E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

Number of posts in this thread: 4 (In chronological order)

From: Kevin Spruill
Date: Mon, May 20 2002 7:32AM
Subject: RE: WAI needs to rethink and revisit (was Printable character between adjacent links)
No previous message | Next message →

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 ADDRESS REMOVED =
(301) 402-9708
(301) 402-0367 (fax)
www.nlm.nih.gov

>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS 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




>

From: Jon Gunderson
Date: Mon, May 20 2002 8:43AM
Subject: RE: WAI needs to rethink and revisit (was Printable character between adjacent links)
← Previous message | Next message →

The biggest problem with using fixed sizes is when using CSS to position
and size rendering boxes. If the boxes contain text, when you resize the
text the text either spills out of the box which often results in masking
other content or it tries to resize within the current box size and
overlaps text on other text in the box.

Jon


At 10:26 AM 5/20/2002 -0400, Kevin Spruill wrote:
>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 ADDRESS REMOVED =
>(301) 402-9708
>(301) 402-0367 (fax)
>www.nlm.nih.gov
>
> >>> = EMAIL ADDRESS 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
>
>
>
>
> >

From: John Foliot - bytown internet
Date: Tue, May 21 2002 5:33AM
Subject: RE: WAI needs to rethink and revisit
← Previous message | Next message →

Exactly my point. However, becuse the W3C's WAI Guidelines have been
"imported" lock, stock and barrel into a larger set of "Standards"
(Governement of Canada - Common Look and Feel), he is using the actual
wording to "wiggle" out of the spirit of the document. I disagree with
this, or course, which is why I am asking/urging that the wording of WCAG
2.0 be very carefully constructed. While the W3C cannot make these
guidelines "standards", other organizations can and will. I believe that
most countries in the EU are also looking at making the WAI Guidelines
government "standards" (Euro-listers? Any news?)

>

From: Bazzmann.Com - Marco Trevisan
Date: Tue, May 21 2002 5:51AM
Subject: Re: WAI needs to rethink and revisit
← Previous message | No next message

John Foliot - bytown internet wrote:
> most countries in the EU are also looking at making the WAI Guidelines
> government "standards" (Euro-listers? Any news?)

Hi to the list! :)
This is the first post down here, so I wish to say hello to everyone.

I'm writing from Italy. The situation of Italian government WAI
application is still far from "standards", in spite of it's already
a "law".

We're working hard to promote them and use it all around the
government projects and sites. There's no accessible culture yet.

But someone is "moving"... ;)

I hope the answer is right, sorry for bad english... :)

--
Bazzmann Labs(c) - Accessibilita', usabilita', design & comunicazione
::--------------------------------::---------------------------------::
http://www.bazzmann.it | Il sito ufficiale di Bazzmann Labs.
http://www.bazzmann.com | La risorsa per informare e aggiornare.
http://www.usareinternet.it | La rete, conoscerla per rispettarla.
http://www.dev2dev.it | Elemento D2D002



----
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or view list archives,
visit http://www.webaim.org/discussion/