Kathy Wheeler wrote: > Rather than blindly (bad term, I know) accepting the 100% font size, > wouldn't a better approach be to settle on a font-size that doesn't > make a client's site look like a kindergarten reader (compared to > major news sites for eg) and just make sure it doesn't break under > common techniques used by the visually impaired?
I'm not visually impaired - I'm just in the "over 50" group, and half the web has to be blown up in order to read anything. A good portion of the sites I visit regularly, break somewhat before reaching 100% now. In a few years time more sites will break even more, as I set my browser to resize them to compensate, if they continue to size them low. That's the effect of aging eyes. Watching sites break under stress may end up being a great pass-time activity :-) > ... what are those who alter their browsers actually using? I have no idea. It is good to have options... <http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_additions_37.html> ...and there are so many end-users with various wants, needs and know-how around. > What should we be checking by? Ideally all that's technically possible in browser/OS/screen/whatever combinations. That's what I always _try_ to do. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
