guidelines
( http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/ )) "3.4 Use relative rather than
absolute
units in mark-up language attribute values and style sheet property
values.
[Priority 2] For example, in CSS, use 'em' or percentage lengths rather
than 'pt' or 'cm', which are absolute units. If absolute units are
used,
validate that the rendered content is usable"
While I feel comfortable in debating the folly of this mind set it does
open
the debate up, as the WAI wording is counterproductive and, IMHO
against the
spirit of Universal Accessibility.
How can we, as committed developers and advocates, influence the W3C to
revisit their wording? Thoughts?
JF
>
- Next message: Kilcommons,Cath: "RE: evaluating new site"
- Previous message: Kevin Spruill: "Re: Database question"
- Next message in Thread: Jon Gunderson: "RE: WAI needs to rethink and revisit (was Printable character between adjacent links)"
- Previous message in Thread: None
- View all messages in this Thread