|
|
Posted by Chris F.A. Johnson on 12/10/06 08:23
On 2006-12-10, Neredbojias wrote:
> To further the education of mankind, Ed Seedhouse <eseedhouse@shaw.ca>
> vouchsafed:
>
>> What about people who don't see so well and have to enlarge your
>> fonts? What happens to your fixed width sites on a few size increases?
>
> Ya know, I've heard that many times. And I am definitely an anti-fixed-
> width/pro-fluid website fan. However, the though occurs to me it isn't
> really a valid argument. What about people who see poorly and want to read
> a book? Sure, they can buy a large-text version (if and when it's
> available, which is hardly always) or acquired an aural edition, but
> neither of these comes packaged with the normal, everyday version.
Why would you want to debilitate web pages when they can remove the
problem? I now have to remove my glasses and hold a book very close
to my eyes in order to read it (and I still read several books per
week). It's not comfortable, and I only do it in bed. Why would you
want to make web pages as difficult to read when the concept makes
them flexible and legible to anyone?
> While I agree that fixed-width sites should be avoided (both meanings),
> sight impairment has less to do with it than site impairment.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|