Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
I agree with Patrick here. My only concern is with those web designers on IE/WIN, if avoiding px, who make type that will display much too small on other platforms/browsers. And the converse for me, now that I'm redesigning my site using % type ( http://www.langfeldesigns.com/test/index.html ). I've got to make the type a bit small so it doesn't display huge on IE. Not at all an insurmountable problem, but one more thing to learn to do. Best regards, Marilyn Langfeld http://www.langfeldesigns.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Jan 7, 2005, at 8:13 PM, Patrick H. Lauke wrote: Rimantas Liubertas wrote: So we may as well end up spending time and money to implement something what is never used. How much time and money does it cost to avoid using px (which does cause real world problems in the erroneous implementation of IE/Win, and therefore calls for an interim solution in the spirit of WCAG 1.0 guideline 10) in favour of ems? Sure, if you're not too hot on CSS, making use of the cascade to avoid inheritance issues, or if you're still stuck with pixel perfect design, then sure it's a problem...but please let's not blow this out of proportion. Saying that the percentage of users who need it is minimal, and that those users should really change their settings to ensure they can use your site, is not really a valid set of arguments, imho. What I see as a biggest overestimation is the idea that user _wants_ to control something on your page. No! User wants content of your page. Which is a bugger if they then can't read it, because the designer decided that he/she prefers an illegible, but cool looking, pixel size. Or functionality of your application. Or whatever. And d) is very important here: users are much more comfortable with hitting back button than in setting font-sizes. So if you committed a sin of infamous font-size-too-small and it is small bellow acceptable level, I'd say there will be one visitor going somewhere else, than one visitor adjusting font-size. But that's an assumption too. Exactly, it's one assumption against another. Having worked directly with users with various levels of visual impairment, however, I can tell you that those who need font sizing are well aware of how to do it. Yes, they're also aware that there are advanced options that lets them completely ignore a site's chosen font size, but they don't see the need to enable them if the author is considerate enough not to stop them from simply bumping up the text size a notch if needed. And for these users in the know, a quick CTRL+MOUSE WHEEL UP/DOWN is a lot less of a hassle to do on a per-site basis than digging through accessibility options and disabling things for *all* sites (even the ones that show a minimal amount of consideration). Don't use pixels. Don't yell, if someone uses. ...but gently remind them that there is another way which can eliminate the possibility of problems for certain users with minimal effort. -- Patrick H. Lauke _ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
I was just working on that last night, firefox and ie displaying fonts different. Ended up cutting back on too many different font sizes in stylesheet, then went small on body tag, and % on a couple others... Ended up working good. I found just using em and % to some extent difficult Bruce www.bkdesign.ca Marilyn Langfeld wrote: I agree with Patrick here. My only concern is with those web designers on IE/WIN, if avoiding px, who make type that will display much too small on other platforms/browsers. And the converse for me, now that I'm redesigning my site using % type ( http://www.langfeldesigns.com/test/index.html ). I've got to make the type a bit small so it doesn't display huge on IE. Not at all an insurmountable problem, but one more thing to learn to do. Best regards, Marilyn Langfeld http://www.langfeldesigns.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Jan 7, 2005, at 8:13 PM, Patrick H. Lauke wrote: Rimantas Liubertas wrote: So we may as well end up spending time and money to implement something what is never used. How much time and money does it cost to avoid using px (which does cause real world problems in the erroneous implementation of IE/Win, and therefore calls for an interim solution in the spirit of WCAG 1.0 guideline 10) in favour of ems? Sure, if you're not too hot on CSS, making use of the cascade to avoid inheritance issues, or if you're still stuck with pixel perfect design, then sure it's a problem...but please let's not blow this out of proportion. Saying that the percentage of users who need it is minimal, and that those users should really change their settings to ensure they can use your site, is not really a valid set of arguments, imho. What I see as a biggest overestimation is the idea that user _wants_ to control something on your page. No! User wants content of your page. Which is a bugger if they then can't read it, because the designer decided that he/she prefers an illegible, but cool looking, pixel size. Or functionality of your application. Or whatever. And d) is very important here: users are much more comfortable with hitting back button than in setting font-sizes. So if you committed a sin of infamous font-size-too-small and it is small bellow acceptable level, I'd say there will be one visitor going somewhere else, than one visitor adjusting font-size. But that's an assumption too. Exactly, it's one assumption against another. Having worked directly with users with various levels of visual impairment, however, I can tell you that those who need font sizing are well aware of how to do it. Yes, they're also aware that there are advanced options that lets them completely ignore a site's chosen font size, but they don't see the need to enable them if the author is considerate enough not to stop them from simply bumping up the text size a notch if needed. And for these users in the know, a quick CTRL+MOUSE WHEEL UP/DOWN is a lot less of a hassle to do on a per-site basis than digging through accessibility options and disabling things for *all* sites (even the ones that show a minimal amount of consideration). Don't use pixels. Don't yell, if someone uses. ...but gently remind them that there is another way which can eliminate the possibility of problems for certain users with minimal effort. -- Patrick H. Lauke _ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
