Somehow I don't think this is on topic, but I'll leave it up to the mods to determine that with certainty.
On 2008/03/19 20:26 (GMT-0500) Gate Wizard apparently typed: > I was wondering how many have heard of this Firefox extension, who uses it, > and their opinion of it. > http://foxability.sourceforge.net/ > I have a question concerning PX with Fonts and WCAG 1.0 > Should fonts declared with a size in Pixels fail a WCAG 1.0 test? Without a better recollection or review of WCAG 1, I can't say whether they should or not. However, if they would not fail, I'd have to call the WCAG fatally flawed. IIRC, this is what I decided on first exposure to it, which is why I've rarely revisited or paid much attention to it. > I find a lot of references that font size must be in a relative unit i.e; EM > or Percent > but W3 says px IS a relative unit, though relative to the device it's > displayed on. Relative to the viewing device is not relative in any meaningful sense. What relatively boils down to is the standard used to measure, being either relative or not relative - or both. The only relativity that should matter regarding text size is the relationship to 1 em. A px is a purely arbitrary size in relation to what's most important to a web user - that size of 1 em, which is presumptively the user's preferred text size. That might be any number of px from about 9 up into triple digits, depending on px size and density and viewing distance to the display device. The density of px in relation to each *actual* 1 em is an unknown and unknowable value. There has been a rather predictable relationship between the number of px in 1 *default* em over the years, usually 16ppem if not a laptop, 20ppem if a modern laptop, but the physical size of that default em has been steadily decreasing for over a decade as technological advancement has been increasing average display PPI. For example, 800x600 on a viewable 14" screen, typical in 1998, is about 71 PPI. 1024x768 on 18" actual viewable is about the same 71. Contrast those to current displays, where 1280x800 on a 14" laptop is 108 PPI, 1280x1024 on a 17" LCD is 96 PPI, 1920x1200 on 24" is 94 PPI, and 1920x1200 on a 17" laptop is 133 PPI. Even without considering the wider range encompassed by little PDAs and big screen TVs or projection displays, you can see a more than 40% variation in just the the 4 unit sample I've listed, which doesn't even consider the common but dwindling population of 1024x768 or soon to be extinct 800x600 users lingering at the lower end of the real world PPI range. To better visually this impact of PPI on the size of px, visit: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Font/fonts-pt2px-tabled.html and/or http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/dpi.html -- "Let us not love with words or in talk only. Let us love by what we do." 1 John 3:18 NLV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
