471,594 Members | 1,560 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post +

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 471,594 software developers and data experts.

font-size: 76.1%;

I am trying to make my style sheet as compatible as possible and I'm
getting a bit confused here.

I've read that the best size for font-size would be 76.1%; due to
shortcomings in the way both IE and Opera render that attribute.

Is this correct?

Nov 4 '07 #1
27 3079
rf

"1001 Webs" <10******@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@o3g2000hsb.googlegro ups.com...
>I am trying to make my style sheet as compatible as possible and I'm
getting a bit confused here.

I've read that the best size for font-size would be 76.1%; due to
shortcomings in the way both IE and Opera render that attribute.
You read the wrong thing.
Is this correct?
No, it is not.

Either specify font-size: 100% or specify nothing, that is leave font-size
out entirely. That way your viewer has the benifit of reading your page with
the font size *she* has chosen as best for *her*.

Read the archive for this and other newsgroups for more information.

--
Richard.
Nov 4 '07 #2
1001 Webs wrote:
I am trying to make my style sheet as compatible as possible and I'm
getting a bit confused here.
I don't understand why...
I've read that the best size for font-size would be 76.1%; due to
shortcomings in the way both IE and Opera render that attribute.

Is this correct?
No.

Please cite where you read that 76.1% is "best". Opera has no
shortcomings. IE, on the other hand, has lots of them. For example, if
you were to specify the body font in em units, when a user changes, for
example, from Medium to Larger, rather than getting an expected small
percentage in increase, IE *doubles* the size. Hence, comes the
recommendation to use
body { font-size: 100%; }

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Nov 4 '07 #3
On Nov 4, 1:32 pm, "rf" <r...@invalid.comwrote:
"1001 Webs" <1001w...@gmail.comwrote in message

news:11**********************@o3g2000hsb.googlegro ups.com...
I am trying to make my style sheet as compatible as possible and I'm
getting a bit confused here.
I've read that the best size for font-size would be 76.1%; due to
shortcomings in the way both IE and Opera render that attribute.

You read the wrong thing.
Is this correct?

No, it is not.

Either specify font-size: 100% or specify nothing, that is leave font-size
out entirely. That way your viewer has the benifit of reading your page with
the font size *she* has chosen as best for *her*.
Well , maybe *she* has not bother to choose was best for *her*,
because no one has ever told *her* that *she* could so.
Who are we talking about, anyway?
Read the archive for this and other newsgroups for more information.
I have, that's why I'm asking.
Perhaps you ought to do the same.

Nov 4 '07 #4
On Nov 4, 2:13 pm, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.nony.m...@example.invalidwrote:
1001 Webs wrote:
I am trying to make my style sheet as compatible as possible and I'm
getting a bit confused here.

I don't understand why...
I've read that the best size for font-size would be 76.1%; due to
shortcomings in the way both IE and Opera render that attribute.
Is this correct?

No.

Please cite where you read that 76.1% is "best".
Results 1 - 10 of about 11,500 for font-size: 76.1%.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...25&btnG=Search
Opera has no
shortcomings. IE, on the other hand, has lots of them. For example, if
you were to specify the body font in em units, when a user changes, for
example, from Medium to Larger, rather than getting an expected small
percentage in increase, IE *doubles* the size. Hence, comes the
recommendation to use
body { font-size: 100%; }
How about this?:

"As a general rule for best cross-browser consistancy, you need to do
a few of things for text resizer buttons to work well:

1. in the body tag, define a font size of 76%

Code:

body {
font-size:76%;
}
2. Define all font sizes in "em". This is a relative unit, for
example:

Code:

p {
font-size:1em;
}

Nov 4 '07 #5
On Nov 4, 2:25 pm, 1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail.comwrote:
On Nov 4, 2:13 pm, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"<a.nony.m...@example.invalidwrote:
1001 Webs wrote:
I am trying to make my style sheet as compatible as possible and I'm
getting a bit confused here.
I don't understand why...
I've read that the best size for font-size would be 76.1%; due to
shortcomings in the way both IE and Opera render that attribute.
Is this correct?
No.
Please cite where you read that 76.1% is "best".