A List Apart, size matters: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/sizematters/ An excellent writeup on the matter, among a few others at the site.. Bruce www.bkdesign.ca Marilyn Langfeld wrote: I agree with Patrick here. My only concern is with those web designers on IE/WIN, if avoiding px, who make type that will display much too small on other platforms/browsers. And the converse for me, now that I'm redesigning my site using % type ( http://www.langfeldesigns.com/test/index.html ). I've got to make the type a bit small so it doesn't display huge on IE. Not at all an insurmountable problem, but one more thing to learn to do. Best regards, Marilyn Langfeld http://www.langfeldesigns.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Jan 7, 2005, at 8:13 PM, Patrick H. Lauke wrote: Rimantas Liubertas wrote: So we may as well end up spending time and money to implement something what is never used. How much time and money does it cost to avoid using px (which does cause real world problems in the erroneous implementation of IE/Win, and therefore calls for an interim solution in the spirit of WCAG 1.0 guideline 10) in favour of ems? Sure, if you're not too hot on CSS, making use of the cascade to avoid inheritance issues, or if you're still stuck with pixel perfect design, then sure it's a problem...but please let's not blow this out of proportion. Saying that the percentage of users who need it is minimal, and that those users should really change their settings to ensure they can use your site, is not really a valid set of arguments, imho. What I see as a biggest overestimation is the idea that user _wants_ to control something on your page. No! User wants content of your page. Which is a bugger if they then can't read it, because the designer decided that he/she prefers an illegible, but cool looking, pixel size. Or functionality of your application. Or whatever. And d) is very important here: users are much more comfortable with hitting back button than in setting font-sizes. So if you committed a sin of infamous font-size-too-small and it is small bellow acceptable level, I'd say there will be one visitor going somewhere else, than one visitor adjusting font-size. But that's an assumption too. Exactly, it's one assumption against another. Having worked directly with users with various levels of visual impairment, however, I can tell you that those who need font sizing are well aware of how to do it. Yes, they're also aware that there are advanced options that lets them completely ignore a site's chosen font size, but they don't see the need to enable them if the author is considerate enough not to stop them from simply bumping up the text size a notch if needed. And for these users in the know, a quick CTRL+MOUSE WHEEL UP/DOWN is a lot less of a hassle to do on a per-site basis than digging through accessibility options and disabling things for *all* sites (even the ones that show a minimal amount of consideration). Don't use pixels. Don't yell, if someone uses. ...but gently remind them that there is another way which can eliminate the possibility of problems for certain users with minimal effort. -- Patrick H. Lauke _ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] G* addressing standards
I hope I'm not out of line here, but as a webstandards group it is interesting that a simple matter of font size is awaiting being addressed by the G8 presidency team...I included this for general interest ...but at least they are aware of it. Bruce www.bkdesign.ca Dear Bruce, Thank you for your interest in the UK G8 Presidency website and bringing to our attention that the font size cannot be changed via the browser. This is an accessibility issue that we are aware of and hope to be able to address in the near future. Regards, G8 Presidency Team -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 03, 2005 4:25 AM To: Feedback Form www.g8.gov.uk Subject: Comment from Bruce Prochnau Just a thought, but myself being a webdesigner focusing on accessability, you have fixed fonts. This means that those who have poor vision, even most older people cannot change the text size from their browser, and have difficuly reading the site, if they can even. Perhaps use small, x-small medium etc? Otherwise great! All the best from Canada ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
