exact Font size tag
compboy
their text size set for their browser(i.e. Internet Explorer: Smallest,
smaller,medium,larger,largest)?
I have a table with lots of columns and I want to make sure it will not be
bigger than the width of a sheet of paper when printed.
TIA
Jason
David Dorward
> Is there a way to make the font a specific size no matter what the user
> has their text size set for their browser(i.e. Internet Explorer:
> Smallest, smaller,medium,larger,largest)?
Yes... but you shouldn't use it. The reason that IE lets you resize the
fonts is becuase some people NEED to resize them to read them.
http://diveintoaccessibility.org/day_26_using_relative_font_sizes.html
> I have a table with lots of columns and I want to make sure it will not be
> bigger than the width of a sheet of paper when printed.
It might be acceptable to use fixed size fonts in a print media only style
sheet, but I would suggest generating a PDF file for printing instead.
--
David Dorward http://david.us-lot.org/
Thinking about emailing me? Only do so if it isn't apropriate for this
newsgroup. If it should have been in the group it will probably be ignored.
Guy Shurmer
"David Dorward" <dor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1029695090.5395.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
If you use a styling sheet and set font sizes in points then IE will not
resize them. Although some (inferior) browsers will.
Put the following example code in the document head:
<style type="text/css">
.somename {font:12pt "Georgia","Bookman Old Style",serif; color:#ff0000;
background-color:#ffffff;font-weight:bold;}
</style>
[note the dot before "somename"]
and put 'id="somename"' in the P or span tag or div tag or wherever you call
for the font, e.g..
<p id="somename"> your text </p>
I think that this so-called need for resizable fonts is debatable. I am in
my mid-sixties with the usual eyesight problems that come with age, but I
have never, ever, had to resize a font. I use my reading glasses.
Resizable fonts are fine where appropriate, but we shouldn't make a fetish
of it. Anyay I suspect that few users even know they have the ability to
change font sizes.
I would suggest NOT using a PDF file for printing just to avoid fixing font
sizes. I use a matrix printer which gallops through text pages, but is very
slow with PDF. If a text file with fixed font sizes is appropriate, then use
it.
Guy
David Dorward
> If you use a styling sheet and set font sizes in points then IE will not
> resize them. Although some (inferior) browsers will.
... becuase a good browser is one which will do that the page says no matter
what the person struggling to read the fonts which are far too small for
their eyesight to cope with wants.
> Put the following example code in the document head:
>
> <style type="text/css">
> .somename {font:12pt "Georgia","Bookman Old Style",serif; color:#ff0000;
> background-color:#ffffff;font-weight:bold;}
> </style>
>
> [note the dot before "somename"]
>
> and put 'id="somename"' in the P or span tag or div tag or wherever you
> call for the font, e.g..
You seem to be mixing up id's and class'
> I think that this so-called need for resizable fonts is debatable. I am in
> my mid-sixties with the usual eyesight problems that come with age, but I
> have never, ever, had to resize a font. I use my reading glasses.
I am not in my 60's and have excellent eyesight. Sometimes I resize fonts
simply because it makes the text more comfortable to read somethings.
David Hennessy
"Guy Shurmer" <G...@DELETEgshurmer.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ajovjl$6ev$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
I'm in my twenties and I have to resize fonts sometimes, especially after
I've spent a day coding. Even with my glasses on, 10px type is too small to
read. Just goes to show you the web is supposed to cater to everyone.
--
David Hennessy, (412) 344-8302
Miller, Isner & Hennessy - http://mihagency.com
Science Partner - http://scipartner.com
Com-Prod Productions - http://com-prod.com
Nicolás Lichtmaier
You should try with stylesheets. You can specify different settings for
printing than for the screen. It's very cool! You can remove navigation
items in the printed version!
Example:
<style type="text/css">
/* common style */
body {
font-size: 80%;
}
h1 {
color: red;
}
@media print {
/* Here you put printing specific styling */
body {
font-size: 10pt;
}
}
</style>
Kris
"Guy Shurmer" <G...@DELETEgshurmer.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> If you use a styling sheet and set font sizes in points then IE will not
> resize them. Although some (inferior) browsers will.
I find MIE/Win and inferior browser for many reasons, but its lacking of
letting the user resize fonts that are fixed size is in particular
making me branding it as 'trash'.
Don't ever think that this is a feature of MIE.
MIE5/Mac is one of the best browsers ever made and does a great job at
resizing type, be it fixed or not. Opera even scales the entire page,
with graphics and all.
--
David: "Rock n' roll! Rock n' roll! Here we go!"
Derek: "Hello, Cleveland! Hello, Cleveland!"
rmpii
news:JaU79.12979$Dw2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Just goes to show you the web is supposed to cater to everyone.
See that is where I disagree, the web is not supposed to cater to everyone.
The business decides on its audience. That is who they cater to. Not
everyone. Sure some sites may cater to everyone, or at least try to, but it
is not a requirement of the web to do so.
If you have something on your site that people don't like (flash, static
fonts size, java, activeX, cookies, client script etc...) they will leave.
If the number of people that leave is acceptable to your business plan, and
you are reaching the crowd you want to reach, then what ever you do is ok.
There are development guides on the web, but no rules.
--
http://www.placemedia.com
Home of the FREE virtual Jukebox
Stream mp3s from your site for free!
Guy Shurmer
> Guy Shurmer might have typed:
>
> > If you use a styling sheet and set font sizes in points then IE will not
> > resize them. Although some (inferior) browsers will.
>
> ... becuase a good browser is one which will do that the page says no
matter
> what the person struggling to read the fonts which are far too small for
> their eyesight to cope with wants.
>
I believe you are incorrect. A good browser is one which follows the script.
If the designer has coded a numeric size font then it should be resizable,
but if the designer has specified a measurement in pixels, then it should
not. (Despite what Jacob Nielsen argues). The designer has the choice - that
is why he is called a DESIGNER. The site is his/her responsibility, and a
good designer will use used fixed or resizable fonts as appropriate.
<snip>
> > and put 'id="somename"' in the P or span tag or div tag or wherever you
> > call for the font, e.g..
>
> You seem to be mixing up id's and class'
No, a typo, for which I apologize.
Guy
--
"Oh, give me a home where the IE6 roam,
and I will be happy all day..."
David Dorward
> I believe you are incorrect. A good browser is one which follows the
> script. If the designer has coded a numeric size font then it should be
> resizable, but if the designer has specified a measurement in pixels, then
> it should not. (Despite what Jacob Nielsen argues). The designer has the
> choice - that is why he is called a DESIGNER. The site is his/her
> responsibility, and a good designer will use used fixed or resizable fonts
> as appropriate.
In the ideal world that *might* be true, but we do not live in the ideal
world and there are many bad designers. A good browser will let the user
access the content even if the designer is an idiot and has something like
* { font-size: 5px; }
A good browser will follow the instructions given to it by the designer but
allow the user to override them when they are bad instructions.
Kris
"rmpii" <rm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "David Hennessy" <dav...@DIESPAMMERDIEmihagency.com> wrote in message
> news:JaU79.12979$Dw2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> > Just goes to show you the web is supposed to cater to everyone.
>
> See that is where I disagree, the web is not supposed to cater to everyone.
> The business decides on its audience. That is who they cater to. Not
> everyone. Sure some sites may cater to everyone, or at least try to, but it
> is not a requirement of the web to do so.
Still, the Web is supposed to cater everyone. And if you have done your
HTML homework you can only agree.
>
> If you have something on your site that people don't like (flash, static
> fonts size, java, activeX, cookies, client script etc...) they will leave.
> If the number of people that leave is acceptable to your business plan, and
> you are reaching the crowd you want to reach, then what ever you do is ok.
That is why there will always be potential top-businesses that deliver
medium prestige, due to these management believes.
A site visitor has NOT yet bought your product. He has only entered your
store. Or left it. I know very sure that most shop owners would love to
welcome as many people as possible into their shop and only loose the
occasional few on a moment when purchasing decisions need to be made.
Maybe it is good that I am no manager.
> There are development guides on the web, but no rules.
You can hardly enforce anything on the web, that is why there will never
be any rules.
Kris
"Guy Shurmer" <G...@DELETEgshurmer.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> "David Dorward" <dor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1029702854.29140....@news.demon.co.uk...
> > Guy Shurmer might have typed:
> >
> > > If you use a styling sheet and set font sizes in points then IE will not
> > > resize them. Although some (inferior) browsers will.
> >
> > ... becuase a good browser is one which will do that the page says no
> matter
> > what the person struggling to read the fonts which are far too small for
> > their eyesight to cope with wants.
> >
>
> I believe you are incorrect. A good browser is one which follows the script.
> If the designer has coded a numeric size font then it should be resizable,
> but if the designer has specified a measurement in pixels, then it should
> not. (Despite what Jacob Nielsen argues). The designer has the choice - that
> is why he is called a DESIGNER.
What makes you think a browser cannot follow the script and enables the
user to override it as he/she sees fit?!!
Give me a Bible verse that states your Rights As A Designer and I will
believe you. I think you need to go back to school and learn the
difference between an Artist and a Designer. it may also give you some
time to rethink your arrogant attitude.
The site is his/her responsibility, and a
> good designer will use used fixed or resizable fonts as appropriate.
Indeed, as it being a suggestion of how the webpage can be displayed.
MIE/Win however fails to provide the user with an override system where
fonts are concerned. That is a failure of Microsoft. Now, what designers
can do is add to that failure or keep their honorful practice in mind
and choose what is best.
rmpii
news:kristiaan-60A6B...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> Still, the Web is supposed to cater everyone. And if you have done your
> HTML homework you can only agree.
What does doing my html homework have to do with weather I think the web is
suposed to cate for everyone or if it is up to the page owner to decide the
audience? I could be the best HTML expert in the world and still feel that
way.
> That is why there will always be potential top-businesses that deliver
> medium prestige, due to these management believes.
I agree. We reap what we sow. it is true in life, it is true in business.
> Maybe it is good that I am no manager.
No, maybe it is good for the manager that you work for that you feel the way
you do. Remeber I am not advocating NOT trying to resh as many as possable.
But I do feel it is the right of the page owner to decide what is best for
his page and they should not be forced to follow rules. The web is way too
big for that.
> You can hardly enforce anything on the web, that is why there will never
> be any rules.
Agreed.
Doctor Unclear
Hello Guy,
> "David Dorward" <dor...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1029695090.5395.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
>>compboy might have typed:
>>
>>
>>>Is there a way to make the font a specific size no matter what the user
>>>has their text size set for their browser(i.e. Internet Explorer:
>>>Smallest, smaller,medium,larger,largest)?
>>
>>Yes... but you shouldn't use it. The reason that IE lets you resize the
>>fonts is becuase some people NEED to resize them to read them.
>>
>>http://diveintoaccessibility.org/day_26_using_relative_font_sizes.html
>>
>>
>>>I have a table with lots of columns and I want to make sure it will not
>>
> be
>
>>>bigger than the width of a sheet of paper when printed.
