Lee Roberts wrote:
Andy wanted to know what the WCAG working group members
had to say about fixed and scalable width layouts. I am a
member of the working group.
Well, I gave an education and it seems the topic has grown
to now include more about mobile devices.
The purpose of variable width or
: Andy Budd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 4:26 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WSG] Fixed vs flexible layouts
Lee Roberts wrote:
Andy wanted to know what the WCAG working group members
had to say
about fixed and scalable width layouts. I am a member
Andy Budd wrote:
Lee Roberts wrote:
Andy wanted to know what the WCAG working group members
had to say about fixed and scalable width layouts. I am a
member of the working group.
Well, I gave an education and it seems the topic has grown
to now include more about mobile devices.
Well i think i found the best of both worlds...
and Fluid/Elastic Design
http://www.southtyneside.info/project_area/southtyneside/xhtml/elastic.asp
:)
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See
I have not made a study of the accessibility guidelines in depth, but my
guess would be that they are referring to elements that can be resized like
text rather than positional elements and that confusion arises because of
vagueness like that. Just a thought, probably wrong, but hey. :)
Fixed vs. Liquid. Excellent! I love these arguments. I'm sure we'll see
about 300 replies to this that go way off topic in a general Fixed is
better! - NO! Liquid is better style.
The accessibility concern with fixed (pixel) width layouts that
instantly jumps to mind is that if a user with poor
I'd argue that the best compromise are elastic layouts, where things
are positioned and sized in relation to other factors like font size.
To say that if we just set our width to 100% or something
and rejoice that the site will work in all sizes is misguided;
there will always be extremes at both
Well im just swaying away from my gotta keep it fixed way of thinking and
slowly getting on with
Stretch it like a rubber Johnny as i still dont think a full fluid layout works
100% of the time.
But an Elastic one does! As you can still set your width's and if you do
everything in EM's
Patrick Griffiths wrote:
The accessibility concern with fixed (pixel) width layouts that
instantly jumps to mind is that if a user with poor eyesight decides to
bump up the text size, you're going to find yourself with fewer words
per line. If you're not careful, such an action can lead to content
Budd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Fixed vs flexible layouts
Patrick Griffiths wrote:
The accessibility concern with fixed (pixel) width layouts that
instantly jumps to mind is that if a user with poor eyesight decides
-Original Message-
From: Andy Budd
For a site to get a AA accessibility rating, you are supposed to use
relative units (%, em) rather than fixed units (px). However the WAI
guidelines do say that, if you use fixed units, you must make sure that
your site is usable.
The absolute
Geoff Deering wrote:
The absolute irony here is that pixels (px) are classified as relative
units. I know, I can never get my head around this one either, but
it's
great news for those of us trying to get good layouts and address
accessibility.
A pixel is relative because it can be any
To Fix or not to Fix, dang we're back in Shakespeare's
time with To Be or Not To Be, that is the question.
Let's start with the easy stuff ... fonts.
If you use font-size: percentage, then your layer or table
layout widths should be in percentages.
If you use font-size: em, then your layer or
From: Geoff Deering
[snip]
If you are designing for handheld you should be considering
display:none for
the none content columns, header and footer and just be using the link
element for prev, next, etc. Some sort of minimalist
approach may be more
appropriate for that media.
actually,
I am on holiday between the 30th July and the 14th August. I will reply to your e-mail
as soon as possible on my return the following day.
Thank you for your understanding.
Jay Hills - Ikonik.net
(This is an automated response. Please do not reply to this e-mail as it will simply
send
Lee Roberts wrote:
The purpose of variable width or elastic designs is to
help people by allowing them to increase their font size
without destroying the design.
I think the better statement of purpose is to allow the users' choices
of font sizes to work with the designs.
Your statement
I am on holiday between the 30th July and the 14th August. I will reply to your e-mail
as soon as possible on my return the following day.
Thank you for your understanding.
Jay Hills - Ikonik.net
(This is an automated response. Please do not reply to this e-mail as it will simply
send
Users shouldn't need zoom, but the problem is graphic
designers think 9px font sizes should be the standard.
I'm afraid even I can't read that. So, until we get rid
of graphic designers who believe concepts such as small
font sizes is best we will continue to have the problems.
No, IE doesn't
I am on holiday between the 30th July and the 14th August. I will reply to your e-mail
as soon as possible on my return the following day.
Thank you for your understanding.
Jay Hills - Ikonik.net
(This is an automated response. Please do not reply to this e-mail as it will simply
send
-Original Message-
From: Patrick Lauke
From: Geoff Deering
[snip]
If you are designing for handheld you should be considering
display:none for
the none content columns, header and footer and just be using the link
element for prev, next, etc. Some sort of minimalist
-Original Message-
From: Andy Budd
Sent: Saturday, 31 July 2004 2:10 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WSG] Fixed vs flexible layouts
Some very interesting discussion point here.
I think the topic of fixed vs flexible layouts tends to cover a number
of areas
Geoff Deering wrote:
I'm quite sure that when the WCAG authors say absolute units they
are
talking about pixels. If my memory serves me correctly, they more or
less say this. Again, it's open to interpretation, but we all know
what
they're getting at, really.
No, that is not correct,
- Original Message -
From: Patrick Griffiths
[snip]
I don't see what the big deal is. You can just take a pixel-laden layout
and replace values with suitable ems values. Why isn't this realistic?
until we have fully supported scalable vectors, images will either not
resize
(changing
-Original Message-
From: Patrick Griffiths
Geoff Deering wrote:
I'm quite sure that when the WCAG authors say absolute units they
are
talking about pixels. If my memory serves me correctly, they more or
less say this. Again, it's open to interpretation, but we all know
what
24 matches
Mail list logo