Bruce wrote: I hope I'm not out of line here, but as a webstandards group it is interesting that a simple matter of font size is awaiting being addressed by the G8 presidency team...I included this for general interest ...but at least they are aware of it. Considering it's a governmental site (of sorts), I would have been surprised if they weren't going to at least try to cover the easy accessibility points. -- Patrick H. Lauke _ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 13:55:38 -0500, Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I hope I'm not out of line here, but as a webstandards group it is interesting that a simple matter of font size is awaiting being addressed by the G8 presidency team...I included this for general interest ...but at least they are aware of it. I absolutely hate to jump into the topic of font-size issue, because I think this is the question of religion, not web standards. Which standard exactly prohibits use of px as font-size unit? From original letter: Thank you for your interest in the UK G8 Presidency website and bringing to our attention that the font size cannot be changed via the browser. Why not? I can change it (except for graphical menu and absolutely illegible trademark notice). The only browser which does not allow it is IE for Windows That's it. (yes, I can hear your it is the most popular and user by 7/8/9-ty percents of the web surfers. Anyway, 1/2/3-ty percent of users CAN change font size in browser. Maybe 0.1% wants to... maybe 0.01% knows how). Mac users don't have this problem, Linux users don't have this problems, Mozilla/Firefox users on any platform don't have this problem. This is an accessibility issue that we are aware of and hope to be able to address in the near future. I'd really really like to see any research data which would back up this statement. If you have any links - please, provide. To be more precise: what percentage of unfortunate web surfers knows that it is possible to change font size. And then what percentage of those uses font-changing tools instead of using glasses. That's why I hate this issue - because it is based on assumptions, guesses, and overestimated urge of average user to control something. This is classic case probability vs. possibility. While I agree, that using methods which allow scale fonts on IE/Win to (even it only makes happy all 15 web-developers, who know browsers in and out, and use Firefox anyway) is preferable, I do not think this issue deserves as much attention as it gets now. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ (yep, px fonts) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
Which standard exactly prohibits use of px as font-size unit? Exactly this one: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-CSS-TECHS/#units and soon this one: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-WCAG20-CSS-TECHS-20040730/ -- regards, Kornel Lesiski ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
That's not exactly the way I read it. But then I can't read. ~d On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 20:45:24 -, Kornel Lesinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Which standard exactly prohibits use of px as font-size unit? Exactly this one: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-CSS-TECHS/#units and soon this one: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-WCAG20-CSS-TECHS-20040730/ -- http://www.dlaakso.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
These are *guidelines* are they not? As opposed to hard-fast rules? ...This document provides information to Web content developers who wish to satisfy the success criteria of Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 note the word 'Guidelines'... ? Tom Livingston Senior Multimedia Artist Media Logic mlinc.com On Jan 7, 2005, at 3:45 PM, Kornel Lesinski wrote: Which standard exactly prohibits use of px as font-size unit? Exactly this one: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-CSS-TECHS/#units and soon this one: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-WCAG20-CSS-TECHS-20040730/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
I absolutely hate to jump into the topic of font-size issue, because I think this is the question of religion, not web standards. Which standard exactly prohibits use of px as font-size unit? On the issue of pixel sizes, the guideline that best describes the pixels issue is Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0 Checkpoint 3.4: 3.4 Use relative rather than absolute units in markup 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 (refer to the section on validation). As pointed out, these are guidelines only, and open to interpretation. For example, pixels could be interpreted to be relative units, as explained by Derek Featherstone: http://www.wats.ca/articles/pixelsarerelative/65 The main point that seems to be missing in this discussion is that you could argue that: A. pixels are relative units and therefore acceptable within the WAI guidelines B. browsers should support scaling pixels (and therefore IE is wrong) C. users may not necessarily know about increasing font sizes And many other things... But the bottom line is that these arguments do not help real users who may experience real accessibility issues with a site that is sized using pixels. Accessibility should not be seen as check points, laws, lawsuits or covering your bum. It should be about people and empathy - putting yourself in others shoes. It is also about the real world. A huge percentage of users are on Windows IE and within the disabled community, you could argue this figure is even higher as most accessibility tools seem to be run on that platform. I'd put the question back to the group... Rather than ask why should I not use pixels, as there is nowhere that forces me not to, why not ask how can I make my content as accessible to the widest audience possible. If you ask this question, then right now, with the current browser situation, this means that pixels are not desirable as they can possibly (regardless of whether a guideline or not) adversely affect a large number of users. My 2 cents A small aside... I am a little concerned that a private email was posted to the wsg list from the G8 Presidency Team. I hope that approval was requested and given by them to post to a mailing list? Russ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
