E-mail List Archives

Search E-mail List Archives for

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

From: Jukka Korpela
Date: Fri, May 17 2002 6:54AM
Subject: RE: WAI needs to rethink and revisit (was Printable character bet ween adjacent links)
No previous message | Next message →

John Foliot wrote:

> 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 stylesheets that the "display"
becomes
> unpredictable in different browers/OS implementations.

Well, they are unpredictable indeed, as far as the author is concerned. What
is your associate trying to prove?

> 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.

I wouldn't say this is wrong. It just has an implied condition, which should
be made explicit: _if_ you suggest font sizes at all (and you should
normally do that for _parts_ of a document only). For example, if you wish
to make some text appear in smaller print, use font-size:80% rather than
font-size:10pt. Isn't the rationale behind this obvious?

> "- - If absolute units are used,
> validate that the rendered content is usable"

Now _that's_ obscure. Note the word "usable". A switch to usability in an
accessibility document is a bit alarming. Absolute units cannot possibly
result in universal accessibility. I guess this formulation results from a
compromise, and actually means something like this: "If however you use
absolute units (and we're here having a quarrel on whether you ever should
do that, but maybe someone is pointing at you with a gun), at least try and
make sure they are accessible to the great majority, by using sufficiently
large font size (and we can't agree on a specific recommendation here)."

The practical side of my mind sees the point here. We cannot change
everything at once, and if people use fixed font sizes, it's better to make
them use reasonably large sizes, like 12pt or 14pt.

> How can we, as committed developers and advocates, influence
> the W3C to revisit their wording? Thoughts?

Make your company join the W3C, and join the WAI working group. It will take
money and work, of course. With much smaller investments, and with smaller
chances of success, you could participate in the WAI Interest Group (a
mailing list):
http://www.w3.org/WAI/IG/

--
Jukka Korpela
TIEKE Tietoyhteiskunnan kehitt

From: Jon Gunderson
Date: Fri, May 17 2002 10:50AM
Subject: RE: WAI needs to rethink and revisit (was Printable character between adjacent links)
← Previous message | Next message →

I think the using style sheets to style content is the biggest step. In
most browsers you can adjust font size whether the font size is specified
in fixed or relative units.

There is an advantage to relative units if you designing liquid renderings
that adjust to the wdith of the graphical window, but in general browser
incompatibilites make this more of an art than a science. Most developers
still view the web a a graphical medium with an average width of 800x600
pixels. It is hard to convince developers with this mind set to use
technologies that provide them with less control over rendering. I think
getting them to use style sheets at all is a huge step.

You can send comments directly to the W3C Web Content Authoring
Group at
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

Jon




On Fri, 17 May 2002, John Foliot - bytown internet wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael R. Burks [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> > Sent: May 16, 2002 9:35 AM
> > To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > Subject: RE: Printable character between adjacent links
> >
> >
> > Just one more reason that the WAI needs to rethink and revisit
> > much of what
> > they recommend.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Mike Burks
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Prof Norm Coombs [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 8:57 AM
> > To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > Subject: RE: Printable character between adjacent links
> >
> >
> > As a blind user of the Internet,
> > I hate hate hate those characters between links that WAI thinks
> > is so nice.
> >
> > At 11:31 AM 5/15/02 +0300, you wrote:
> > >philip steven lanier wrote:
> > >
> > > > Adjacent image-based links can unambiguously be made visually
distinct
> > > > from each other. Consider a row of circular "button"
> > > > graphics with text or icons in them.
> > >
> > >Yes, that's one possibility I had in my mind. Sorry for not
> > making it clear
> > >that borders and margins were just _examples_ of the visual
presentation
> > >features that could be used. Yet another possibility - for images that
> > >essentially contain text - would be to use alternating background
colors
> > >that are sufficiently different.
> > >
> > >The basic problem to avoid is having a row of links like
> > > foo bar zap blurp more foo more bar and so on
> > >in image format, with no obvious (and I mean _obvious_ to
> > virtually anyone
> > >who sees it) indication of where each link ends or even how many
links
> > there
> > >are. A useful rule of thumb: the user should be able to recognize
them as
> > >separate links without knowing the topic or even the language used.
It
> > >happens too often that people rely on orthography like capital letters
or
> > >even recognizing _phrases_, or other "higher level protocol" issues.
> > >
> > >--
> > >Jukka Korpela
> > >TIEKE Tietoyhteiskunnan kehitt

