Re: [WSG] web accessibility toolbar
It alleviates the problem, but realistically I still think designers are better off using relative units Just as a matter of clarification: pixels *are* a relative unithttp://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/syndata.html#length-units However, they're relative to the screen resolution, rather than beingrelative to the viewport dimensions or the user's preferred font size. I didn't actually know pixels were defined as relative... but you're right, there it is :) So it's technically true, yes; although in a *practical* sense they are fixed. People don't tend to change their resolution per web page, the way they might change text size :) Also, with current technology (I'm looking at IE) pixel-based designs won't resize like other relative units. So I certainly wouldn't want people using pixels thinking they are relative in the same way as EMs or % are in the current real-world situation. All that said, I'm sure someone will now speak up and flame me since they *do* change their rez several times per viewing session. Or argue that zoom readers constitute changing rez, although that form of usage is not what I'm driving at. h -- --- http://www.200ok.com.au/--- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson
Re: [WSG] web accessibility toolbar
Hi there, I ask the question partly tongue-in-cheek, but it does make me wonder iftools such as this should be the butt of responsibility? No, I'd say tools like this are workarounds for the failings of the native browser. You certainly can't start using pixels for sizing just because a user *could* go and install a third party toolbar (even it if it is NILS' excellent WAT :)). Basically, my view is that everyone remains responsible for their part of the puzzle. Rather than write at length, I'll be a little cheeky and point to http://weblog.200ok.com.au/2005/04/whos-responsible.html which I wrote in response to a related topic here :) I just wondered, as it does seem to put the pixel argument into adifferent perspective. It alleviates the problem, but realistically I still think designers are better off using relative units - personally I favour the EMs + %-on-the-body combination. If you can use the best-practice method to produce the results you want, there's no reason to use pixels. Eventually you should be able to use whatever unit of measurement you like, but until then we are stuck with most IE users (and hence most *users*) being unable to resize pixel-sized pages. cheers, h-- --- http://www.200ok.com.au/--- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson
Re: [WSG] web accessibility toolbar
heretic wrote: It alleviates the problem, but realistically I still think designers are better off using relative units Just as a matter of clarification: pixels *are* a relative unit http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/syndata.html#length-units However, they're relative to the screen resolution, rather than being relative to the viewport dimensions or the user's preferred font size. -- 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 __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** 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] web accessibility toolbar
Hi Joshua, et al, Let me put it the other way around: A lot of designers love to use pixels for font sizing. AFAIK, the only problem with it is that users can't resize text in IE. If they could, that would be great. With tools such as this, they can. So what I mean is : should it be that we all push for a) all browsers to do this, and b) 'advertise' the existence of such tools as an interim measure, and [most importantly] would it solve some of our problems? Thanks, Bob Joshua Street wrote: On Sat, 2005-08-20 at 13:34 +0100, designer wrote: Good afternoon (or whatever), Does the web accessibility toolbar let me off the hook as far as using pixels for text sizing in IE is concerned? I have recently got the excellent WAT from http://www.nils.org.au/ais/ and it has an excellent zoom facility, like opera. (A great, and very educational tool anyway). I ask the question partly tongue-in-cheek, but it does make me wonder if tools such as this should be the butt of responsibility? I just wondered, as it does seem to put the pixel argument into a different perspective. No rants please: this is intended as an intelligent question, expecting and wanting the same type of response. Seeing as you've indicated you don't desire rants, I'll simply suggest that the assumption the burden of ensuring accessibility falls upon client-side (third part) utilities is akin to assuming all your potential viewers have Firefox or Opera. To extend this one step further, the need for any internal website search is negated, as, clearly, we may safely assume all users have installed the Google toolbar (obviously!) and are capable of typing site:yoursite.com query into the field. I'm pretty sure you know what the answer to your question should be, seeing as there's no way you can assume that the responsibility falls on the user -- given the rate of adoption of alternative web browsers as