>>
>>It might be acceptable to use fixed size fonts in a print media only style
>>sheet,
Yes, see below.
but I would suggest generating a PDF file for printing instead.
>>
>>--
>>David Dorward http://david.us-lot.org/
>>Thinking about emailing me? Only do so if it isn't apropriate for this
>>newsgroup. If it should have been in the group it will probably be
>
> ignored.
>
> If you use a styling sheet and set font sizes in points then IE will not
> resize them. Although some (inferior) browsers will.
>
> Put the following example code in the document head:
>
> <style type="text/css">
<style type="text/css" media="print">
#somename {font:12pt "Georgia","Bookman Old Style",serif; color:black;
> background-color:#ffffff;font-weight:bold;}
> </style>
>
[note the # before "somename"]
>
> and put 'id="somename"' in the P or span tag or div tag or wherever you call
> for the font, e.g..
>
> <p id="somename"> your text </p>
>
> I think that this so-called need for resizable fonts is debatable.
Really?
I am in
> my mid-sixties with the usual eyesight problems that come with age, but I
> have never, ever, had to resize a font. I use my reading glasses.
>
That's fine with you but why should we take away freedom, choices,
customizability away from all users then?
> Resizable fonts are fine where appropriate, but we shouldn't make a fetish
> of it.
No, of course not. We should just follow the law though (section 508).
Anyay I suspect that few users even know they have the ability to
> change font sizes.
>
Right. I typed in "larger text" into google.com and approx. 80% of all
links returned were links or texts of web sites indicating how to make
the text larger, magnify the text, text zooming factor, windows
magnifier, disabilities and the laws, etc... Have you ever try Opera 6?
http://natri.uky.edu/tools/lgaccess.html#top
http://www.rils.org/textonly.htm
http://www.w3schools.com/
etc,etc.
Best regards,
DU
Kevin Scholl
Guy Shurmer wrote:
>> > Is there a way to make the font a specific size no matter what the user
>> > has their text size set for their browser(i.e. Internet Explorer:
>> > Smallest, smaller,medium,larger,largest)?
>>
>> Yes... but you shouldn't use it. The reason that IE lets you resize the
>> fonts is becuase some people NEED to resize them to read them.
>>
>> http://diveintoaccessibility.org/day_26_using_relative_font_sizes.html
>>
>> > I have a table with lots of columns and I want to make sure it will not
> be
>> > bigger than the width of a sheet of paper when printed.
>>
>> It might be acceptable to use fixed size fonts in a print media only style
>> sheet, but I would suggest generating a PDF file for printing instead.
>
>
> If you use a styling sheet and set font sizes in points then IE will not
> resize them. Although some (inferior) browsers will.
Those "inferior" browsers, as you call them, are doing exactly what the
standards recommend -- allowing the user to resize fonts regardless of
the measurement specified. 'Fraid it is IE that is "inferior" in this
regard, by not adhering to the usability and accessibility standard.
> Put the following example code in the document head:
>
> <style type="text/css">
> .somename {font:12pt "Georgia","Bookman Old Style",serif; color:#ff0000;
> background-color:#ffffff;font-weight:bold;}
> </style>
>
> [note the dot before "somename"]
>
> and put 'id="somename"' in the P or span tag or div tag or wherever you call
> for the font, e.g..
>
> <p id="somename"> your text </p>
Where you say "id" should instead be "class".
> I think that this so-called need for resizable fonts is debatable. I am in
> my mid-sixties with the usual eyesight problems that come with age, but I
> have never, ever, had to resize a font. I use my reading glasses.
Debateable, perhaps. But it doesn't make your comments above any more
correct. Concern for usability and accessibility is becoming more and
more prevalent. The fact that it doesn't affect you specifically does
not eliminate its importance in general.
> Resizable fonts are fine where appropriate, but we shouldn't make a fetish
> of it. Anyay I suspect that few users even know they have the ability to
> change font sizes.
>
> I would suggest NOT using a PDF file for printing just to avoid fixing font
> sizes. I use a matrix printer which gallops through text pages, but is very
> slow with PDF. If a text file with fixed font sizes is appropriate, then use
> it.
--
*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***
===========================================================
Kevin Scholl
ksc...@attbi.DELETE.com
-----------------------------------------------------------
Web Development and Graphic Design
http://www.interimag.com/~kscholl/professional/index.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of the
dreams...
===========================================================
C. A. Upsdell
news:ulvoih1...@corp.supernews.com...
> Is there a way to make the font a specific size no matter what the user
has
> their text size set for their browser(i.e. Internet Explorer: Smallest,
> smaller,medium,larger,largest)?
"No matter what"? No. The user can always override what you specify.
E.g., you can set the size using CSS, but (with decent browsers) the user
can always define their own stylesheet to override it.
If precise font size is critical, use PDF.
Guy Shurmer
"Kevin Scholl" <ksc...@attbi.DELETE.com> wrote in message
news:3D603E88...@attbi.DELETE.com...
>
> Guy Shurmer wrote:
<snip>
> > If you use a styling sheet and set font sizes in points then IE will not
> > resize them. Although some (inferior) browsers will.
>
>
> Those "inferior" browsers, as you call them, are doing exactly what the
> standards recommend -- allowing the user to resize fonts regardless of
> the measurement specified. 'Fraid it is IE that is "inferior" in this
> regard, by not adhering to the usability and accessibility standard.
>
Hi Kevin,
Please advise where I can find this standard?
<snip>
> > <p id="somename"> your text </p>
>
>
> Where you say "id" should instead be "class".
>
Quite right. A typo. Incidentally you are the second person to pick this up.
Well, well...
Guy
Doctor Unclear
> "David Hennessy" <dav...@DIESPAMMERDIEmihagency.com> wrote in message
> news:JaU79.12979$Dw2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>
>>Just goes to show you the web is supposed to cater to everyone.
>
>
> See that is where I disagree, the web is not supposed to cater to everyone.
> The business decides on its audience. That is who they cater to. Not
> everyone. Sure some sites may cater to everyone, or at least try to, but it
> is not a requirement of the web to do so.
>
Consumers should go to good websites which respect basic usability
needs. Lawyers should cater for all businesses which want to file for
bankruptcy. W3C CSS2 caters to all users when it says "user '!important'
rules override author '!important' rules." Opera 6 and MSIE 5+ cater for
people who want to resize the text of poorly designed pages by
thoughtless web authors when they allow to edit an user stylesheet with
html {font-size:100% !important;}
body {font-size:100% !important;}
Tools/Internet Options.../General tab/Accessibility... button/User style
sheet fieldset/Format documents using my style sheet and the Browse button
> If you have something on your site that people don't like (flash, static
> fonts size, java, activeX, cookies, client script etc...) they will leave.
and they will leave you alone with your bankruptcy form to fill.
> If the number of people that leave is acceptable to your business plan, and
> you are reaching the crowd you want to reach, then what ever you do is ok.
>
> There are development guides on the web, but no rules.
> --
> http://www.placemedia.com
> Home of the FREE virtual Jukebox
> Stream mp3s from your site for free!
>
>
>
There are begging guides for street beggars, but no rules.
DU
David Hennessy
"rmpii" <rm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:um09nm9...@corp.supernews.com...
You don't seem to see the difference... you can decide "I want people who
like boats" or "I want people who prefer jam to jelly" as a business goal,
but since when is it a marketing decision to say "I want people who have
20/20 eyesight?"
Most marketing demographics are still comprised of people, Rmpii. And those
people, who fit those business goals, generally span the range of John &
Jane Everybody.
Neredbojias
> MIE5/Mac is one of the best browsers ever made and does a great job at
> resizing type, be it fixed or not. Opera even scales the entire page,
> with graphics and all.
Here's a question I've been saving up. Does it resize the type on the
browser itself, ie: items like "Menu, "Edit", "Search", etc.? I haven't
seen a browser do that yet, and when I think about it I get a kick out of
all these fixed-sized-or-not font arguments.
If the text on the browser itself can't be resized, why should an author
worry about incorporating it in a page?
--
Neredbojias
"The opinions expressed here are not necessarily
those of management material."
Doctor Unclear
> "Kevin Scholl" <ksc...@attbi.DELETE.com> wrote in message
> news:3D603E88...@attbi.DELETE.com...
>
>>Guy Shurmer wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>If you use a styling sheet and set font sizes in points then IE will not
>>>resize them. Although some (inferior) browsers will.
>>
>>
>>Those "inferior" browsers, as you call them, are doing exactly what the
>>standards recommend -- allowing the user to resize fonts regardless of
>>the measurement specified. 'Fraid it is IE that is "inferior" in this
>>regard, by not adhering to the usability and accessibility standard.
>>
>
>
> Hi Kevin,
>
> Please advise where I can find this standard?
>
W3C CSS2 says
"It is therefore important that the user agent give the user the ability
to turn off the influence of a certain style sheet, e.g., through a
pull-down menu."
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/cascade.html#cascading-order
http://www.w3c.org/TR/CSS21/cascade.html#cascading-order
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-css3-cascade-20020219/#computing (working
draft)
and
"user '!important' rules override author '!important' rules."
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/cascade.html#important-rules
http://www.w3c.org/TR/CSS21/cascade.html#important-rules
DU
Kevin Scholl
Guy Shurmer wrote:
>> > If you use a styling sheet and set font sizes in points then IE will not
>> > resize them. Although some (inferior) browsers will.
>>
>>
>> Those "inferior" browsers, as you call them, are doing exactly what the
>> standards recommend -- allowing the user to resize fonts regardless of
>> the measurement specified. 'Fraid it is IE that is "inferior" in this
>> regard, by not adhering to the usability and accessibility standard.
>>
>
> Hi Kevin,
>
> Please advise where I can find this standard?
www.w3c.org is th ebest place to start with regard to exploring
standards. For this particular one, I quote a post in this thread by
Doctor Unclear:
W3C CSS2 says
"It is therefore important that the user agent give the user the ability
to turn off the influence of a certain style sheet, e.g., through a
pull-down menu."
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/cascade.html#cascading-order
http://www.w3c.org/TR/CSS21/cascade.html#cascading-order
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-css3-cascade-20020219/#computing (working
draft)
and
"user '!important' rules override author '!important' rules."
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/cascade.html#important-rules
http://www.w3c.org/TR/CSS21/cascade.html#important-rules
<snip>
Isofarro
wrote:
> "David Hennessy" <dav...@DIESPAMMERDIEmihagency.com> wrote in message
> news:JaU79.12979$Dw2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>> Just goes to show you the web is supposed to cater to everyone.
>
> See that is where I disagree, the web is not supposed to cater to
> everyone.
The web was designed as an accessible medium. Accessible being that
quality that makes information available to more people, in more
circumstances, more devices in more locations than any other medium. Of
course, you are welcomed to continue with your backwards thinking that
websites are only for people with 20-20 vision. I suppose that's why
contact-lens manufacturers don't make it on the world wide web?