Results 1 - 10 of about 11,500 for font-size: 76.1%.http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...25&btnG=Search
Opera has no
shortcomings. IE, on the other hand, has lots of them. For example, if
you were to specify the body font in em units, when a user changes, for
example, from Medium to Larger, rather than getting an expected small
percentage in increase, IE *doubles* the size. Hence, comes the
recommendation to use
body { font-size: 100%; }

How about this?:

"As a general rule for best cross-browser consistancy, you need to do
a few of things for text resizer buttons to work well:

1. in the body tag, define a font size of 76%

Code:

body {
font-size:76%;

}

2. Define all font sizes in "em". This is a relative unit, for
example:

Code:

p {
font-size:1em;

}
Or this:
/* reset the font sizes to the base font size that we want */
body {font-size : 100.01%;} /* For Stupid Opera */
body {font-size : 62.5%;} /* Resets 1em=10px: */
#outer-wrap {*font-size:101%;} /* For Stupid IE */
#inner-wrap {font-size:100%;}

http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/20...eset-reloaded/

Nov 4 '07 #6
1001 Webs wrote:
1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail.comwrote:
>"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>>Please cite where you read that 76.1% is "best".

Results 1 - 10 of about 11,500 for font-size: 76.1%.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...25&btnG=Search
Results 1 - 10 of about 7,300,000 for font-size: 100%
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...25&btnG=Search

Trumped.
>>Opera has no shortcomings. IE, on the other hand, has lots of them.
For example, if you were to specify the body font in em units, when
a user changes, for example, from Medium to Larger, rather than
getting an expected small percentage in increase, IE *doubles* the
size. Hence, comes the recommendation to use
body { font-size: 100%; }

How about this?:

"As a general rule for best cross-browser consistancy, you need to do
a few of things for text resizer buttons to work well:
Text resizer buttons are not necessary, if you use the visitor's chosen
size to start with. <shrug>

My ISP's former home page had those three-sized "A"'s to click on. The
associated style sheets were 62.5%, 76%, and 92%. All of which are
smaller than I prefer.
>1. in the body tag, define a font size of 76%

Code:

body {
font-size:76%;
}
Flyspecks.
>2. Define all font sizes in "em". This is a relative unit, for
example:
...except for the IE bug, using em would work. 1 of them.
Or this:
/* reset the font sizes to the base font size that we want */
body {font-size : 100.01%;} /* For Stupid Opera */
... older versions.
body {font-size : 62.5%;} /* Resets 1em=10px: */
... px size varies with resolution, monitor sizes, DPI settings, OSs.
#outer-wrap {*font-size:101%;} /* For Stupid IE */
... well, that's true.
#inner-wrap {font-size:100%;}

http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/20...eset-reloaded/
...which says: font-size: 100%; so I guess you agree?

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/fontsize.html

We could trade links all day. Why are you so recalcitrant about using
the visitor's chosen size?

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Nov 4 '07 #7
On Nov 4, 3:11 pm, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.nony.m...@example.invalidwrote:
1001 Webs wrote:
1001 Webs <1001w...@gmail.comwrote:
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
Please cite where you read that 76.1% is "best".
Results 1 - 10 of about 11,500 for font-size: 76.1%.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...25&btnG=Search

Results 1 - 10 of about 7,300,000 for font-size: 100%http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...25&btnG=Search

Trumped.
Not so.
Search for:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...pt&btnG=Search
and repeat it with different pt sizes and you come up with a higher
number of results.
>Opera has no shortcomings. IE, on the other hand, has lots of them.
For example, if you were to specify the body font in em units, when
a user changes, for example, from Medium to Larger, rather than
getting an expected small percentage in increase, IE *doubles* the
size. Hence, comes the recommendation to use
body { font-size: 100%; }
How about this?:
"As a general rule for best cross-browser consistancy, you need to do
a few of things for text resizer buttons to work well:

Text resizer buttons are not necessary, if you use the visitor's chosen
size to start with. <shrug>
You all keep talking about the "visitor's chosen size"
Are you referring to the visitor's default browser assigned size size
as well?
My ISP's former home page had those three-sized "A"'s to click on. The
associated style sheets were 62.5%, 76%, and 92%. All of which are
smaller than I prefer.
1. in the body tag, define a font size of 76%
Code:
body {
font-size:76%;
}