Rimantas Liubertas wrote: Which standard exactly prohibits use of px as font-size unit? WCAG 1.0, checkpoint 3.4 http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#tech-relative-units (although there have been discussions recently on the WAI-IG list about whether or not some of these have now been overtaken by technology, the fact remains that IE gets it wrong, not allowing px to resize, and thus web authors should use interim solutions - in this case, not using pixel fonts - to work around the problem http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#gl-interim-accessibility ) Why not? I can change it (except for graphical menu and absolutely illegible trademark notice). The only browser which does not allow it is IE for Windows That's it. (yes, I can hear your it is the most popular and user by 7/8/9-ty percents of the web surfers. Anyway, 1/2/3-ty percent of users CAN change font size in browser. Maybe 0.1% wants to... maybe 0.01% knows how). Saying the percentage of IE users that will resize the font is low is obviously not the same as saying the percentage of IE users that will resize the font is low, so I'll just make it impossible for them to do so. To be more precise: what percentage of unfortunate web surfers knows that it is possible to change font size. And then what percentage of those uses font-changing tools instead of using glasses. If I set my display to 1024x768, but with large fonts in Windows, the pixel size doesn't change. If a site author now specifies a lovely 9px font, because they're designers and they love their lovely minimal type, then I can't resize it. I shouldn't need to use glasses, a screen magnifier, or even go as far as having to change my screen resolution. Period. Yes, it's a shortcoming of IE, but it's a real world problem which can be fixed in such a simple way... I do not think this issue deserves as much attention as it gets now. I don't think it's getting that much attention, but seeing as it is such a trivial thing to do, I'm still amazed at the number of sites that use pixel sizing for fonts. -- Patrick H. Lauke _ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
To quote part of what I posted from G8 web: This is an accessibility issue that we are aware of and hope to be able to address in the near future. I really don't think this is an important matter that would need permission to post anywhere. It isn't a secret. Perhaps I am out of line here, but the purpose was only to show the wide ranging awareness of accessibility issues, and an item of general interest. That there was an issue, perhaps a small one according to some, that a government website had a small problem, but were aware of it and are going to address it. It was nice that they responded...etc. Why they haven't is beyond me, but then so are a lot of things...It certainly got some interesting feedback, whereby everyone gains perhaps? Various opinions on font-size here naturally...I 'sometimes' use Internet Explorer, as many do, so fixed fonts can be important if you have poor vision and are used to a certain way of enlargening them. I believe that issue is mostly settled...I'm an amature here, but I switched to em, small x-small and % on my sites...and that's just fine It gives me the warm fuzzies. All I know is when I went to adjust them as I normally would in ie, I couldn't. Not a big deal to me, as I have reasonably good vision, but for some...maybe it would be. Simple and basic Bruce www.bkdesign.ca ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] G* addressing standards
-Original Message- From: Rimantas Liubertas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, 8 January 2005 6:49 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards To be more precise: what percentage of unfortunate web surfers knows that it is possible to change font size. And then what percentage of those uses font-changing tools instead of using glasses. Most users with serious visual disabilities that cannot be rectified by simply wearing a pair of glasses know how to change the font-size in their browser (or they use screen magnifiers or similar software). This is a technical knowledge they have to gain if they wish to use the Internet at all. Why not? I can change it (except for graphical menu and absolutely illegible trademark notice). The only browser which does not allow it is IE for Windows That's it. (yes, I can hear your it is the most popular and user by 7/8/9-ty percents of the web surfers. Anyway, 1/2/3-ty percent of users CAN change font size in browser. Maybe 0.1% wants to... maybe 0.01% knows how). There is a good reason why people would come back to you and tell you that 90% of users have IE installed: it's because our websites should be working for the majority of people that use it, not the minority. Although there is lots of research that shows that Firefox is being installed on so-and-so many machines, our statistics in ALL our websites show that IE has still got a leading position of 90% amongst our users. There are a couple of reasons why this is not going to change in the next years majorly: - Companies will not be willing to change their default browser just because there is a trend amongst Web Developers or Computer Nerds (not excluding myself here) to move to a standards based browser. Give them a good reason to change. The only good reason would be if websites did not work in IE. The way it looks at the moment: there are many more websites that don't work in Firefox than in IE. - IE is the browser that supports assistive technology best. Most assistive software only works in IE. Those groups of users will not change in the near future. - It may be hard to believe for some, but many computer users do not know how to install a different browser. In fact, many of them don't even know that there is anything else but IE. Who, except for us guys