> Sure some sites may cater to everyone, or at least try to,
> but it is not a requirement of the web to do so.
The legal system would argue against you here. Try reading Section 508
of the Standards for Electronic and Information Technology for US
focused websites, and the Disability Discrimination Act for both the UK
and Australia. Why not do a search on google for claims being made
against companies for producing inaccessible websites.
Accessibility is a right, just the same as you having the right to
appear like a complete moron within this newsgroup.
--
Iso.
FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
AnyBrowser Campaign: http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/
Isofarro
> Without even guffawing, Kris wrote:
>
>> MIE5/Mac is one of the best browsers ever made and does a great job
>> at resizing type, be it fixed or not. Opera even scales the entire
>> page, with graphics and all.
>
> Here's a question I've been saving up. Does it resize the type on the
> browser itself, ie: items like "Menu, "Edit", "Search", etc.? I
> haven't seen a browser do that yet,
Window management systems already do it by changing the windows skins.
So these items would already be in the optimal size for a particular
user before they need the "increase text size in browser" function
Voetleuce
> I have a table with lots of columns and I want to make sure it will
not be
> bigger than the width of a sheet of paper when printed.
HTML for screen, PDF for printing.
rmpii
news:3D604DBA...@hotNOSPAMmail.com...
> > If you have something on your site that people don't like (flash, static
> > fonts size, java, activeX, cookies, client script etc...) they will
leave.
>
> and they will leave you alone with your bankruptcy form to fill.
That's so silly, and proven wrong a thousand times over today on the web.
Sure there are companies with a web presence that go bankrupt, and some may
do so because their site is shit, but there are just as many or more
companies that go bankrupt and don't even have a web presence. There are
millions of people that will not use any number of the items in the list
above, yet, there are millions of websites that use each of them. But saying
that if you don't follow the "rules of the W3C" you will fail is silly.
rmpii
> You don't seem to see the difference... you can decide "I want people who
> like boats" or "I want people who prefer jam to jelly" as a business goal,
> but since when is it a marketing decision to say "I want people who have
> 20/20 eyesight?"
No, I see the difference, and I do not disagree with your statement, but I
am saying there is another side of the coin where the statement "I don't
CARE if you can't see my site, I am willing to loose you as a customer" Is
equally valid. And excluding an audience will not stop your from being
successful on the web. Companies have been excluding customers for years
and still have successful businesses. The web is no different.
Jim Ley
<kris...@xs4all.nl.omitthis> wrote:
>In article <ajovjl$6ev$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "Guy Shurmer" <G...@DELETEgshurmer.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> If you use a styling sheet and set font sizes in points then IE will not
>> resize them. Although some (inferior) browsers will.
>
>I find MIE/Win and inferior browser for many reasons, but its lacking of
>letting the user resize fonts that are fixed size is in particular
>making me branding it as 'trash'.
So your problem is a simple lack of interface?
>Don't ever think that this is a feature of MIE.
It works for me, of course I had to add the UI myself...
>MIE5/Mac is one of the best browsers ever made and does a great job at
>resizing type, be it fixed or not. Opera even scales the entire page,
>with graphics and all.
As does MSIE (user stylesheet with
body { zoom:200% }
Jim.
--
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/
Jim Ley
<donjuan...@coprophagous.com> wrote:
>Without even guffawing, Kris wrote:
>
>> MIE5/Mac is one of the best browsers ever made and does a great job at
>> resizing type, be it fixed or not. Opera even scales the entire page,
>> with graphics and all.
>
>Here's a question I've been saving up. Does it resize the type on the
>browser itself, ie: items like "Menu, "Edit", "Search", etc.? I haven't
>seen a browser do that yet, and when I think about it I get a kick out of
>all these fixed-sized-or-not font arguments.
>
>If the text on the browser itself can't be resized, why should an author
>worry about incorporating it in a page?
The text in the browser can easily be re-sized in the window-manager,
obviously these aren't inherited to the webpage.
Guy Shurmer
"Isofarro" <spam...@spamdetector.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bt3qja...@sidious.isolani.co.uk...
> rmpii (rm...@hotmail.com) on Sunday 18 August 2002 23:01 in alt.html
> wrote:
>
> > "David Hennessy" <dav...@DIESPAMMERDIEmihagency.com> wrote in message
> > news:JaU79.12979$Dw2....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> >> Just goes to show you the web is supposed to cater to everyone.
> >
> > See that is where I disagree, the web is not supposed to cater to
> > everyone.
>
> The web was designed as an accessible medium.
<snip>
Designed? Designed? Well you learn something new everyday. I thought, like
Topsy, it just grew.
<snip>
> The legal system would argue against you here. Try reading Section 508
> of the Standards for Electronic and Information Technology for US
> focused websites, and the Disability Discrimination Act for both the UK
> and Australia. Why not do a search on google for claims being made
> against companies for producing inaccessible websites.
This is unreal. A non-US website, is not bound by US standards, whatever
they say. And as to Disability Discrimination Acts, if we were to follow
your logic we would be locking up all newspaper proprietors, or all the
packaging manufacturers who put ingredients in tiny print. (Although I
would favour the latter.)
Guy
Guy Shurmer
"Doctor Unclear" <drun...@hotNOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
> Guy Shurmer wrote:
> > "Kevin Scholl" <ksc...@attbi.DELETE.com> wrote in message
> > news:3D603E88...@attbi.DELETE.com...
> >
> >>Guy Shurmer wrote:
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>>If you use a styling sheet and set font sizes in points then IE will
not
> >>>resize them. Although some (inferior) browsers will.
> >>
> >>
> >>Those "inferior" browsers, as you call them, are doing exactly what the
> >>standards recommend -- allowing the user to resize fonts regardless of
> >>the measurement specified. 'Fraid it is IE that is "inferior" in this
> >>regard, by not adhering to the usability and accessibility standard.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Hi Kevin,
> >
> > Please advise where I can find this standard?
> >
>
> W3C CSS2 says
> "It is therefore important that the user agent give the user the ability
> to turn off the influence of a certain style sheet, e.g., through a
> pull-down menu."
Thank you. However I was asking Kevin where I could find the *specific*
'usability and accessibility standard' that he refers to.
None of the sections of the W3C recommendations you have quoted are
relevant. They are talking about the cascading order of stylesheet
importance, not the issue of non-resizable fonts. In fact they state that
the authors intentions have the *highest* priority when it comes to styles -
but then allows a user to be able to turn off a style sheet if he wishes. In
which case of course he sees none of the author's styling and gets a text
only display.
If W3C wanted to prevent non-resizable fonts, then it would not permit the
length property in font-size.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/cascade.html#cascading-order
This standard is a recommendation only, and the section you quote is not
concerned with resizable fonts.
> http://www.w3c.org/TR/CSS21/cascade.html#cascading-order
This is a working draft, and repeats the above.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-css3-cascade-20020219/#computing (working
> draft)
As you say a working draft. And it adds nothing new to the above.
> and
> "user '!important' rules override author '!important' rules."
> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/cascade.html#important-rules
This standard is a recommendation only, and the section you quote is not
concerned with resizable fonts
> http://www.w3c.org/TR/CSS21/cascade.html#important-rules
A working draft.
Guy
Guy Shurmer
Hi Kevin,
Please see my post replying to Doctor Unclear.
I still await the advice on where to find the *specific* 'usability and
accessibility standard' you refer to.
Guy
Wouter
> against companies for producing inaccessible websites.
Why not just call the company if you want info, or just shop elsewhere?
Ever questioned why some Apple selling websites (some parts of www.KPN.com
!!) can not be viewed from a standard IMac?
Not provinding access it not a choice, it's incompetance, calling a claim
against such will only result in that the company has less money to invest
in learning how to overcome this incompetance.
Next fixed fondsize, that such exists for webpages can't be blaimed on the
designer, just blame the ones who did invent it.
Designers only want to have good looking, clear websites. Users who change
the fontsize will make the site in bad design, unless redesigning for larger
fontsizes too. Well do you know how much that costs?
(I'm probable off topic now ;-) sorry, it's to hot to learn to day)
Wouter
Chip C
>
> See that is where I disagree, the web is not supposed to cater to everyone.
> is not a requirement of the web to do so.
>
> fonts size, java, activeX, cookies, client script etc...) they will leave.
> you are reaching the crowd you want to reach, then what ever you do is ok.
>
Would you accept the following from Microsoft concerning a piece of
software you purchased that had a bug?
"We're sorry Mr. Jones. We determined that only a small percentage of
users used that feature, so we were justified in releasing the
product without correcting it. If x number of people report the flaw,
we will consider correcting it in a future release."
I am building my own home, so I guess I should be able to choose what
building codes I want to comply with. Not making things level is
also acceptable to me to since I am unbalanced myself. :p If I manage
to get away with it...what kind of resale value is this home going to
have?
I am building a web site and I determine that for my purposes, IE is
the only browser I want to support, since it is supposedly 95% of the
market. Now a Netscape user comes to the site, has a problem with it
and contacts me. What do I tell him/her? Get a better browser? Piss
off loser? 6 months later AOL incorporates Netscape rather than IE
into their software. Now IE is only half the browser market, so I
have a choice - fix the site or live with a big reduction in my
market. Fixing the site takes time and money, much more so than if I
had just made the effort in the first place.
Creating a usable, accessible site and making an attempt to conform
the the applicable version of standards *is* good business, not to
mention and indicator of the builder/owner's commitment to quality
and pride in their work. It also reduces the risk of the site
becoming obsolete and requiring a major rework when the *target
market* you adopted changes or proves to be incorrect.
I know that you feel we should not *force* people to adhere to some
unrealistic standard, but I don't believe anyone is trying to force
anything (LOL just look at any post where the question is 'how do I
force x to do x') but rather trying to instill a sense of quality and
pride in workmanship.
--
Chip
http://www.chipcom.net/
http://www.christmas-stories.com/
"There is no death. Only a change of worlds."
- Seattle [Seatlh] (1786-1866) Suquamish chief
David Hennessy
Shouldn't there be a reason--even "cluelessness on the part of the company?"
David Hennessy
"Guy Shurmer" <G...@DELETEgshurmer.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ajqp3d$omk$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
There are laws governing how small "small print" can be in the U.S.
Chip C
> Thank you. However I was asking Kevin where I could find the *specific*
> 'usability and accessibility standard' that he refers to.
>
You can find the W3C's *guidelines* for accessibility here:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/
There are not any published *standards* per se concerning usability
for the web.
Neredbojias
> > Here's a question I've been saving up. Does it resize the type on the
> > browser itself, ie: items like "Menu, "Edit", "Search", etc.? I
> > haven't seen a browser do that yet,
>
> Window management systems already do it by changing the windows skins.
> So these items would already be in the optimal size for a particular
> user before they need the "increase text size in browser" function
That's true, but the only browser I know of which doesn't change "px" or
"pt" designated font sizes via the first-level font-size adjustment means
includes a browser management system which can optimize font sizes for
all web pages in the same way as the Windows management system does for
browser menu items.
