Anderson, Eric wrote: > I understand companies have policies about installing unapproved 3rd > party software. But most sane companies should have some channel to get > software approved that is needed. If they have hired a disabled person > who has low vision problems and they are unwilling to let that user > install software that allows them to read the websites clearly (and I am > assuming their job role involves them using the web) then the company > has a problem. That is like a company hiring a blind person and telling > that person they cannot install a screen reader. In both cases it would > probably be violating the Americans for Disabilities Act (assuming this > company is based in America). The employee could probably sue the company.
Good point, but that still means that the user can't use the site, where otherwise the choice wouldn't matter. Not to mention, my last employer had red tape so long it could be months before a request was able to be fulfilled. :( > I guess I just don't like the idea of assuming that every disabled user > is too dumb to find and configure tools that help them and therefore web > developers must litter their applications and websites with controls > that are a poor substitute for built-in browser support. That's not the issue, if you use px then the control is disabled in IE. And px is the only way to guarantee it will look exactly the same. They may use the control all the time in IE and run across a site they can't change due to a design decision (using px for font sizes). > It seems to me that all these web-based controls just clutter the > website and make it less accessible. Instead of the user finding the... <snip> You make the assumption that we're talking about separate controls modifying px values. Using the font percentage and em ratio method allows them to use the existing browser controls. > Seems to me the 76% and em sizing solution is a hack. The person who > developed that hack took 250 screenshots to find just the right way to > achieve the results they were after. I admire the use of experimentation > but I doubt it is maintainable. You think 3 years from now 76% will > still be the magic number? Or will some new version of IE or Firefox > change the results of that experiment? The em and 76% solution works as a side effect of implementing CSS font declarations. If you set a font size using a percentage and then scale the rest of the fonts (using the CSS property line-height) on the page using an em size (an em being the font size proportional to the size of an upper case M. I believe ex can be used as well) it works because the styles effect each other correctly. Unfortunately this doesn't mean you're wrong about the 76% and em solution being a hack. :( There is a twinkle of hackishness as values lower than 76 can cause text to become super small in some browsers. However, when it comes to forward compatibility for the "magic number" 76%, I believe there should not be a problem assuming future browsers correctly implement CSS. If you want to be safe, you could always use 90% or 80% and modify your em sizes accordingly. Actually it's funny you should mention "3 years", as that's just about how long ago the 76% solution was proposed. :P Cheers. _______________________________________________ Rails-spinoffs mailing list Rails-spinoffs@lists.rubyonrails.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails-spinoffs