here, cares about reading IT articles about the new kick-ass browser that is going to take over the world? Nobody. There are 10 million people that downloaded Firefox? Well, there are 600 million people online world wide (http://www.nua.ie/surveys/how_many_online/). Which makes the 10 million a mere 1.66%. Is the trend of downloading Firefox going to continue as it has so far? Doubtful. Us computer nerds have downloaded it eagerly, but persuading the general public will take more than just a few years. So, until further notice: we better continue working for our dear friend IE, which, unfortunately, cannot resize absolute fonts. Make it accessible, make it usable. My two cents. :) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 09:17:53 +1100, russ - maxdesign [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... As pointed out, these are guidelines only, and open to interpretation. For example, pixels could be interpreted to be relative units, as explained by Derek Featherstone: http://www.wats.ca/articles/pixelsarerelative/65 The main point that seems to be missing in this discussion is that you could argue that: A. pixels are relative units and therefore acceptable within the WAI guidelines That's my point. And there is nothing to argue about: pixels are relative units. B. browsers should support scaling pixels (and therefore IE is wrong) IE for Windows. IE5 for Mac was the first browser with text zoom, IIRC. ... Accessibility should not be seen as check points, laws, lawsuits or covering your bum. It should be about people and empathy - putting yourself in others shoes. Absolutely. It is also about the real world. A huge percentage of users are on Windows IE and within the disabled community, you could argue this figure is even higher as most accessibility tools seem to be run on that platform. That is the problem - the real world. So far I've seen only assumptions. I did not exactly get your point on disabled community (unless you have other problems in mind, not only impaired vision). For screen readers doesn't matter what size your font is, others may have using low resolutions on big screens, so they are in relatively same position as the rest. I'd put the question back to the group... Rather than ask why should I not use pixels, as there is nowhere that forces me not to, why not ask how can I make my content as accessible to the widest audience possible. Because of laziness. As simple as that. Pixels are the easiest way to have consistent result (does http://old.alistapart.com/stories/fear4/ matter any more?). ... If you ask this question, then right now, with the current browser situation, this means that pixels are not desirable as they can possibly (regardless of whether a guideline or not) adversely affect a large number of users. ... Non sequitur. That's why I mentioned 'possibility vs. probability'. Maybe that may affect some users. Maybe not. I may be lazy and implement pixels. Or I may put some effort and make text work with other units. This will be used in case: a) Font size I set looks unacceptably too small for particular user on his screen b) Users uses IE/Win c) User knows how to change font-size d) User chooses to change font-size I have no idea about probability of a). We have very varying results on b) (you can have more exact numbers for site in question though). We have no idea about c) and d). So we may as well end up spending time and money to implement something what is never used. What I see as a biggest overestimation is the idea that user _wants_ to control something on your page. No! User wants content of your page. Or functionality of your application. Or whatever. And d) is very important here: users are much more comfortable with hitting back button than in setting font-sizes. So if you committed a sin of infamous font-size-too-small and it is small bellow acceptable level, I'd say there will be one visitor going somewhere else, than one visitor adjusting font-size. But that's an assumption too. Don't get me wrong. I am not advocating pixels as best possible way to set font-size. Methods which allow to scale fonts are indeed preferable, but I still think that evilness of pixels is hugely overestimated as is users will to change it. And whats is not desirable: some percentage based schema, which is broken so users get illegible fonts, or reasonably sized fonts in pixels, plus stylesheet switcher allowing to change size with one click? How big is probability of the first case? What is the probability of user being unhappy with default setting in the second case? Who knows, who knows... I'd say we have more prominent and less arguable problems with accessibility than guessing game about font-sizing. Strive to perfection is nice, though. Don't use pixels. Don't yell, if someone uses. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
russ - maxdesign wrote: I'd put the question back to the group... Rather than ask why should I not use pixels, as there is nowhere that forces me not to, why not ask how can I make my content as accessible to the widest audience possible. If you ask this question, then right now, with the current browser situation, this means that pixels are not desirable as they can possibly (regardless of whether a guideline or not) adversely affect a large number of users. I'm all for re-sizable font sizing methods, but I think the only thing that matters is that any web page should be able to take it-- no matter how we define font size. The current browser situation means nothing here. Two factors creates this accessibility-problem with pixel-defined text: - Web designers in general don't know that IE/win can *override* font sizes. - Users in general don't know that either. The technical side of it: IE/win has ignore font