I'm not arguing against the desirability for accessability ala font size
here but I think if IE were to incorporate an Opera-style method thereof,
or even a Mozilla-style one, the issue would be different.
Neredbojias
> >If the text on the browser itself can't be resized, why should an author
> >worry about incorporating it in a page?
>
> The text in the browser can easily be re-sized in the window-manager,
> obviously these aren't inherited to the webpage.
True, via Control Panel > Display > Appearance > ... settings. However,
the text of the web page in the browser can just as easily be resized via
Tools > Internet Options > Accessibility no matter what units it's
specified with.
Isofarro
>> The legal system would argue against you here. Try reading Section
>> 508 of the Standards for Electronic and Information Technology for US
>> focused websites, and the Disability Discrimination Act for both the
>> UK and Australia. Why not do a search on google for claims being made
>> against companies for producing inaccessible websites.
>
> This is unreal. A non-US website, is not bound by US standards,
It is binding if it is offering a service or information to US
citizens. The US isn't the only country that has such legal obligations
to provide accessible content. Take your pick of: Australia, Canada,
Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy,
Luxemburg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, UK, Japan, New
Zealand, Singapore.
If you're from one of those countries that denies the right of others
to participate in society - you're on your own.
Accessibility is a civil right.
Isofarro
>> Why not do a search on google for claims being made
>> against companies for producing inaccessible websites.
>
> Why not just call the company if you want info,
If you are happy enough to pay my phone bill so I can make long
distance calls to the US, I'll consider it. Please forward me your
credit card.
Or why not create content that is fully accessible instead -- that's
far more cost effective.
Isofarro
wrote:
> "Doctor Unclear" <drun...@hotNOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3D604DBA...@hotNOSPAMmail.com...
>> > If you have something on your site that people don't like (flash,
>> > static fonts size, java, activeX, cookies, client script etc...)
>> > they will leave.
> there are millions of websites that use each of [the technologies
> above]. But saying that if you don't follow the "rules of the W3C" you
> will fail is silly.
Making content inaccessible for no reason at all is silly. Following W3
Recommendations allows website owners to future-proof their website and
their content.
Of course, quality doesn't mean much to you - you've convinced us of
that much.
Isofarro
wrote:
> "I don't CARE if you can't see my site, I am willing to loose you as a
> customer" Is equally valid.
Not if you claim you are offering a public service. That is
unjustifiable discrimination, and actionable, as AOL and IBM found out.
Kris
"rmpii" <rm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Kris" <kris...@xs4all.nl.omitthis> wrote in message
> news:kristiaan-60A6B...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> > Still, the Web is supposed to cater everyone. And if you have done your
> > HTML homework you can only agree.
>
> What does doing my html homework have to do with weather I think the web is
> suposed to cate for everyone or if it is up to the page owner to decide the
> audience? I could be the best HTML expert in the world and still feel that
> way.
I did not intend to talk you down. What I meant was, technically and
essentially, the web is for everyone and accessible for everyone. That
was Tim Berners-Lee's (guy who 'invented' the WWW) dream.
It is up to the author of the site to decide whether he wants to reach
everyone. I agree on that. Still, that does not take away that the
Internet is supposed to cater everyone. What the site owner does is his
business.
>
> > That is why there will always be potential top-businesses that deliver
> > medium prestige, due to these management believes.
>
> I agree. We reap what we sow. it is true in life, it is true in business.
>
> > Maybe it is good that I am no manager.
>
> No, maybe it is good for the manager that you work for that you feel the way
> you do. Remeber I am not advocating NOT trying to resh as many as possable.
> But I do feel it is the right of the page owner to decide what is best for
> his page and they should not be forced to follow rules. The web is way too
> big for that.
The page owner doesn't have to follow the rules, but he 'should'. Like a
shop owner must make his shop accessible to the impaired, so shall it be
on the web too one day, be it by choice and belief, be it by government
interference.
And it will be soon. You may or may not like the subject, but read up on
it and get yourself informed as much as you can.
>
> > You can hardly enforce anything on the web, that is why there will never
> > be any rules.
>
> Agreed.
--
David: "Rock n' roll! Rock n' roll! Here we go!"
Derek: "Hello, Cleveland! Hello, Cleveland!"
Kris
Neredbojias <donjuan...@coprophagous.com> wrote:
> Without even guffawing, Kris wrote:
>
> > MIE5/Mac is one of the best browsers ever made and does a great job at
> > resizing type, be it fixed or not. Opera even scales the entire page,
> > with graphics and all.
>
> Here's a question I've been saving up. Does it resize the type on the
> browser itself, ie: items like "Menu, "Edit", "Search", etc.? I haven't
> seen a browser do that yet, and when I think about it I get a kick out of
> all these fixed-sized-or-not font arguments.
>
> If the text on the browser itself can't be resized, why should an author
> worry about incorporating it in a page?
You have an interesting statement there. I could not find a quick way to
resize my browser texts.
Still, I believe that is a responsibility of either the browser vendor,
or the OS vendor. All the web author can do, is make his page as much
accessible as he can. The failures of a browser is a poor excuse.
perhaps I will find a way to adjust my browser. I will let you know then.
For now, the keyboard shortcuts are accessible enough for me, including
big good-looking buttons. I think I don't even read my browser's text..
I should pay attention to it for a change..
Kris
j...@jibbering.com (Jim Ley) wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Aug 2002 23:55:04 +0200, Kris
> <kris...@xs4all.nl.omitthis> wrote:
>
> >In article <ajovjl$6ev$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> > "Guy Shurmer" <G...@DELETEgshurmer.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> If you use a styling sheet and set font sizes in points then IE will not
> >> resize them. Although some (inferior) browsers will.
> >
> >I find MIE/Win and inferior browser for many reasons, but its lacking of
> >letting the user resize fonts that are fixed size is in particular
> >making me branding it as 'trash'.
>
> So your problem is a simple lack of interface?
No, my problem is Microsoft's lack of interest.
>
> >Don't ever think that this is a feature of MIE.
>
> It works for me, of course I had to add the UI myself...
What are you talking about? Customized user stylesheets?
>
> >MIE5/Mac is one of the best browsers ever made and does a great job at
> >resizing type, be it fixed or not. Opera even scales the entire page,
> >with graphics and all.
>
> As does MSIE (user stylesheet with
>
> body { zoom:200% }
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20020819.html
Kris
"Wouter" <PersonalRespo...@djwice.com> wrote:
> Next fixed fondsize, that such exists for webpages can't be blaimed on the
> designer, just blame the ones who did invent it.
> Designers only want to have good looking, clear websites. Users who change
> the fontsize will make the site in bad design, unless redesigning for larger
> fontsizes too. Well do you know how much that costs?
A company would be better off hiring a designer that is less arrogant
and ignorant. I pity you for whining like you're a victim of your own
profession, and then blaiming it on first the browser vendors and then
the visitors of your site.
François de Dardel
> has
> > their text size set for their browser(i.e. Internet Explorer: Smallest,
> > smaller,medium,larger,largest)?
>
> "No matter what"? No. The user can always override what you specify.
> E.g., you can set the size using CSS, but (with decent browsers) the user
> can always define their own stylesheet to override it.
>
> If precise font size is critical, use PDF.
No. If you define your font size in pixels (using CSS) then the local
settings of "larger-largest" etc. have no effect. I have done that in
several of my pages after being frustrated to see that the size on my
(home) Mac was always smaller than the size on my (office) PC. Now if my
visitors have an impaired eyesight, and want extra-big letters, they
will be frustrated and leave my pages without reading them. I apologize
to them, and take the risk.
--
François, alias Franz der Schweizer
Conentur sibi res, non se submittere rebus
Homepage at http://mapage.noos.fr/dardelf/
Jukka K. Korpela
>> "No matter what"? No. The user can always override what you specify.
>> E.g., you can set the size using CSS, but (with decent browsers) the user
>> can always define their own stylesheet to override it.
- -
> No. If you define your font size in pixels (using CSS) then the local
> settings of "larger-largest" etc. have no effect.
They shouldn't (at least this is my understanding of CSS specifications), but
they actually might.
More importantly, what C. A. Upsdell referred to was a _user stylesheet_, not
browser settings. In any browser that conforms to CSS2 (a rare bird indeed,
but maybe not quite so in this particular matter) will (when CSS support is
enabled) take
* {font-size: 24pt !important; }
in a user style sheet as overriding _anything_ that the author might have
said about any font size. And this might well be something that is absolutely
needed by a visually impaired user. If the page is ill-designed, it might
break into pieces since the author relied upon getting his font-size
"commands" through. But this simply tells us not to design pages that way.
> Now if my
> visitors have an impaired eyesight, and want extra-big letters, they
> will be frustrated and leave my pages without reading them. I apologize
> to them, and take the risk.
The foolish thing about this is that you take risks in a game where you
cannot possibly win anything. And it's actually more than a risk; it's sure
damage. If your browsers have default font sizes that you regard as
unsuitable to you, then it's a very real problem; fix _that_ problem, and you
will see _all_ pages in suitable font size, and you won't cause problems to
people who have fixed their problems with their browsers and would like to
visit your pages.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
Doctor Unclear
> In article <um0kqji...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Neredbojias <donjuan...@coprophagous.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Without even guffawing, Kris wrote:
>>
>>
>>>MIE5/Mac is one of the best browsers ever made and does a great job at
>>>resizing type, be it fixed or not. Opera even scales the entire page,
>>>with graphics and all.
>>
>>Here's a question I've been saving up. Does it resize the type on the
>>browser itself, ie: items like "Menu, "Edit", "Search", etc.? I haven't
>>seen a browser do that yet, and when I think about it I get a kick out of
>>all these fixed-sized-or-not font arguments.
>>
>>If the text on the browser itself can't be resized, why should an author
>>worry about incorporating it in a page?
>
>
> You have an interesting statement there. I could not find a quick way to
> resize my browser texts.
If you're using windows, then you can:
Start/Settings/Control Panel/Display/Appearance tab/Advanced button/Item
combobox
and then you can customize, select the font, font-size, font color,
background color, etc... Highly customizable, highly configurable. Such
settings will affect MSIE and Opera browsers.
> Still, I believe that is a responsibility of either the browser vendor,
> or the OS vendor. All the web author can do, is make his page as much
> accessible as he can. The failures of a browser is a poor excuse.
>
> perhaps I will find a way to adjust my browser. I will let you know then.
>
If you're using windows 98 or higher, there is a way.
Start/Settings/Control Panel/Display/Appearance tab/(...)
DU
Kris
Doctor Unclear <drun...@hotNOSPAMmail.com> wrote:
> >>If the text on the browser itself can't be resized, why should an author
> >>worry about incorporating it in a page?
> >
> > You have an interesting statement there. I could not find a quick way to
> > resize my browser texts.
