On 2011/01/20 08:19 (GMT-0600) Ian Jacobs composed:
Felix Miata wrote:
As the main site's CSS has recently changed, revisiting the issues
raised in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/site-comments/2009Nov/0048.html
and its progeny now seems appropriate.
Regarding the QA tip on setting a default font size: I have not
received feedback from many users that the site is unusable with the
current settings. I am merely reporting that fact, not concluding
anything from it.
I wouldn't expect you to have gotten _any_ feedback that the page is
UNusable. It's certainly better than the vast majority of web pages in that
its base font size is reduced from user defaults much less than average.
The QA tip articulates the principle (respect user prefs) and the
practical consideration. I am sorry that you think I am being
hypocritical in trying to document the situation as I understand it.
If you have suggestions for improving the tip so that people
understand the story fully, I can certainly try to improve the page.
To put it simply, the page says:
1-we recommend (100%)
2-we do something other than what we recommend (because we don't want to be
too different from most others; 108% of .82em = 88.56%)
If it was presented by some ordinary insignificant Joe Blow, it could be
shrugged off. But, W3 is an authoritative standards body, writing about a
subject under the umbrella of its reason for existence. What's there now is
hypocritical, not a good position for a standards body to be in. The only
things I can recommend:
1:Superior choice (be a best practices leader, set a good example):
A-do as you recommend
B-revert the page's content to its previous version
or
2:Inferior choice (be a follower):
A-retract the whole page
--
"How much better to get wisdom than gold, to choose
understanding rather than silver." Proverbs 16:16 NKJV
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
