At 5:18 AM +0200 9/6/07, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
You have provided anyone with interest in this subject - the
image-scaling problem under certain conditions - with ways to solve the
problem if they experience it in a real-world case. That may be
extremely useful for some, so I say *thank you* for
On 9/5/07, Gunlaug Sørtun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The only font-size quirks you are likely to find in today's browsers, is
that 'em' and '%' can give +/- 1px deviation between browsers because
they don't use exactly the same tip-over values when they re-calculate
to screen-pixels.
I am
Allison Kelly wrote:
I am wondering if anyone can help me with this font-size quirk. I
have body {font-size: small;} and I use percentages for my h1, h2, h3
sizes, which is working everywhere I need it to (Firefox, IE7, IE6)
except for one instance. When my IE6 browser is not maximized to
You don't say anything more and so I don't know how much do you know
of accessibility so far, but allow me to tell you that accessibility
goes far beyond the font size, there are problems most people don't even
imagine. By the way, I recommend you to use XHTML, as it will be easier
to
Vicki Stebbins wrote:
Have you done any CSS aimed at braille readers? If so is there some
'gotcha' with this? I'm thinking % divs for the navigation and the
layout is side nav so when the font resizes it can have more room to
move?
No, I haven't written CSS for braille.
My friend who
At 7:02 AM +0200 9/5/07, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: Georg:
I recommend body {font-size: 100%;}.
I've seen 100.1% stated -- is there any real advantage in doing that?
/* all values below are suggestions */
h1 {font-size: 145%;}
h2 {font-size: 132%;}
h3 {font-size: 125%;}
h4 {font-size: 115%;}
h5
tedd wrote:
I've seen 100.1% stated -- is there any real advantage in doing that?
That slightly larger than 100% value was used to fix a bug in a few
old browser-versions - Opera amongst others IIRC.
Through testing I haven't found the need to fix any bugs that way in any
browser for the last
Sorry for the previous mail, wrong keys combination :s
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
tedd wrote:
Here's an example of what I mean by zoom cooperative:
http://www.php1.net/b/speech/
Now only does this site zoom well (according to me), but it's part of
my new deliver content via speech
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
Rafael wrote:
By the way, I recommend you to use XHTML, as it will be easier to
parse for any software.
IE doesn't understand XHTML at all, and won't parse it unless we serve
it as broken HTML - or convert it into proper HTML.
Actually, it seems just the doctype is
On 5/9/07 (17:38) Rafael said:
But I wonder, if you include a doctype
(and your code is valid) how do you preserve the Quirks mode?
It's my understanding that including a doctype minus the URL will permit this.
--
Rick Lecoat
At 5:11 PM +0200 9/5/07, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
tedd wrote:
Here's an example of what I mean by zoom cooperative:
http://www.php1.net/b/speech/
Now only does this site zoom well (according to me), but it's part of
my new deliver content via speech thing.
That's what I call em sized and some
tedd wrote:
However, if one removes your graphic from your layout, then it's
easily read. I think that allowing the user to see/read a graphic via
scrolling is preferable than presenting something that they can't
read at any zoom level. Don't you think?
Yes, and I would give the user
Rick Lecoat wrote:
On 5/9/07 (17:38) Rafael said:
But I wonder, if you include a doctype (and your code is valid) how
do you preserve the Quirks mode?
It's my understanding that including a doctype minus the URL will
permit this.
I think you're referring to this...
On 6/9/07 (00:14) Gunlaug said:
It's my understanding that including a doctype minus the URL will
permit this.
I think you're referring to this...
http://gutfeldt.ch/matthias/articles/doctypeswitch/table.html
I stand corrected (or vastly expanded upon!).
Cheers
--
Rick Lecoat
At 1:08 AM +0200 9/6/07, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
tedd wrote:
However, if one removes your graphic from your
layout, then it's easily read. I think that
allowing the user to see/read a graphic via
scrolling is preferable than presenting
something that they can't read at any zoom
level. Don't
At 7:02 AM +0200 9/5/07, Georg Sørtun wrote:
I recommend body {font-size: 100%;}.
On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 09:47:10 -0400, tedd responded:
I've seen 100.1% stated -- is there any real advantage in doing that?
My 2005 class notes say that IE 5 on Windows 98 needed this.
Sadly, I did not note
tedd wrote:
At 1:08 AM +0200 9/6/07, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
However, since that particular page is one of my test pages where
solutions are _supposed_ to be tested to breaking-point and far
beyond, that image isn't there to be read. It is there to break
solution - and browsers.
OK, I
Hi Everyone,
I'm looking to begin a site in a couple of weeks for a disability
organisation and am trying to get it as accessible as possible, so
I'm really thinking about my CSS.
Although I've done a few sites now with CSS (could never go back to
table design) the penny just hasn't dropped
Vicki Stebbins wrote:
So if anyone has a few mins to give me some thoughts on any
accessible CSS problems or things to think of and if someone can tell
me if this logic is correct:
In the CSS
body{
font-size: 12px;
}
would translate through the styles as:
div#container{
19 matches
Mail list logo