a precedent. At any rate, all this tool does is render pixel sized text even more irrelevant, as, clearly, it's not being respected anyway. You can actually improve your control over appearance through using relative font sizes and appropriate design practises to match this, rather than trying to force your users/visitors into one particular framework which then breaks as they attempt to escape it. Kind Regards, Joshua Street base10solutions Website: http://www.base10solutions.com.au/ Phone: (02) 9898-0060 Fax: (02) 8572-6021 Mobile: 0425 808 469 Multimedia Development Agency E-mails and any attachments sent from base10solutions are to be regarded as confidential. Please do not distribute or publish any of the contents of this e-mail without the sender’s consent. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by replying to the e-mail, and then delete the message without making copies or using it in any way. Although base10solutions takes precautions to ensure that e-mail sent from our accounts are free of viruses, we encourage recipients to undertake their own virus scan on each e-mail before opening, as base10solutions accepts no responsibility for loss or damage caused by the contents of this e-mail. ** 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] web accessibility toolbar
On Sun, 2005-08-21 at 11:35 +0100, designer wrote: Hi Joshua, et al, Let me put it the other way around: A lot of designers love to use pixels for font sizing. AFAIK, the only problem with it is that users can't resize text in IE. If they could, that would be great. With tools such as this, they can. So what I mean is : should it be that we all push for a) all browsers to do this, and b) 'advertise' the existence of such tools as an interim measure, and [most importantly] would it solve some of our problems? Do we love to use pixels for font sizing because it has any intrinsic advantage, or simply because we'd rather be designing for print? This list has seen some debates of epic proportions in the past months regarding font sizes, and I recognise this is a little different, but isn't it worth thinking _why_ designers love to use pixel-based font sizing? Are these the same designers that don't embrace fluid layouts? (I'm not saying that because fluid layouts are intrinsically better, just that it's a good thing to have an open mind towards) If you're talking about an Opera-esque zoom that scales images as well, then there's a problem there because, well, scaled raster images look like crap. As designers, we should be opposed to that. As CSS and web standards advocates, we should recognise that needn't be a problem if we adopt design practises that enable us to build layouts that are sufficiently flexible to enable us to use relative font sizing, whilst the rest of the layout remains static (obviously within reason -- it's generally safe to assume no-one is going to resize your text greater than 250%!) And, if you don't mean a whole-site zoom like Opera uses, but rather just a text-resizing feature (ala Firefox, et al.), then it's really worth asking why on earth you were using pixels in the first place, as you know that you're ultimately relinquishing control, and all you're really doing is irritating your users by not respecting their text-size defaults. Kind Regards, Joshua Street base10solutions Website: http://www.base10solutions.com.au/ Phone: (02) 9898-0060 Fax: (02) 8572-6021 Mobile: 0425 808 469 Multimedia Development Agency E-mails and any attachments sent from base10solutions are to be regarded as confidential. Please do not distribute or publish any of the contents of this e-mail without the sender’s consent. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by replying to the e-mail, and then delete the message without making copies or using it in any way. Although base10solutions takes precautions to ensure that e-mail sent from our accounts are free of viruses, we encourage recipients to undertake their own virus scan on each e-mail before opening, as base10solutions accepts no responsibility for loss or damage caused by the contents of this e-mail. ** 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] web accessibility toolbar
On 21/08/05, Joshua Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do we love to use pixels for font sizing because it has any intrinsic advantage, or simply because we'd rather be designing for print? ... Print? Is print in pixels? Never heard that. My screen is measured in pixels, I view the web on my screen... And there was a time when pixels were the only good choice: http://old.alistapart.com/stories/fear4/ Ok, that was long time ago. Are these the same designers that don't embrace fluid layouts? (I'm not saying that because fluid layouts are intrinsically better, just that it's a good thing to have an open mind towards) ... If anything is better than fixed layout it is elastic layout: that means line length defined in em's. How good layout is for reading does not depend on open-mindness of the designer, it depends on physiology of our sight, and alas tall and narrow is better than wde and shallow. And, if