>
> If you're using windows, then you can:
>
> Start/Settings/Control Panel/Display/Appearance tab/Advanced button/Item
> combobox
> and then you can customize, select the font, font-size, font color,
> background color, etc... Highly customizable, highly configurable. Such
> settings will affect MSIE and Opera browsers.
>
> > Still, I believe that is a responsibility of either the browser vendor,
> > or the OS vendor. All the web author can do, is make his page as much
> > accessible as he can. The failures of a browser is a poor excuse.
> >
> > perhaps I will find a way to adjust my browser. I will let you know then.
> >
> If you're using windows 98 or higher, there is a way.
> Start/Settings/Control Panel/Display/Appearance tab/(...)
A Mac user here. The Mac OS was claimed to be user friendly, and i
reckon it is, justnot for everybody, in particular people with
disabilities. I read something about a radical change towards
accessibility in Mac OS 10.2. Gotta see it to believe it, though.
Where this discussion is concerned:
Mac people 0: Windows people 1.
rmpii
> It is up to the author of the site to decide whether he wants to reach
> everyone. I agree on that. Still, that does not take away that the
> Internet is supposed to cater everyone. What the site owner does is his
> business.
Agreed.
> The page owner doesn't have to follow the rules, but he 'should'. Like a
> shop owner must make his shop accessible to the impaired, so shall it be
> on the web too one day, be it by choice and belief, be it by government
> interference.
>
> And it will be soon. You may or may not like the subject, but read up on
> it and get yourself informed as much as you can.
Yes, the government will be trying to interfear (sic) with their rules. But
as with the accesability rules, there is criteria as to who needs to and who
does not need to comply. So while there may be rules, they willnot apply to
all sites. Also,as long at the browsers allow you to use your own personal
stylesheet, then I can do what ever I want with the actual site, and the
user can override my descisions. So, you can do what you want, but it might
look like do-do when they change the fonts. (of couse, some of the sites I
have seen, and er... built..... may look better if you override the
fonts....)
Kevin Scholl
François de Dardel wrote:
>> > Is there a way to make the font a specific size no matter what the user
>> has
>> > their text size set for their browser(i.e. Internet Explorer: Smallest,
>> > smaller,medium,larger,largest)?
>>
>> "No matter what"? No. The user can always override what you specify.
>> E.g., you can set the size using CSS, but (with decent browsers) the user
>> can always define their own stylesheet to override it.
>>
>> If precise font size is critical, use PDF.
>
> No. If you define your font size in pixels (using CSS) then the local
> settings of "larger-largest" etc. have no effect. I have done that in
Not so. As several otehrs (myself included) have pointed out in this
thread, only IE PC disallows this resizing. All other modern browsers
(Opera 6, NN6/7, Mozilla, etc.) do, even if the CSS specifies pixels.
This is the correct action, as per the standard usability and
accessibility standards.
> several of my pages after being frustrated to see that the size on my
> (home) Mac was always smaller than the size on my (office) PC. Now if my
Look at those pages in Mozilla, Opera, or NN6/7.
> visitors have an impaired eyesight, and want extra-big letters, they
> will be frustrated and leave my pages without reading them. I apologize
> to them, and take the risk.
Your choice, though as the majority of responses to this thread will
note, it's not a very positive one for a professional site.
--
*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***
===========================================================
Kevin Scholl
ksc...@attbi.DELETE.com
-----------------------------------------------------------
Web Development and Graphic Design
http://www.interimag.com/~kscholl/professional/index.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of the
dreams...
===========================================================
Guy Shurmer
"Chip C" <ch...@chipcom.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.17cac1ac4...@news-server.neo.rr.com...
> On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 13:37:52 +0100, Guy Shurmer allegedly wrote...
>
> > Thank you. However I was asking Kevin where I could find the *specific*
> > 'usability and accessibility standard' that he refers to.
> >
>
> You can find the W3C's *guidelines* for accessibility here:
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/
>
> There are not any published *standards* per se concerning usability
> for the web.
Thank you. I of course knew that. But it appears that Kevin didn't. I was
challenging his statement .that "it is IE that is 'inferior' in this
regard, by not adhering to the usability and accessibility standard."
Guy
Guy Shurmer
>
> François de Dardel wrote:
>
> >> > Is there a way to make the font a specific size no matter what the
user
> >> has
> >> > their text size set for their browser(i.e. Internet Explorer:
Smallest,
> >> > smaller,medium,larger,largest)?
> >>
> >> "No matter what"? No. The user can always override what you specify.
> >> E.g., you can set the size using CSS, but (with decent browsers) the
user
> >> can always define their own stylesheet to override it.
> >>
> >> If precise font size is critical, use PDF.
> >
> > No. If you define your font size in pixels (using CSS) then the local
> > settings of "larger-largest" etc. have no effect. I have done that in
>
> Not so. As several otehrs (myself included) have pointed out in this
> thread, only IE PC disallows this resizing. All other modern browsers
> (Opera 6, NN6/7, Mozilla, etc.) do, even if the CSS specifies pixels.
> This is the correct action, as per the standard usability and
> accessibility standards.
Not so to you. IE is correct in maintaining the distinction between
resizable and absolute font sizes. The other browser ignore the distinction
because they are badly designed.
And would you please stop quoting this non-existant "standard usability and
accessibility standards."
Guy
Tim Booth
Guy Shurmer wrote:
>
> "Kevin Scholl" <ksc...@attbi.DELETE.com> wrote in message
> news:3D616F38...@attbi.DELETE.com...
> >
> > Not so. As several otehrs (myself included) have pointed out in this
> > thread, only IE PC disallows this resizing. All other modern browsers
> > (Opera 6, NN6/7, Mozilla, etc.) do, even if the CSS specifies pixels.
> > This is the correct action, as per the standard usability and
> > accessibility standards.
Well, no actually:
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/syndata.html#value-def-length
Should still be able to over-ridden by a correctly written
user style sheet.
>
> Not so to you. IE is correct in maintaining the distinction between
> resizable and absolute font sizes.
Correct.
> The other browser ignore the distinction
> because they are badly designed.
Not correct
>
> And would you please stop quoting this non-existant "standard usability and
> accessibility standards."
Web Accessibility Initiative: http://www.w3.org/WAI/
US Section 508: http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/508standards.htm
Not exactly non-existent.
Webko
Doctor Unclear
> In article <ajqqaq$p42$1...@news.tudelft.nl>,
> "Wouter" <PersonalRespo...@djwice.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Next fixed fondsize, that such exists for webpages can't be blaimed on the
>>designer, just blame the ones who did invent it.
>>Designers only want to have good looking, clear websites. Users who change
>>the fontsize will make the site in bad design, unless redesigning for larger
>>fontsizes too. Well do you know how much that costs?
>
>
> A company would be better off hiring a designer that is less arrogant
> and ignorant. I pity you for whining like you're a victim of your own
> profession, and then blaiming it on first the browser vendors and then
> the visitors of your site.
>
Kris, I just love your reply here. I've never seen nor heard opinions,
ideas and principles like the ones of Wouter, Guy Shurmer and rmpii
before. Their ideas and thinking manners are low, dangerous, arrogant.
Their speeches bring back things to a level of triviality, emptyness,
complacency, nonsense and jabbering cretinism dancing in colorized
obscurantism. They promote mediocrity, incompetence in incrusted
ignorance. Good businesses and the web do not need "Homer Simpson" like
them.
DU
Guy Shurmer
"Doctor Unclear" <drun...@hotNOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
Wow! With a speech like that you must be standing for office.
Guy
Guy Shurmer
"Tim Booth" <T.B...@isu.usyd.edu.au> wrote in message
news:3D617B8B...@isu.usyd.edu.au...
Thanks for the info. Actually I am up to my ears in standards. People keep
trying to be helpful and tell me about more standards. But that is not the
issue.
The point I am trying to make is that Kevin has twice stated that IE6 is at
fault for maintaining the distinction between resizable and absolute font
sizes and is not following the "standard usability and accessibility
standards" in this respect. All I am asking is for Kevin to back up this
statement - which of course he can't.
See Kevin's and my earlier posts in this thread.
Guy
rmpii
> thread, only IE PC disallows this resizing. All other modern browsers
> (Opera 6, NN6/7, Mozilla, etc.) do, even if the CSS specifies pixels.
> This is the correct action, as per the standard usability and
> accessibility standards.
You can override it with IE for the PC too. From the menu, Tools->Internet
Options ->Accessibility you can override everything in HTML. Even force
every page to use your own personal stylesheet.
rmpii
> US Section 508: http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/508standards.htm
Section 508 requires that when *Federal agencies* develop, procure,
maintain, or use electronic and information technology, they shall ensure
that the electronic and information technology allows Federal employees with
disabilities to have access to and use of information and data that is
comparable to the access to and use of information and data by *Federal
employees who are not individuals with disabilities, *unless an undue burden
would be imposed on the agency*. Section 508 also requires that individuals
with disabilities, who are members of the public seeking information or
services from a *Federal agency*, have access to and use of information and
data that is comparable to that provided to the public who are not
individuals with disabilities, unless an undue burden would be imposed on
the agency.
DATES: Effective date: February 20, 2001.
Nothing about the private sector there....... (maybe in the future, but not
today) And there is that "undue burden thing that can be argued too.
---
rmpii
news:ajrtdq$r5r$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Thank you. I of course knew that. But it appears that Kevin didn't. I was
> challenging his statement .that "it is IE that is 'inferior' in this
> regard, by not adhering to the usability and accessibility standard."
But it does adhere to it doesn't it? You can override everything in CSS or
HTML if you want. You just have to know how.
Tim Booth
rmpii wrote:
>
> "Tim Booth" <T.B...@isu.usyd.edu.au> wrote in message
> news:3D617B8B...@isu.usyd.edu.au...
> > Web Accessibility Initiative: http://www.w3.org/WAI/
> > US Section 508: http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/508standards.htm
>
> Section 508 requires that when *Federal agencies* develop,
[... snip ...]
>
> Nothing about the private sector there....... (maybe in the future, but not
> today) And there is that "undue burden thing that can be argued too.
A well developed site will meet and exceed the standards, even
if not *required* to do so. I find some sections of the WAI
extreme, but 508 is not as hard to satisfy.
Cheers
Webko
rmpii
news:3D618088...@hotNOSPAMmail.com...
> ideas and principles like the ones of Wouter, Guy Shurmer and rmpii
What opinions? That I believe that a company has the right to do what they
want on the web? Why is that bad? If they make the wrong decision they are
out of business (according to some). Lets let free enterprise decide what
is right and what is wrong. We let people make the wrong decisions all the
time. Look at smoking, drinking, obesity (some cases), we know these are
bad but we allow them to continue.
All I am advocating is the same, that is, you should be allowed to do what
you want on the web. If it works, then great, if it doesn't then that's
great too. There are too many rules as it stands, we don't need them on the
web too. Guidelines are great, but they are just that, "guidelines* You
can follow them if you want. I am not saying go out of your way to make
your pages inaccessible. But if that is what you want to do, then go for
it. You are paying for the site, you have the right to do what ever you
want.
