> Joe Clarke gave a great presentation on this at @media 2007 titled > "When Web Accessibility Is Not Your Problem", notes available here: > http://joeclark.org/appearances/atmedia2007/#fonts
This was an intriguing article... some of the points were fairly well reasoned (while others were just rants) - in particular, its is fault of the browser to not do decent scaling. However... Reference was made to the W3 recommendation CSS 2.1, stating that pixels are relative units... aka relative to the viewing device... its up to the user-agent to rescale the requested pixel, to the devices' pixel based on a "typical" device.... at an "arm's length" distance. Its reasonably clear that somebody at the W3C forgot what "pixel" actually means: - a "typical" device? What is a typical device for someone with long-sighted vision? - "pixel" originated from "picture element". There is no sensible meaning for a reference pixel... the word by definition means "the smallest element". cheers, Mathew Robertson ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [email protected] *******************************************************************