size... amongst its accessibility-options... http://www.seoconsultants.com/windows/ie/accessibility/ ... and have had it since IE4 (at least), so we can not say that pixel defined fonts is an accessibility-problem in any major browser today. The fact that so many web pages becomes broken and inaccessible when this accessibility-option is used, is caused by web designers who don't know the browsers they design for well enough. It should only take a minute or two to test out what IE/win can and cannot do (don't forget to look at line height). The simple fact is that most pages behaves better and are more accessible when we *do not* try to set font sizes in stone. regards Georg ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 10:18:55 +1100, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] ... - It may be hard to believe for some, but many computer users do not know how to install a different browser. In fact, many of them don't even know that there is anything else but IE. ... All you say is true. And there are users who go to the site by entering it's url into _search field of some search engine_ and then following the first link... So what exactly makes you think those users will: a) know hot to change font size b) want to change font-size If b) happens, that means something is already broken - no matter can user actually change the setting or not. Why? Because user got distracted from his/her main goal. He has to fiddle with something. Worse than that - that fiddling should be repeated, cause other sites user is used to will appear different and unacceptable. But there we go into the domain what the user wants and that is not so simple. Especially because users _do not know_ what they really want. So I will leave it for now. Regards, Rimantas, -- http://rimantas.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] G* addressing standards
I think that the point of this discussion is partially missed, making font size scalable is not just about making a site accessible for people with special needs - it benefits everyone! Consider this scenario: Acme Company hires Zippo Web Dev to create their website Zippo decide 8px Arial is really funky for the main text - sells Acme on the idea. Site is launched, looks beautiful. John Doe has no disabilities, accesses site, can't read text, his options: Leave site, never to return Tell all his friends what a crappy site it is Email Acme to complain If the information is critical to JD, consider legal complaint under Disability Discrimination Act. Do you think Acme would hire Zippo again? Regards Graham Cook ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] G* addressing standards
-Original Message- From: Rimantas Liubertas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, 8 January 2005 10:44 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards So what exactly makes you think those users will: a) know hot to change font size We have to make it as easy as possible and give them all the options. If a user knows that they can change the font-size with the browser, let them do it - don't stop them from doing it by using pixels. I agree - not all users know how to change it. So why not make it even easier: add reduce/enlarge font links at the top of your page. b) want to change font-size Not all users with visual disabilities use a screen reader. Some may only require a larger font size or a different font colour. Others use screen readers in combination with enlarged fonts. A user I tested once insisted on having 14 pt font-size in blue colour on white background. The problem was that his visual disability made it very hard for him to read font that was black or smaller than 14 pt. Here's another group: older people with reduced eyesight. If b) happens, that means something is already broken - no matter can user actually change the setting or not. Not necessarily broken: I really would not want to design all my websites in 14 pt and blue colour, but I have to give the user the option to change it to their personal preference. But there we go into the domain what the user wants and that is not so simple. I agree - you cannot immediately fulfil all the wishes that are out there. That's why we should give them the option to create their own little world. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 10:51:54 +1100, Graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that the point of this discussion is partially missed, making font size scalable is not just about making a site accessible for people with special needs - it benefits everyone! Consider this scenario: Acme Company hires Zippo Web Dev to create their website Zippo decide 8px Arial is really funky for the main text - sells Acme on the idea. Site is launched, looks beautiful. John Doe has no disabilities, accesses site, can't read text, his options: Leave site, never to return Tell all his friends what a crappy site it is Email Acme to complain If the information is critical to JD, consider legal complaint under Disability Discrimination Act. I'd vote for first two option. On what ground could he use option 4? Only what has it to do with being able to scale fonts? I guess, you assume John Doe uses IE/Win and he knows how to change font-size: only he cannot to. Let's modify your scenario: John Doe uses [any browser] and site is designed with em's, only they are sized in such a way they look exactly the same size of 8px. But - JD does NOT know how to change font-size. That leaves as with options: Leave site, never to return Tell all his friends what a crappy site it is Email Acme to complain If the information is critical to JD, consider legal complaint under Disability Discrimination Act. Not much difference here, eh? That brings us to the original sin: Zippo decide 8px