Every time someone makes a rule they are taking a right away from you.
Right now, you are agreeing with the rules, because these rules only seem
to have a good effect on you. But someday they are going to make a rule
that takes away something from you that you want. Then you will have wished
you could have stopped it when it all started. (and section 508 is the
start of it.) As the number of rules increase, the number of freedoms
decrease. And that is a very bad thing.
The web doesn't need rules. Guides yes. Rules no.
Doctor Unclear
> "Doctor Unclear" <drun...@hotNOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3D618088...@hotNOSPAMmail.com...
>
>>Kris, I just love your reply here. I've never seen nor heard opinions,
>>ideas and principles like the ones of Wouter, Guy Shurmer and rmpii
>>before.....
>
>
> What opinions?
Yours. You are promoting discrimination, exclusion, rigid web site
design which go against built-in acessibility features in browsers.
That I believe that a company has the right to do what they
> want on the web?
A right does not abuse nor exclude others; a right does not exist at the
detriment of others.
Why is that bad? If they make the wrong decision they are
> out of business (according to some).
A lot of people have told you so far that there is no good reason for
taking away from users, visitors basic usability and customizability
features. Unless, of course, you assume and compensate your incompetence
in such manner.
Lets let free enterprise decide what
> is right and what is wrong. We let people make the wrong decisions all the
> time.
You started with "I" and now you're referring to "we".
Look at smoking, drinking, obesity (some cases), we know these are
> bad but we allow them to continue.
>
More countries like never before have promulgated laws
circumvening/limiting smoking in public places, increased tax on tobacco
products, laws against drinking and driving, laws against abuse of
alcohol and programs against irresponsible eating habits.
> All I am advocating is the same, that is, you should be allowed to do what
> you want on the web. If it works, then great, if it doesn't then that's
> great too.
Everyday, when I check my emails, I see what that means: infinite
spamming, spams from multi-level (pyramidal) marketing companies,
illegal substances sold, scams, viruses, worms, code red, nimda, sircam
viruses, spywares,etc. Even lists of millions of email addresses being
sold, advertised for spamming purposes.
There are too many rules as it stands, we don't need them on the
> web too.
You're promoting cocaine being sold on the web and then delivered at
your door like a 30-min. pizza. Want old chinese AK-47 on rebate? Just
click on that button.
Guidelines are great, but they are just that, "guidelines* You
> can follow them if you want. I am not saying go out of your way to make
> your pages inaccessible. But if that is what you want to do, then go for
> it. You are paying for the site, you have the right to do what ever you
> want.
>
There is a limit to your fantasies, your foolishness.
> Every time someone makes a rule they are taking a right away from you.
> Right now, you are agreeing with the rules, because these rules only seem
> to have a good effect on you. But someday they are going to make a rule
> that takes away something from you that you want. Then you will have wished
> you could have stopped it when it all started. (and section 508 is the
> start of it.) As the number of rules increase, the number of freedoms
> decrease. And that is a very bad thing.
>
> The web doesn't need rules. Guides yes. Rules no.
> --
> http://www.placemedia.com
> Home of the FREE virtual Jukebox
> Stream mp3s from your site for free!
>
>
>
Street beggers do not need you, rmpii: they do not want your competition.
DU
Kevin Scholl
Guy Shurmer wrote:
>> > Thank you. However I was asking Kevin where I could find the *specific*
>> > 'usability and accessibility standard' that he refers to.
>> >
>>
>> You can find the W3C's *guidelines* for accessibility here:
>> http://www.w3.org/WAI/
>>
>> There are not any published *standards* per se concerning usability
>> for the web.
>
> Thank you. I of course knew that. But it appears that Kevin didn't. I was
> challenging his statement .that "it is IE that is 'inferior' in this
> regard, by not adhering to the usability and accessibility standard."
If you would kindly read other messages in this thread, you'll find that
I'm rather correct. Therefore, your challenge remains unrealized. :)
Kevin Scholl
Guy Shurmer wrote:
>> > No. If you define your font size in pixels (using CSS) then the local
>> > settings of "larger-largest" etc. have no effect. I have done that in
>>
>> Not so. As several otehrs (myself included) have pointed out in this
>> thread, only IE PC disallows this resizing. All other modern browsers
>> (Opera 6, NN6/7, Mozilla, etc.) do, even if the CSS specifies pixels.
>> This is the correct action, as per the standard usability and
>> accessibility standards.
>
> Not so to you. IE is correct in maintaining the distinction between
> resizable and absolute font sizes. The other browser ignore the distinction
> because they are badly designed.
I think not.
> And would you please stop quoting this non-existant "standard usability and
> accessibility standards."
Do you for some reason feel that there needs to be a verbatim,
word-for-word directive that specifically states, "All browsers should
allow text to be resized"? The various usability and accessibility
recommendations set forth by the W3C, when taken together as a set,
clearly dictate that ultimate display control should lie with the user.
Kevin Scholl
Guy Shurmer wrote:
The distinction between relative and absolute fonts is not the issue. Of
course IE respects this with regard to display of a page as it is
defined by the designer. As do all the browsers. The issue is whether
the user should be able to override these definitions through the
browser interface. IE does NOT allow this for certain measurements,
which is a fault.
> sizes and is not following the "standard usability and accessibility
> standards" in this respect. All I am asking is for Kevin to back up this
> statement - which of course he can't.
Except that I have, as have several others in this discussion.
> See Kevin's and my earlier posts in this thread.
--
Kevin Scholl
rmpii wrote:
>> Not so. As several otehrs (myself included) have pointed out in this
>> thread, only IE PC disallows this resizing. All other modern browsers
>> (Opera 6, NN6/7, Mozilla, etc.) do, even if the CSS specifies pixels.
>> This is the correct action, as per the standard usability and
>> accessibility standards.
>
> You can override it with IE for the PC too. From the menu, Tools->Internet
> Options ->Accessibility you can override everything in HTML. Even force
> every page to use your own personal stylesheet.
True, but you have to go into an area that the common user isn't going
to be aware of, and likely is not comfortable fiddling with. Using this
method also forces the text to default size (typically 12pt), which may
or may not be desirable to the user. IOW, it's not really significant
control.
Merely utilizing the View -> Text Size options does NOT work, as it
logically does with all other "compliant" browsers.
Neredbojias
> > If the text on the browser itself can't be resized, why should an author
> > worry about incorporating it in a page?
>
> You have an interesting statement there. I could not find a quick way to
> resize my browser texts.
> Still, I believe that is a responsibility of either the browser vendor,
> or the OS vendor. All the web author can do, is make his page as much
> accessible as he can. The failures of a browser is a poor excuse.
I wasn't promoting the argument seriously. As you say, web authors still
need to consider useability in designing their sites. However, when it
comes right down to it, IE isn't really all that "inaccessible" of a
browser.
My own personal choice for size-accessibility issues would be to have
something on the menu no more than 2 clicks away. 2 options, select
menus, probably, -1 to resize the text and the other to resize
everything. I like Mozilla's percentage deal but they need another one
for "zooming all", too.
>
> perhaps I will find a way to adjust my browser. I will let you know then.
>
> For now, the keyboard shortcuts are accessible enough for me, including
> big good-looking buttons. I think I don't even read my browser's text..
> I should pay attention to it for a change..
>
>
--
Neredbojias
"The opinions expressed here are not necessarily
those of management material."
Isofarro
wrote:
> What opinions? That I believe that a company has the right to do what
> they want on the web?
If they are offering information or services to the public, then they
need to abide by the ADA legislation. These services must be fit for
use by the public.
> You are paying for the site, you have the right to do what ever
> you want.
If you are offering a public service, then you have an obligation to
make it as accessible as possible to the public. Everyone has a right
to participate in a society - you have _no_ grounds to prevent those
rights.
--
Iso.
FAQs: http://html-faq.com http://alt-html.org http://allmyfaqs.com/
Recommended Hosting: http://www.affordablehost.com/
AnyBrowser Campaign: http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/
Isofarro
wrote:
[Ignorance of accessibility]
> And there is that "undue burden thing that can be argued too.
Legal precendent has already been set on this matter. In the case
Maguire v SOCOG, SOCOG argued about "undue burden" which was not
accepted as an argument, since the extra overhead in creating an
accessible website by a competant developer is negligible. This is a
myth you no longer need to perpetuate - it has been refuted already.
There is no undue burden to creating accessible websites.
Ignore accessibility at your peril, the City of San Jose was still
breaching the ADA for producing content in a pdf format regardless of
whether the webmaster knew pdf was inaccessible to its users.
Isofarro
wrote:
> You can override it with IE for the PC too. From the menu,
> Tools->Internet
> Options ->Accessibility you can override everything in HTML. Even
> force every page to use your own personal stylesheet.
And precisely what is the point of that when you are consistently
making content inaccessible by hiding it in a Flash file?
bill
> > You can override it with IE for the PC too. From the menu, Tools->Internet
> > Options ->Accessibility you can override everything in HTML. Even force
> > every page to use your own personal stylesheet.
>
> True, but you have to go into an area that the common user isn't going
> to be aware of, and likely is not comfortable fiddling with. Using this
> method also forces the text to default size (typically 12pt), which may
> or may not be desirable to the user. IOW, it's not really significant
> control.
So you have to accomidate users not knowing how to use their browser?
Kevin Scholl
bill wrote:
>> > You can override it with IE for the PC too. From the menu, Tools->Internet
>> > Options ->Accessibility you can override everything in HTML. Even force
>> > every page to use your own personal stylesheet.
>>
>> True, but you have to go into an area that the common user isn't going
>> to be aware of, and likely is not comfortable fiddling with. Using this
>> method also forces the text to default size (typically 12pt), which may
>> or may not be desirable to the user. IOW, it's not really significant
>> control.
>
> So you have to accomidate users not knowing how to use their browser?
I think you're missing the point. If the browser has a particular
capability, why not put it where people expect it to logically be -- in
this case, in the View -> Text Size area -- rather than burying it.
rmpii
> That I believe that a company has the right to do what they
> > want on the web?
> A right does not abuse nor exclude others; a right does not exist at the
> detriment of others.
Everyone's rights are the detriment of others. There is no garunetee that
you will not be offended in somewhay on the web. this includes not being
able to see a site because I code is a specific way. If you don't like it,
don't go there. THAT is your right, MINE is to do what ever I want on the
web.
> A lot of people have told you so far that there is no good reason for
> taking away from users, visitors basic usability and customizability
> features. Unless, of course, you assume and compensate your incompetence
> in such manner.
I am not about to force a cutomer to have the code required in a flash
component to accomidate every disability in the world. Sorry. That is a
good reason.
> More countries like never before have promulgated laws
> circumvening/limiting smoking in public places, increased tax on tobacco
> products, laws against drinking and driving, laws against abuse of
> alcohol and programs against irresponsible eating habits.
