RE: [WSG] Font size and arrogance | accessibility in general I say

2004-11-18 Thread Hill, Tim
I would spend 95% of my time on special solutions or hacks, which are pleasing only 5% of the users. Although I wouldn't say it works out to be such a big percentage, but you are right you would spend some time on it. But you need to start spending that time on it, new laws being passed will

Re: [WSG] Font size and arrogance | accessibility in general I say

2004-11-18 Thread Ben Curtis
hardware designers to not set the default resolution of a screen to what is technicaly possible but to just something, which is compatible with human eyesight. What size, a pixel? Engineers have created full-color screens, 400 pixels square, which are smaller than a dime. Certainly setting a

Re: [WSG] Font size and arrogance | accessibility in general I say

2004-11-18 Thread Terrence Wood
Actually, Felix has some interesting studies on his site about font size, pixel, resolution relationships: http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ And I couldn't agree more with you about stuff we design today probably not working tomorrowbut y'know, thankfully seperating content and

Re: [WSG] Font size and arrogance | accessibility in general I say

2004-11-18 Thread Terrence Wood
also look here: http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/box_lesson/font/ On 2004-11-19 1:02 PM, Ben Curtis wrote: This has been an interesting, if heated, thread. I think a large part of it revolves around being unable to measure people's default font size. The arrogance vs. idealist portion