Flyspecks.
Uh?
2. Define all font sizes in "em". This is a relative unit, for
example:

..except for the IE bug, using em would work. 1 of them.
So, that's one of my doubts.
No ems then, to ensure IE compatibility, right?
Or this:
/* reset the font sizes to the base font size that we want */
body {font-size : 100.01%;} /* For Stupid Opera */

... older versions.
that have to be taken into account as well, I'm afraid, specially IE6
body {font-size : 62.5%;} /* Resets 1em=10px: */

... px size varies with resolution, monitor sizes, DPI settings, OSs.
#outer-wrap {*font-size:101%;} /* For Stupid IE */

... well, that's true.
ok
#inner-wrap {font-size:100%;}
http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/20...eset-reloaded/

..which says: font-size: 100%; so I guess you agree?
yep
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/fontsize.html

We could trade links all day. Why are you so recalcitrant about using
the visitor's chosen size?
Because when I use font-size: 100%; as the only directive my top row
grows too much
And the H1,2,3 don't look nice.
It doesn't happen with font-size:76%;

Nov 4 '07 #8
1001 Webs wrote:
On Nov 4, 3:11 pm, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.nony.m...@example.invalidwrote:
1001 Webs wrote:
We could trade links all day. Why are you so recalcitrant about
using
the visitor's chosen size?
Because when I use font-size: 100%; as the only directive my top row
grows too much
And the H1,2,3 don't look nice.
It doesn't happen with font-size:76%;
The answer you are going to get...

"You have a default text size setting on your browser too."

Nov 4 '07 #9
1001 Webs wrote:
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>Text resizer buttons are not necessary, if you use the visitor's chosen
size to start with. <shrug>

You all keep talking about the "visitor's chosen size" Are you
referring to the visitor's default browser assigned size size as
well?
One and the same. Some users are astute enough to set it to something
else, if the default is not comfortable for them. Others suffer. Still
others simply hit the back button when they arrive at a page they can't
read.
>Flyspecks.

Uh?
How big is a flyspeck? Tiny. Like 62.5%.
>..except for the IE bug, using em would work. 1 of them.
So, that's one of my doubts.
No ems then, to ensure IE compatibility, right?
You're catching on...
Because when I use font-size: 100%; as the only directive my top row
grows too much
And the H1,2,3 don't look nice.
So set them.
It doesn't happen with font-size:76%;
You didn't understand my page, whose link I have posted several times.
http://k75s.home.att.net/fontsize.html

<quote>
What to use in your style sheet

Here is a small sample of how you can assign flexible font sizing in
your own CSS style sheet:

body { font-size: 100%; }
h1 { font-size: 175%; } /* Adjust heading sizes as appropriate */
h2 { font-size: 150%; }
h3 { font-size: 135%; }
h4 { font-size: 125%; }
..legalese { font-size: 85%; } /* Footers and the "fine print" */
</quote>

...and with rare exception, you won't have to set any *other* sizes.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Nov 4 '07 #10
On Nov 4, 4:50 pm, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.nony.m...@example.invalidwrote:
1001 Webs wrote:
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
Text resizer buttons are not necessary, if you use the visitor's chosen
size to start with. <shrug>
You all keep talking about the "visitor's chosen size" Are you
referring to the visitor's default browser assigned size size as
well?

One and the same. Some users are astute enough to set it to something
else, if the default is not comfortable for them. Others suffer. Still
others simply hit the back button when they arrive at a page they can't
read.
Flyspecks.
Uh?

How big is a flyspeck? Tiny. Like 62.5%.
..except for the IE bug, using em would work. 1 of them.
So, that's one of my doubts.
No ems then, to ensure IE compatibility, right?

You're catching on...
Because when I use font-size: 100%; as the only directive my top row
grows too much
And the H1,2,3 don't look nice.