There are no laws against bad eating habits.... Please.... AND if there
WERE, then they, (like anti smoking laws) are wrong too.
> You're promoting cocaine being sold on the web and then delivered at
> your door like a 30-min. pizza. Want old chinese AK-47 on rebate? Just
> click on that button.
That has noting to do with the conversation. Be real.
> Street beggers do not need you, rmpii: they do not want your competition.
But I am YOUR competition. And I have differennt views on what the web
should be. So deal with it. I make a very nice living doing it my way.
Guy Shurmer
>
> Guy Shurmer wrote:
>
> >> > Thank you. However I was asking Kevin where I could find the
*specific*
> >> > 'usability and accessibility standard' that he refers to.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You can find the W3C's *guidelines* for accessibility here:
> >> http://www.w3.org/WAI/
> >>
> >> There are not any published *standards* per se concerning usability
> >> for the web.
> >
> > Thank you. I of course knew that. But it appears that Kevin didn't. I
was
> > challenging his statement .that "it is IE that is 'inferior' in this
> > regard, by not adhering to the usability and accessibility standard."
>
> If you would kindly read other messages in this thread, you'll find that
> I'm rather correct. Therefore, your challenge remains unrealized. :)
>
Kevin, if *you* would pay attention to the text of my posts you would see
that I was asking a simple question which you have constantly evaded.
What other people may or may not have posted is not the issue here.
Guy
Doctor Unclear
Just read what's up there: I said programs against irreponsible eating
habits. You like to focus and concentrate on a few words but you often
miss the whole picture all the time.
>>You're promoting cocaine being sold on the web and then delivered at
>>your door like a 30-min. pizza. Want old chinese AK-47 on rebate? Just
>>click on that button.
>
>
> That has noting to do with the conversation. Be real.
>
>
You first silently snip my post so that you can take it out of context
and then say that it has nothing to do with the conversation. You said:
"All I am advocating is the same, that is, you should be allowed to do
what you want on the web. If it works, then great, if it doesn't then
that's great too. There are too many rules as it stands, we don't need
them on the web too." rmpii
And you added more in the same thinking pattern. Your speech support and
promote spamming. Your speech support and promote spyware. Your speech
does not question illegitimate, immoral or illegal activities at all.
My comment was definitively about your posted ones. You set no limits to
what you call rights, freedoms and powers. You set no borderlines in
your post, just that you look for results regardless of means chosen.
You set no limits at all to your desires, fantasies and foolishness.
DU
rmpii
>You like to focus and concentrate on a few words but you often
> miss the whole picture all the time.
No, I did not miss the whole picture, we are just looking at it from
different views.
> You first silently snip my post so that you can take it out of context
> and then say that it has nothing to do with the conversation.
No, you brought up something totaly irrelivant to the conversation. I was
taking the appropriate response.
>Your speech support and
> promote spamming. Your speech support and promote spyware. Your speech
> does not question illegitimate, immoral or illegal activities at all.
Not at all. You are reading whay too deep into this. My speech is that I
can make my web page look however I want it to look, reguardless if others
can view it or not. It has nothing to do with spam, spyware, illegitimate,
immoral or illegal activities at all. Those are a different ragument.
> My comment was definitively about your posted ones. You set no limits to
> what you call rights, freedoms and powers. You set no borderlines in
> your post..
The borderlines were the topic we were talking about. Web page
accessibility. Not cocaine, or abortion, or rape, or porn, or any other
immoral or illegal activities. We were talking about if your right to view
a web page is GREATER than my right to design it how ever I like. And I
tend to think not. If you don't like my page, don't come to it.
As far as the others listed, Cocaine=no, but Pot should be legal,
Abortion=personal choice, for my wife and I, it is a crime, Rape=no, Porn,
if consenting adults then go for it. Other activities on a case by case
base.
Kris
billa...@yahoo.com (bill) wrote:
Does your car have an automatic gear?
--
David: "Rock n' roll! Rock n' roll! Here we go!"
Derek: "Hello, Cleveland! Hello, Cleveland!"
Kris
Neredbojias <donjuan...@coprophagous.com> wrote:
> Without even guffawing, Kris wrote:
>
> > > If the text on the browser itself can't be resized, why should an author
> > > worry about incorporating it in a page?
> >
> > You have an interesting statement there. I could not find a quick way to
> > resize my browser texts.
> > Still, I believe that is a responsibility of either the browser vendor,
> > or the OS vendor. All the web author can do, is make his page as much
> > accessible as he can. The failures of a browser is a poor excuse.
>
> I wasn't promoting the argument seriously. As you say, web authors still
> need to consider useability in designing their sites. However, when it
> comes right down to it, IE isn't really all that "inaccessible" of a
> browser.
My personal opinion on MIE/Win is that it is a poor browser. It offers
very little override mechanics just under the hood. You have to dig for
it, and then it only does half a job.
I will be on the barracades cheering, if there ever comes a day that the
self-proclaimed winner of the browser wars dies a sudden death. I know
it won't happen; it will likely take more than one day.
>
> My own personal choice for size-accessibility issues would be to have
> something on the menu no more than 2 clicks away. 2 options, select
> menus, probably, -1 to resize the text and the other to resize
> everything. I like Mozilla's percentage deal but they need another one
> for "zooming all", too.
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20020819.html
Oh, and Go Chimera!!!
--
Marty: "Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten
be the top number and make that a little louder?"
Nigel: "...These go to eleven."
Kris
"rmpii" <rm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Doctor Unclear" <drun...@hotNOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3D618088...@hotNOSPAMmail.com...
> > Kris, I just love your reply here. I've never seen nor heard opinions,
> > ideas and principles like the ones of Wouter, Guy Shurmer and rmpii
> > before.....
>
> What opinions? That I believe that a company has the right to do what they
> want on the web? Why is that bad? If they make the wrong decision they are
> out of business (according to some). Lets let free enterprise decide what
> is right and what is wrong. We let people make the wrong decisions all the
> time. Look at smoking, drinking, obesity (some cases), we know these are
> bad but we allow them to continue.
Ah yes, Business and Ethics, the make-believe marriage. The same Free
Enterprise who brought us Cigarettes(tm), Alcohol(tm) and Food(tm). Who
brought us Poisoned Air(tm), Disapearing Rainforest(tm) and the Stealth
Bomber(tm). Lets please not leave the almighty goodness of Free
Enterprise unnoticed, after all, they want us to be Happy(tm).
>
> All I am advocating is the same, that is, you should be allowed to do what
> you want on the web. If it works, then great, if it doesn't then that's
> great too.
You leave me no choice but to sue you :)
Doctor Unclear
>
>>François de Dardel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>Is there a way to make the font a specific size no matter what the
>>>>
> user
>
>>>>has
>>>>
>>>>>their text size set for their browser(i.e. Internet Explorer:
>>>>
> Smallest,
>
>>>>>smaller,medium,larger,largest)?
>>>>
>>>>"No matter what"? No. The user can always override what you specify.
>>>>E.g., you can set the size using CSS, but (with decent browsers) the
>>>
> user
>
>>>>can always define their own stylesheet to override it.
>>>>
>>>>If precise font size is critical, use PDF.
>>>
>>>No. If you define your font size in pixels (using CSS) then the local
>>>settings of "larger-largest" etc. have no effect. I have done that in
>>
>>thread, only IE PC disallows this resizing. All other modern browsers
>>(Opera 6, NN6/7, Mozilla, etc.) do, even if the CSS specifies pixels.
>>This is the correct action, as per the standard usability and
>>accessibility standards.
>
>
> because they are badly designed.
>
> accessibility standards."
>
> Guy
>
>
>
Guy,
the "standard usability and accessibility standards" can be found at
Department of Justice
Section 508 Home Page
found at
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/508/508home.html
Just search for enforcement, fines, sentences when you're there or ask
them about fines, enforcement, reporting complaints, etc..
The coordinators of the Department of Justice's Section 508 can be reach at:
sec508.ques...@usdoj.gov
Oh... and please give us the urls of sites you have done so that we can
verify if so-called "standard usability and accessibility standards"
apply to your work or do not apply to your work. If these standards do
not exist, then you, your lawyer, your website business/boss do not have
anything to worry about. Fair enough?
DU
Doctor Unclear
>
> François de Dardel wrote:
>
>>> > Is there a way to make the font a specific size no matter what the
>>> user
>>> has
>>> > their text size set for their browser(i.e. Internet Explorer:
>>> Smallest,
>>> > smaller,medium,larger,largest)?
>>>
>>> "No matter what"? No. The user can always override what you specify.
>>> E.g., you can set the size using CSS, but (with decent browsers) the
>>> user
>>> can always define their own stylesheet to override it.
>>>
>>> If precise font size is critical, use PDF.
>>
>>
>> No. If you define your font size in pixels (using CSS) then the local
>> settings of "larger-largest" etc. have no effect. I have done that in
>
>
> Not so. As several otehrs (myself included) have pointed out in this
> thread, only IE PC disallows this resizing.
Opera 6 and MSIE 5+ (but not NS 6+ nor Mozilla) cater for people who
want to resize the text of poorly designed pages by thoughtless web
authors when they allow to edit an user stylesheet with
html {font-size:100% !important;}
body {font-size:100% !important;}
Tools/Internet Options.../General tab/Accessibility... button/User style
sheet fieldset/Format documents using my style sheet and the Browse button.
Opera 6 gives furthermore control, customizability to users.
All other modern browsers
> (Opera 6, NN6/7, Mozilla, etc.) do, even if the CSS specifies pixels.
> This is the correct action, as per the standard usability and
> accessibility standards.
>
>> several of my pages after being frustrated to see that the size on my
>> (home) Mac was always smaller than the size on my (office) PC. Now if my
>
>
> Look at those pages in Mozilla, Opera, or NN6/7.
>
AFAIK, NS 6+ and Mozilla do not allow user stylesheet; MSIE 5+ and Opera
6 do.
DU
>> visitors have an impaired eyesight, and want extra-big letters, they
>> will be frustrated and leave my pages without reading them. I apologize
>> to them, and take the risk.
>
>
> Your choice, though as the majority of responses to this thread will
> note, it's not a very positive one for a professional site.
>
>
Kris
Not replying to anyone in particular, just planting a seed of love :)
http://discuss.fogcreek.com/joelonsoftware/default.asp?cmd=show&ixPost=13
641
rmpii
> Opera 6 and MSIE 5+ (but not NS 6+ nor Mozilla) cater for people who
> want to resize the text of poorly designed pages by thoughtless web
Sorry just an opinion.
rmpii
> Guy,
> the "standard usability and accessibility standards" can be found at
> Department of Justice
> Section 508 Home Page
> found at
> http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/508/508home.html
>
> Just search for enforcement, fines, sentences when you're there or ask
> them about fines, enforcement, reporting complaints, etc..