From: Jon Gunderson
Date: Fri, May 17 2002 10:55AM
Subject: RE: WAI needs to rethink and revisit (was Printable character between adjacent links)
← Previous message | Next message →

t is unfortunate that many people do not know how to ignore author font
size information in popular graphical browsers. In some public labs
people cannot get to the control panel to do this. Browsers like opera
always allow people to adjust browser directly from the keyboard.


Jon

From: John Foliot - bytown internet
Date: Fri, May 17 2002 7:42AM
Subject: RE: WAI needs to rethink and revisit (was Printable character between adjacent links)
← Previous message | No next message

> > 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 stylesheets that the "display"
> becomes
> > unpredictable in different browers/OS implementations.
>
> Well, they are unpredictable indeed, as far as the author is
> concerned. What
> is your associate trying to prove?

That he is right <grin>. At issue is the fact that the "rulebook" being
authored to has contradictions within it. On one hand it states that all
Priority 1 and 2 Guidelines must be treated as Standards - they must be met.
But elsewhere the rules state that "Body text should be 'sans-serif', set at
approximately 10-point type size and controlled through Cascading Style
Sheets."

He argues that using relative font sizes across multiple browsers and
platforms creates wildly varying results, and in fact presents usability
issues to, by his numbers, 40% of his user base (he's not wrong). He's
trying to reach the "approxiametly 10 point" mark, and if he looses a few
users because of it, it's the lesser of 2 evils in his mind.

>
> > 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.
>
> I wouldn't say this is wrong. It just has an implied condition,
> which should
> be made explicit: _if_ you suggest font sizes at all (and you should
> normally do that for _parts_ of a document only).

Part of the issue. He wants Body {font-size: 10pt.}

Also part of my posting. The WAI Guidelines are being rapidly adopted by
many organizations as "Standards", yet often the language of the checkpoint
is not the official language of "Standards" authoring. The US Section 508
had a problem with the "flicker" checkpoint(WAI 7.1)... they re-wrote it to
set specific frequency rates.

> For example, if you wish
> to make some text appear in smaller print, use font-size:80% rather than
> font-size:10pt. Isn't the rationale behind this obvious?

To us, yes, to "them", not always...

>
> > "- - If absolute units are used,
> > validate that the rendered content is usable"
>
> Now _that's_ obscure. Note the word "usable". A switch to usability in an
> accessibility document is a bit alarming. Absolute units cannot possibly
> result in universal accessibility. I guess this formulation results from a
> compromise, and actually means something like this: "If however you use
> absolute units (and we're here having a quarrel on whether you ever should
> do that, but maybe someone is pointing at you with a gun), at
> least try and
> make sure they are accessible to the great majority, by using sufficiently
> large font size (and we can't agree on a specific recommendation here)."

Exactly my point. If the W3C/WAI could only go back with the understanding
that many governments and organizations are embracing their Recommendations
(Guidelines) as Standards, but because of this the wording most be more
precise and avoid ambiguity. It's not a question of re-writing the
Checkpoints, simply reviewing and perhaps modifying the language.

>
> The practical side of my mind sees the point here. We cannot change
> everything at once, and if people use fixed font sizes, it's
> better to make
> them use reasonably large sizes, like 12pt or 14pt.
>
> > How can we, as committed developers and advocates, influence
> > the W3C to revisit their wording? Thoughts?
>
> Make your company join the W3C, and join the WAI working group.
> It will take
> money and work, of course. With much smaller investments, and with smaller
> chances of success, you could participate in the WAI Interest Group (a
> mailing list):
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/IG/

Jukka, as I am a company of one, I think I will be restricted to joining the
mailing list <smile>. However, if enough of us start to raise the concern
over the language being used, perhaps the W3C will hear us.


JF


>
> --
> Jukka Korpela
> TIEKE Tietoyhteiskunnan kehitt