WebAIM - Web Accessibility In Mind

E-mail List Archives

Re: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)

for

From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Jan 13, 2006 8:58AM

> > Duplicating common user agent functionality should be
> > considered a taboo (and that is quite a non-controversial
> > rule when it comes to Web Usability).
> > Why? Like already stated, it is redundant, and thus
> > unnecessarily clutters pages and irritates users.
>
> We're going to go in an infinite circle here.

And why do you start a new thread to confuse matters even further? Or
is my gmail playing silly buggers?

> Some of us like the Packers.
> Some of us like the Vikings.>
> I think we're going to have to leave it at that. ;o)

I like Vikings, Horn helmets rock.
What are you talking about? I guess American Football, right?

Agreeing to disagree seems to happen here a lot. Not necessarily a bad
thing, as long as we don't repeat it two months down the line.

I think the matter is that both sides of the argument try to argue
that their logic is a de-facto standard, which is dangerous. Browsers
and Operating Systems come with resizing tools out of the box whereas
a bespoke resizing tool is extra work and is neither a standard nor a
necessity (add all arguments brought up in here).

Clients will see this extra gadget on other sites and consider it a
necessity - and this is where it gets tricky.

I am quite sure that a lot more web sites would be easier to use and
developed a lot cheaper and with less hassle if clients would not see
quick workaround solutions that will not be feasible in their project
on other sites.

--
Chris Heilmann
Blog: http://www.wait-till-i.com
Writing: http://icant.co.uk/
Binaries: http://www.onlinetools.org/