> The coordinators of the Department of Justice's Section 508 can be reach
at:
> sec508.ques...@usdoj.gov
"Section 508 (508 statute html, 508 statute pdf) requires that Federal
agencies' electronic and information technology is accessible to people with
disabilities, including employees and members of the public.
Federal Agencies Not private sites.
rmpii
news:kristiaan-DFCF6...@news1.xs4all.nl...
> Ah yes, Business and Ethics, the make-believe marriage. The same Free
> Enterprise who brought us Cigarettes(tm), Alcohol(tm) and Food(tm). Who
> brought us Poisoned Air(tm), Disapearing Rainforest(tm) and the Stealth
> Bomber(tm). Lets please not leave the almighty goodness of Free
> Enterprise unnoticed, after all, they want us to be Happy(tm).
So you are advocating that the goivenrment dictate every aspect of your
life? Sorry,I feel that youd really suck. You may not like to have
choices, but I do.
> You leave me no choice but to sue you :)
Sue away.
rmpii
>
> Not replying to anyone in particular, just planting a seed of love :)
If anyone takes conversations in this (and other newsgroups) seriously, they
have a really big problem. Newgroups are here to learn and to vent. Since
they are basically anonymous people have fewer inhabitations and may say
things where they would not in other surroundings. If someone looks look at
newgroups for anything other an a little direction in learning (notice I
said direction) and entertainment. Then they take them way too seriously,
and should try to expand their lives beyond the computer for a while and see
the real world.
Chip C
> "Section 508 (508 statute html, 508 statute pdf) requires that Federal
> agencies' electronic and information technology is accessible to people with
> disabilities, including employees and members of the public.
>
> Federal Agencies Not private sites.
But of course, as with anything else involving our government, anyone
*doing business* with the Feds is *encouraged* to comply. That
*encouragement* is taken seriously by some, as the work we have been
doing in this area for many of our clients indicates.
--
Chip
http://www.chipcom.net/
http://www.christmas-stories.com/
"There is no death. Only a change of worlds."
- Seattle [Seatlh] (1786-1866) Suquamish chief
Kevin Scholl
Guy Shurmer wrote:
>> >> > Thank you. However I was asking Kevin where I could find the
> *specific*
>> >> > 'usability and accessibility standard' that he refers to.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> You can find the W3C's *guidelines* for accessibility here:
>> >> http://www.w3.org/WAI/
>> >>
>> >> There are not any published *standards* per se concerning usability
>> >> for the web.
>> >
>> > Thank you. I of course knew that. But it appears that Kevin didn't. I
> was
>> > challenging his statement .that "it is IE that is 'inferior' in this
>> > regard, by not adhering to the usability and accessibility standard."
>>
>> If you would kindly read other messages in this thread, you'll find that
>> I'm rather correct. Therefore, your challenge remains unrealized. :)
>>
>
> Kevin, if *you* would pay attention to the text of my posts you would see
> that I was asking a simple question which you have constantly evaded.
It would appear that it is YOU who is not reading, as I did in fact
answer your question very specifically two evenings ago, with both my
own comments and quotes from others.
> What other people may or may not have posted is not the issue here.
Oh, but it IS the issue. What purpose would repeating the same
information over and over serve? If you don't agree with -- or choose to
ignore -- what's been said the first time, chances are you're not going
to agree with -- or will choose to ignore -- it thereafter as well.
But since I HAVE answered, it's a mute point.
Guy Shurmer
"Doctor Unclear" <drun...@hotNOSPAMmail.com> wrote in message
news:3D618772...@hotNOSPAMmail.com...
<snip>
> Guy,
> the "standard usability and accessibility standards" can be found at
> Department of Justice
> Section 508 Home Page
> found at
> http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/508/508home.html
>
> Just search for enforcement, fines, sentences when you're there or ask
> them about fines, enforcement, reporting complaints, etc..
> The coordinators of the Department of Justice's Section 508 can be reach
at:
> sec508.ques...@usdoj.gov
>
I haven't bothered to check out this reference. It is clearly an internal US
Govt matter, and I and the rest of the world (the vast majority) do not come
under its jurisdiction. (Thank you God for not making me an American)
> Oh... and please give us the urls of sites you have done so that we can
> verify if so-called "standard usability and accessibility standards"
> apply to your work or do not apply to your work. If these standards do
> not exist, then you, your lawyer, your website business/boss do not have
> anything to worry about. Fair enough?
>
I was a computer engineer before retiring and had nothing to do with web
sites, although I was involved with X25 data transmission in its early days.
My own site is currently under construction and the pages tested are written
in validated XHTML and the stylesheets are also validated by W3C.
My interest here is simply that I replied to the originator of this thread
to give him the legitimate technical advice he was seeking, because the only
response he was getting was the usual "you shouldn't do that " and "not
invented here" dogma.
Now I am simply going to state my case, and let the matter drop.
The W3C recommendtions are the way forward and it is good practice to follow
them (although they are not mandatory). This means that absolute 'length'
values are legitimate in font sizes. User agents should not resize absolute
values unless there is a specific over-ride correctly prioritized as defined
by W3C. To me IE6 meets these conditions whereas some other browsers do not.
Perhps you should consider the way some successful commercial sites handle
font sizes. In the case of Amazon the main font is resizable for the users
convenience, but all the menu tabs are gifs, which are of course not
resizable, and therefore avoids having the layout shot to hell by the user.
Most commercial pages use gifs where the size of text is sensitive.
Instead of gifs, it is also legitimately to use absolute font sizes for
similar layout purposes, or as the thread originator wanted, to make a
simple printable page. The suggestion that he should use PDF just to conform
with someone's dogmatic views is laughable. Have you considered the
bandwidth? The download time? The cost of purchasing the software? The need
to provide a PDF reader download facility for those users who haven't got
it? The fact that a majority of users will avoid the hassle and go
elsewhere? The simple solution is always best.
Guy
rmpii
news:MPG.17cc73e2b...@news-server.neo.rr.com...
> But of course, as with anything else involving our government, anyone
> *doing business* with the Feds is *encouraged* to comply. That
> *encouragement* is taken seriously by some, as the work we have been
> doing in this area for many of our clients indicates.
Oh I agree, As a matter of fact, With the exception of a few flash sites,
all the sites I work on comply completely. And I have never advocated
anything but complying (everyone can go back and read my posts). But I
truly believe, that is it the choice of the designer (owner) if they want to
or not. THAT is what I think is important. That we have the choice. There
should be no mandate that we HAVE to comply. Compliance should be
voluntary.
Neredbojias
> > I wasn't promoting the argument seriously. As you say, web authors still
> > need to consider useability in designing their sites. However, when it
> > comes right down to it, IE isn't really all that "inaccessible" of a
> > browser.
>
> My personal opinion on MIE/Win is that it is a poor browser. It offers
> very little override mechanics just under the hood. You have to dig for
> it, and then it only does half a job.
I know what you mean, and that "accessiblility-override" method in IE
isn't a true text-resizer, either. However, I've been digging into the
nitty-gritty of css lately, and (this may surprise you but...) IE 6.0
seems to render many things of css more correctly than does Mozilla 1.0.
Neither one of them is even close to being 100% correct, and IE has some
common, glaring errors which are oft commented upon, but I was amazed at
some of the more obscure css that IE seems to get right.
> I will be on the barracades cheering, if there ever comes a day that the
> self-proclaimed winner of the browser wars dies a sudden death. I know
> it won't happen; it will likely take more than one day.
The browser which works best for the most people will win. It's that
simple. If Mozilla can correct some of its key mistakes and become the
technical tool it should be as well as a decent browser, it *will* give
IE a run for its money. Right now, though, it's just too faulty.
Neredbojias
> My interest here is simply that I replied to the originator of this thread
> to give him the legitimate technical advice he was seeking, because the only
> response he was getting was the usual "you shouldn't do that " and "not
> invented here" dogma.
>
> Now I am simply going to state my case, and let the matter drop.
>
> The W3C recommendtions are the way forward and it is good practice to follow
> them (although they are not mandatory). This means that absolute 'length'
> values are legitimate in font sizes. User agents should not resize absolute
> values unless there is a specific over-ride correctly prioritized as defined
> by W3C. To me IE6 meets these conditions whereas some other browsers do not.
There is a difference between text-resizing and "zooming". Any and all
users should be able to zoom a page to their hearts' content. They may
have to just to read it. Resizing just the text is, as you suggest, a
different matter, but browsers lacking a working zoom method should
probably substitute their text-resizing utility in lieu of the zoom and
make it 100% useable to all until such a time that they get their act
together on the zoom. At least that's my opinion, and since IE has no
zoom, they ought to have made their text-resizer like Mozilla's.
rmpii
news:um5ggp5...@corp.supernews.com...
> The browser which works best for the most people will win. It's that
> simple. If Mozilla can correct some of its key mistakes and become the
> technical tool it should be as well as a decent browser, it *will* give
> IE a run for its money. Right now, though, it's just too faulty.
I think another point will be, the browser that winsl will be free. Be it
because you are getting the "educational verison" or what ever, bottom line
the winning browser will be free.
Neredbojias
> I think another point will be, the browser that winsl will be free. Be it
> because you are getting the "educational verison" or what ever, bottom line
> the winning browser will be free.
Probably true. IE, Mozilla, Netscape, and Lynx are, of the ones that I
know, free now so unless someone comes up with one helluva marketing
strategy...
bill
Kevin Scholl <ksc...@attbi.DELETE.com> wrote in message news:<3D62AD24...@attbi.DELETE.com>...
bill
> And precisely what is the point of that when you are consistently
> making content inaccessible by hiding it in a Flash file?
I don't think flash is hiding anything. You just have to get the
plug-in, and wait for the download. It is not a disability to have a
slow connection. (it may suck, but it is not a disability) If your
broswer does not accept the plugin, then get a different browser. Not
having the right equipment is not a disability and would not be
covered under 508.
If you want to see video, you can't use a text only browser on a hand
held. Using that is a choice, not a disability. If you want to see
flash you have to use a flash plug-in. Not using the plugin is a
choice, not a disability.
No one has made a site inaccesable by using flash. YOU might not want
to use the tools to view it, but it is not inaccsesable. And if you
stil claim it is, then so to are any multi media presentations on the
web. Should we ban all of them too because you don't want to use the
right tool to see it?
And if the content IS the video, (or it is flash) then what do you
want the site to do have a text version of the video "and now we see
another plane hit the second tower...." or "and if you could see it,
there is a strange colorful text spinning transition taking place...
no wait... it turned into a logo of a dog...."
Sorry, the only reason you can not see flash is because you have made
choices that you don't want to see it. There is no disability there,
and the site is not hiding anyting.
David Hennessy
"bill" <billa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:811fa8d4.02082...@posting.google.com...
How precisely can a person without vision navigate a Flash site with an
aural browser?
--
David Hennessy, (412) 344-8302
Miller, Isner & Hennessy - http://mihagency.com
Science Partner - http://scipartner.com
Com-Prod Productions - http://com-prod.com