Arial is really funky for the main text - sells Acme on the idea. That may bring us to the flame about optimal font-size, please, don't, I beg you. Not here, not now. Do you think Acme would hire Zippo again? It depends. I'd say yes -- they've bought the idea of the 8px font, haven't they?. (Who would, anyway ;) Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 11:02:53 +1100, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] ... Not all users with visual disabilities use a screen reader. Some may only require a larger font size or a different font colour. Others use screen readers in combination with enlarged fonts. A user I tested once insisted on having 14 pt font-size in blue colour on white background. The problem was that his visual disability made it very hard for him to read font that was black or smaller than 14 pt. Here's another group: older people with reduced eyesight. These users would benefit most from the 'Accessibility' options under Options menu.That allows them: Ignore colors specified on Web pages Ignore font-styles specified on Web pages Ignore font-sizes specified on Web pages Use own stylesheet Having in mind how many sites with 14pt blue text I've came across this is the only viable option: set own stylesheet with aforementioned rules. Fiddling with fonts on every single page is a nightmare, not an accessibility. But this by any means does not make your statement below invalid: ... That's why we should give them the option to create their own little world. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
Rimantas Liubertas wrote: These users would benefit most from the 'Accessibility' options under Options menu.That allows them: Ignore colors specified on Web pages Ignore font-styles specified on Web pages Ignore font-sizes specified on Web pages Use own stylesheet Cute...first you argue that users don't even know how to change the font size, then you say they should know how to change various settings AND create their own stylesheets? -- Patrick H. Lauke _ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
Rimantas Liubertas wrote: So we may as well end up spending time and money to implement something what is never used. How much time and money does it cost to avoid using px (which does cause real world problems in the erroneous implementation of IE/Win, and therefore calls for an interim solution in the spirit of WCAG 1.0 guideline 10) in favour of ems? Sure, if you're not too hot on CSS, making use of the cascade to avoid inheritance issues, or if you're still stuck with pixel perfect design, then sure it's a problem...but please let's not blow this out of proportion. Saying that the percentage of users who need it is minimal, and that those users should really change their settings to ensure they can use your site, is not really a valid set of arguments, imho. What I see as a biggest overestimation is the idea that user _wants_ to control something on your page. No! User wants content of your page. Which is a bugger if they then can't read it, because the designer decided that he/she prefers an illegible, but cool looking, pixel size. Or functionality of your application. Or whatever. And d) is very important here: users are much more comfortable with hitting back button than in setting font-sizes. So if you committed a sin of infamous font-size-too-small and it is small bellow acceptable level, I'd say there will be one visitor going somewhere else, than one visitor adjusting font-size. But that's an assumption too. Exactly, it's one assumption against another. Having worked directly with users with various levels of visual impairment, however, I can tell you that those who need font sizing are well aware of how to do it. Yes, they're also aware that there are advanced options that lets them completely ignore a site's chosen font size, but they don't see the need to enable them if the author is considerate enough not to stop them from simply bumping up the text size a notch if needed. And for these users in the know, a quick CTRL+MOUSE WHEEL UP/DOWN is a lot less of a hassle to do on a per-site basis than digging through accessibility options and disabling things for *all* sites (even the ones that show a minimal amount of consideration). Don't use pixels. Don't yell, if someone uses. ...but gently remind them that there is another way which can eliminate the possibility of problems for certain users with minimal effort. -- Patrick H. Lauke _ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
Patrick H. Lauke wrote: Quote: And for these users in the know, a quick CTRL+MOUSE WHEEL UP/DOWN is a lot less of a hassle to do on a per-site basis than digging through accessibility options and disabling things for *all* sites (even the ones that show a minimal amount of consideration). Amazing! I have been online and studying for 10 years, and guess what? I didn't know this... amazed here. Will add this to my accessibility statement onsite...forever learning. Actually, to have standards is good, informing users what they are and giving tips to visitors to a site is also good. Forever learning, Bruce ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 01:13:03 +, Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How much time and money does it cost to avoid using px (which does cause real world problems in the erroneous implementation of IE/Win, and therefore calls for an interim solution in the spirit of WCAG 1.0 guideline 10) in favour of ems? Excuse me? 