you don't mean a whole-site zoom like Opera uses, but rather just a text-resizing feature (ala Firefox, et al.), then it's really worth asking why on earth you were using pixels in the first place, Why not? In terms of CSS pixels are relative units, just like em and ex. I'd like to quote Joe Clark presentation at @media 2005: Today, I want everyone in the room to take a vow never to say anything like that ever again. Do not tell people, or tell yourself, or even think that there's something inherently wrong with pixel-based fonts. What there's something inherently wrong with is Internet Explorer for Windows ( http://www.joeclark.org/atmedia/atmedia-NOTES-2.html ) ... you know that you're ultimately relinquishing control, and all you're really doing is irritating your users by not respecting their text-size defaults. So this means we shouldn't touch font-size at all. In theory. In practice that just means users are not aware of any text-size defaults. 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] web accessibility toolbar
Rimantas Liubertas wrote: Why not? In terms of CSS pixels are relative units, just like em and ex. Just to be sure we understand, here's the definition, current and probably future: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/syndata.html#length-units http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-css3-values-20050726/#relative0 Everything on a web page is relative to the viewing device, and so px is not relative to anything relevant in the text sizing context. At any given resolution, px is no less absolute or fixed than cm, in, or pt, all of which cannot be resized by IE users. So this means we shouldn't touch font-size at all. In theory. In practice that just means users are not aware of any text-size defaults. Whether they are aware or not, they are all humans who cannot read something that isn't big enough to see. By sticking not just to relative units, but to relative units *and* medium/1em/100% as the size dominating your pages, you're making them accessible to absolutely everyone. -- Who of you by worrying can add a single hour to his life? Matthew 6:27 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ ** 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] web accessibility toolbar
On 21/08/05, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Everything on a web page is relative to the viewing device, and so px is not relative to anything relevant in the text sizing context. At any given resolution, px is no less absolute or fixed than cm, in, or pt, all of which cannot be resized by IE users. IE _for Windows_ users. And that's not a problem of px. Opera has no problem resizing px, not only text but images too. Shall I quote again? Joe Clark at @media 2005: Today, I want everyone in the room to take a vow never to say anything like that ever again. Do not tell people, or tell yourself, or even think that there's something inherently wrong with pixel-based fonts. What there's something inherently wrong with is Internet Explorer for Windows Whether they are aware or not, they are all humans who cannot read something that isn't big enough to see. By sticking not just to relative units, but to relative units *and* medium/1em/100% as the size dominating your pages, you're making them accessible to absolutely everyone. absolutely everyone. Wow. 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] web accessibility toolbar
Hi designer As the person who developed the web accessibility toolbar (WAT) I do not recommend the use of its magnify function as a way to overcome the pixel issue in internet explorer. This function is simply intended to give an idea to designers/developers of how some people may view a web page. it does not work across pages, so a user would have to reactivate the function each time they opened a page. As a web accessibility consultant I reccommend the use of em's or % over pixels, but if a designer decides they must use pixels to set font-size users of internet explorer can override this by using the IE menu Internet options accessibility ignore font sizes specified on web pages this allows users to change the text size via the IE menu view text size function. This is a rather convoluted process and many users are not aware of it, so give clear instructions on its use if you choose to go down this path. PS: both the accessibility dialog and the text size functions are also available through the WAT IE options menu. they have been put there to make it easier for designers/developers to test their pages (in IE) to ensure that their designs don't break when settings are changed by the user. with regards Steven Faulkner Web Accessibility Consultant National Information Library Service (NILS) 454 Glenferrie Road Kooyong Victoria 3144 Phone: (613) 9864 9281 Fax: (613) 9864 9210 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Get the Web Accessibility Toolbar [http://www.nils.org.au/ais/web/resources/toolbar/] |-+--- | | designer| | | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| | | rnet.co.uk | | | Sent by:| | | [EMAIL PROTECTED]| | | p.org | | | | | | | | | 