On 7/9/07 (07:50) Tony said: >I've been using CSS for seven years or more and I'm trying to adopt >best practice in a pragmatic way, which means I can't deliver my >clients sites with excessively large fonts - they are trying to >design interfaces that look attractive and create income for their >business. I'm trying to ensure the sites they get are as accessible >as possible, we have to meet somewhere in the middle.
On a side note, I can't help but notice that almost every site that has been cited as a reference for reasons why default text size should not be tampered with has a very minimal level of 'design styling'. For example: <http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/2S/font.htm> <http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20020819.html> <http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/bigdefaults.html> <http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/essence.html> Now, I'm not going to dispute that these are very accessible sites from a type-size perspective. And, yes, they present their information without unnecessary distraction. But I can also guarantee that if I took a 'design' like that of any of those sites to a client, said client would be out the door and off to my competitors faster than I could say "Accessibility". Maybe it's just coincidence. But none of those sites telling me that I can create perfectly nice-looking, commercially viable designs using default text sizes have actually put their design-money where their mouth is. *That does not make the points they raise wrong*, but it means that it feels a bit like having my dress sense criticised by someone wearing a dirty t-shirt and torn sweat pants. -- Rick Lecoat ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