'erroneous implementation'? Which specification says how text-zooming should be implemented? I may be wrong, but I guess - none. Texts zoom is (ironically) an invention of Microsoft. It is nice and useful feature. Don't confuse 'relative' with 'scalable by browser'. Relative means just that - physical size of, say 12px can vary depending on the size of actual pixel, which depends on screen size, its resolution, etc. Absolute units should have the same physical dimension, doesn't matter what, and what's way it is virtually impossible to have them implemented on screen. Funny enough, you may look at text-zoom feature as of wrong implementation. Mozilla lets you zoom text with font-size set in points. But 72 points, according to spec is 1 inch - no matter what. IE does not resize text in pt. Pixels are bit more complicated but they have fixed size for given device to. That leads us to text-zooming, font-scaling is a violation of the specification? So who is wrong? Or is there anyone wrong at all? Saying that the percentage of users who need it is minimal, and that those users should really change their settings to ensure they can use your site, is not really a valid set of arguments, imho. Saying in contrary is no more valid, sadly. ... Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
On Fri, 07 Jan 2005 20:23:20 -0500, Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Patrick H. Lauke wrote: Quote: And for these users in the know, a quick CTRL+MOUSE WHEEL UP/DOWN is a lot less of a hassle to do on a per-site basis than digging through accessibility options and disabling things for *all* sites (even the ones that show a minimal amount of consideration). Amazing! I have been online and studying for 10 years, and guess what? I didn't know this... ... I guess I have nothing to add here. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
Rimantas Liubertas wrote: Amazing! I have been online and studying for 10 years, and guess what? I didn't know this... I guess I have nothing to add here. This would be insightful if Bruce was a user that actually needed/relied on resizable fonts. -- Patrick H. Lauke _ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
Rimantas Liubertas wrote: Excuse me? 'erroneous implementation'? Which specification says how text-zooming should be implemented? Arguably, UAAG 1.0 guideline 4.1 http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/guidelines.html#tech-configure-text-scale -- Patrick H. Lauke _ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
That was my point. Not that I was dumb or anything, but lots of us don't know some things. Including those with eyesite difficulties, and that a site guide would be nice. If I could miss that, many others have also. Bruce Patrick H. Lauke wrote: Rimantas Liubertas wrote: Amazing! I have been online and studying for 10 years, and guess what? I didn't know this... I guess I have nothing to add here. This would be insightful if Bruce was a user that actually needed/relied on resizable fonts. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote: G.S: Two factors creates this accessibility-problem with pixel-defined text: - Web designers in general don't know that IE/win can *override* font sizes. - Users in general don't know that either. The technical side of it: IE/win has ignore font size... amongst its accessibility-options... http://www.seoconsultants.com/windows/ie/accessibility/ ... and have had it since IE4 (at least), so we can not say that pixel defined fonts is an accessibility-problem in any major browser today. A.B: But as you said: Users in general don't know that. So it is an accessibility problem: even if the browser has got the ability to override font-sizes, it is no use if the user does not know about it. You are correct -- but my point was that the accessibility problem isn't caused by what browser people use. Lack of knowledge-- ignorance if you like-- will always be a problem. That's not limited to font size issues, or the web as such. It's a universal problem... :-) My views (on the web) are best presented here: http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/molly_1_01.html I prefer to use font sizing methods / units that allow for user-adjustments in all browsers, so the need for this accessibility-options isn't there. However, I also try to make my pages take it, *if* these options are used. Some of that, and how I deal with it, is presented here: http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_03_02.html ... and on other pages in this new, and still unfinished, section on my site. Guess I'm still trying to find a cure for the universal problem, but I'm not sure if there is any... I rest my case. regards Georg ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] G* addressing standards
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 03:17:17 +, Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Rimantas Liubertas wrote: Excuse me? 'erroneous implementation'? Which specification says how text-zooming should be implemented? Arguably, UAAG 1.0 guideline 4.1 http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/guidelines.html#tech-configure-text-scale Yes this is close, but even this does not require to implement dynamic text scaling: ability to set preferred font size and to override one specified by document author suffices. On the other hand: It is inappropriate to use this document as reference material or to cite it as other than work in progress.. And it is dated 17 December 2002, whilst latest version of IE saw the light in October 2001. So in terms of font-scaling we depend solely on the good will of browser makers, luckily any, but MS has problems with that. But that's the way Microsoft does - they invent text-zoom on IE/Mac and it never finds it way to IE/Win properly; or they hold patent for CSS but are badly lagging behind in implementing this technology That's it for me on this topic, in any case we are on the same side, only we differ in the views on the weight of that problem. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