20/08/2005 10:34 PM | | | Please respond to wsg | | | | |-+--- ---| | | | To: webstandards group [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | cc: | | Subject: [WSG] web accessibility toolbar | ---| Good afternoon (or whatever), Does the web accessibility toolbar let me off the hook as far as using pixels for text sizing in IE is concerned? I have recently got the excellent WAT from http://www.nils.org.au/ais/ and it has an excellent zoom facility, like opera. (A great, and very educational tool anyway). I ask the question partly tongue-in-cheek, but it does make me wonder if tools such as this should be the butt of responsibility? I just wondered, as it does seem to put the pixel argument into a different perspective. No rants please: this is intended as an intelligent question, expecting and wanting the same type of response. Thanks, Bob ** 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] web accessibility toolbar
Good afternoon (or whatever), Does the web accessibility toolbar let me off the hook as far as using pixels for text sizing in IE is concerned? I have recently got the excellent WAT from http://www.nils.org.au/ais/ and it has an excellent zoom facility, like opera. (A great, and very educational tool anyway). I ask the question partly tongue-in-cheek, but it does make me wonder if tools such as this should be the butt of responsibility? I just wondered, as it does seem to put the pixel argument into a different perspective. No rants please: this is intended as an intelligent question, expecting and wanting the same type of response. Thanks, Bob ** 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] web accessibility toolbar
designer wrote: Does the web accessibility toolbar let me off the hook as far as using pixels for text sizing in IE is concerned? I have recently got the excellent WAT from http://www.nils.org.au/ais/ and it has an excellent zoom facility, like opera. (A great, and very educational tool anyway). I ask the question partly tongue-in-cheek, but it does make me wonder if tools such as this should be the butt of responsibility? I just wondered, as it does seem to put the pixel argument into a different perspective. No rants please: this is intended as an intelligent question, expecting and wanting the same type of response. Bob I do not understand your question(s). Best, David Laakso -- David Laakso 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] web accessibility toolbar
On Sat, 2005-08-20 at 13:34 +0100, designer wrote: Good afternoon (or whatever), Does the web accessibility toolbar let me off the hook as far as using pixels for text sizing in IE is concerned? I have recently got the excellent WAT from http://www.nils.org.au/ais/ and it has an excellent zoom facility, like opera. (A great, and very educational tool anyway). I ask the question partly tongue-in-cheek, but it does make me wonder if tools such as this should be the butt of responsibility? I just wondered, as it does seem to put the pixel argument into a different perspective. No rants please: this is intended as an intelligent question, expecting and wanting the same type of response. Seeing as you've indicated you don't desire rants, I'll simply suggest that the assumption the burden of ensuring accessibility falls upon client-side (third part) utilities is akin to assuming all your potential viewers have Firefox or Opera. To extend this one step further, the need for any internal website search is negated, as, clearly, we may safely assume all users have installed the Google toolbar (obviously!) and are capable of typing site:yoursite.com query into the field. I'm pretty sure you know what the answer to your question should be, seeing as there's no way you can assume that the responsibility falls on the user -- given the rate of adoption of alternative web browsers as a precedent. At any rate, all this tool does is render pixel sized text even more irrelevant, as, clearly, it's not being respected anyway. You can actually improve your control over appearance through using relative font sizes and appropriate design practises to match this, rather than trying to force your users/visitors into one particular framework which then breaks as they attempt to escape it. Kind Regards, Joshua Street base10solutions Website: http://www.base10solutions.com.au/ Phone: (02) 9898-0060 Fax: (02) 8572-6021 Mobile: 0425 808 469 Multimedia Development Agency E-mails and any attachments sent from base10solutions are to be regarded as confidential. Please do not distribute or publish any of the contents of this e-mail without the sender’s consent. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by replying to the e-mail, and then delete the message without making copies or using it in any way. Although base10solutions takes precautions to ensure that e-mail sent from our accounts are free of viruses, we encourage recipients to undertake their own virus scan on each e-mail before opening, as base10solutions accepts no responsibility for loss or damage caused by the contents of this e-mail. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
