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 ends of the spectrum (really large desktop sizes, really tiny handheld displays) which will need a complete rethink. As for "can I claim AA", I'd say the most pragmatic approach would be - and I know I keep banging on about it, but hear me out once more - to create separate stylesheets, a "designery" one (with fixed/elastic layout, pastel colours, small-ish font size, all that stuff) and a more accessible one (flexbile layout, higher contrast, slightly large font sizes, etc) and a clear, simple, and obviously accessible mechanism to switch between them. A bit like the "if you can't make it accessible, offer an accessible alternative" idea (and certainly a lot better than "text only" versions). And going back to the problem of extremes (ultra large/ultra small displays), I could envisage a few more stylesheets available..."lightweight" (which could also be set to media="handheld" for instance (if any of those little bleeders actually support/understand it), "widescreen", "tv" (again, couple with a media="tv" attribute)... (to muddy the waters further, there's also, in my mind, an issue of adapting the content itself to the context; if I'm using a browser on a small mobile phone and access, say, a cinema website, I don't care about the flash intro, the sections about the history of that particular company, etc...I'm just after a quick way to check times when movies are playing; the context is different, my purpose is different, and possibly the site should be different - maybe as a separate domain, or in any case showing a different view into the same data that is more tailored to that specific situation. heck, I'm digressing quite badly here) But yes, my personal opinion, worth about GBP0.02 or less :) Patrick ________________________________ Patrick H. Lauke Webmaster / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk > -----Original Message----- > From: Andy Budd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 30 July 2004 10:47 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [WSG] Fixed vs flexible layouts > > > Hi folks, > > Everybody has an opinion on fixed vs flexible layouts. Some people > prefer how fixed width sites look, and there is little doubt > that they > are easier to build. Others hate the whitespace around fixed width > designs, thinking they look ridiculous on large monitors. > > 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. > > Personal preferences aside, what "accessibility" problems to > people see > with fixed width layouts and what are the scale of these problems. > Could the same arguments hold true for "elastic layouts" > (layouts based > on ems) and do "flexible layouts" (those based on %) have their own > accessibility issues? > > Is it acceptable for the vast majority of fixed width CSS based sites > to claim AA compliance if all other priority 1 and 2 checkpoints are > met? > > Andy Budd > > http://www.message.uk.com/ > > ***************************************************** > The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ > See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > for some hints on posting to the list & getting help > ***************************************************** > > ***************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *****************************************************