So set them.
Yep
It doesn't happen with font-size:76%;

You didn't understand my page, whose link I have posted several times.http://k75s.home.att.net/fontsize.html
font-family: sans-serif; /* u-pick, like strawberries :-) */
font-size: 101%;
It looks nice and clear.
And I haven't set my browser to use any fonts.
I'm going to copy it, Beauregard.
Please advise me of royalty issues :)
<quote>
What to use in your style sheet

Here is a small sample of how you can assign flexible font sizing in
your own CSS style sheet:

body { font-size: 100%; }
h1 { font-size: 175%; } /* Adjust heading sizes as appropriate */
h2 { font-size: 150%; }
h3 { font-size: 135%; }
h4 { font-size: 125%; }
.legalese { font-size: 85%; } /* Footers and the "fine print" */
</quote>

..and with rare exception, you won't have to set any *other* sizes.
Yes, yes and YES.

Thank you again.

How could I ever compensate you for this?

Nov 4 '07 #11
1001 Webs wrote:
Yes, yes and YES.
See? I didn't think you had read it.
Thank you again.

How could I ever compensate you for this?
How about coming through Upstate New York and buying steak dinners?

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Nov 4 '07 #12
On Nov 4, 5:13 pm, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.nony.m...@example.invalidwrote:
1001 Webs wrote:
Yes, yes and YES.

See? I didn't think you had read it.
Thank you again.
How could I ever compensate you for this?

How about coming through Upstate New York and buying steak dinners?
That's a deal, then.
We'll have to wait until I get some real income first, but that is
expected to happen in the first quarter of 2008.

P.D.
So you are not Indian after all, not a religious one at least ...

Nov 4 '07 #13
1001 Webs wrote:
On Nov 4, 5:13 pm, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.nony.m...@example.invalidwrote:
>1001 Webs wrote:
>>Yes, yes and YES.
See? I didn't think you had read it.
>>Thank you again.
How could I ever compensate you for this?
How about coming through Upstate New York and buying steak dinners?

That's a deal, then.
We'll have to wait until I get some real income first, but that is
expected to happen in the first quarter of 2008.

P.D.
So you are not Indian after all, not a religious one at least ...
Gee, I don't know...it seems like some site are improved with:

body { font-size: 1% !important; }

;-)

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Nov 4 '07 #14
Sun, 04 Nov 2007 12:23:30 -0000 from 1001 Webs <10******@gmail.com>:
I am trying to make my style sheet as compatible as possible and I'm
getting a bit confused here.
Yes, I'm afraid so. To begin with -- and I'm not just ragging on you
for your grammar - "as compatible as possible" doesn't mean anything.
You need to decide what you want to be compatible WITH. Internet
Explorer? Web standards? It can't be both, without a lot of extra
work.
I've read that the best size for font-size would be 76.1%; due to
shortcomings in the way both IE and Opera render that attribute.

Is this correct?
No, and really I think it should be obvious why. font-size:76.1%
means "Whatever size the visitor has decided is best, lop almost a
quarter off of that so that the type will be uncomfortably small."
That's wrong in *every* browser.

The 76.1% figure is suspiciously precise, though. Where did you get
this bit of bad advice?

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you
Nov 4 '07 #15
Sun, 04 Nov 2007 13:23:00 -0000 from 1001 Webs <10******@gmail.com>:
Well , maybe *she* has not bother to choose was best for *her*,
because no one has ever told *her* that *she* could so.
So you think that you know better than the visitor to your site what
is the best font size for her to read? Do you know her screen size
and resolution, what size window she has her browser open in, the
state of her eyesight, and so forth? I don't think so.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you
Nov 4 '07 #16
Sun, 04 Nov 2007 12:42:52 -0500 from Jonathan N. Little
<lw*****@centralva.net>:
Gee, I don't know...it seems like some site are improved with:

body { font-size: 1% !important; }
You forgot

color:#FFF; background-color:#FFF

:-)

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you
Nov 4 '07 #17
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 13:25:06 -0000, 1001 Webs <10******@gmail.com>
wrote:
I've read that the best size for font-size would be 76.1%; due to
shortcomings in the way both IE and Opera render that attribute.
Is this correct?
No.

You can of course find _examples_ on the web to support any crazy point
of view that you wish. We'd be more interested in seeing _why_ you or
they would argue in favour of this.

body { font-size : 100%; }

Nov 4 '07 #18
1001 Webs <10******@gmail.comwrites:
Because when I use font-size: 100%; as the only directive my top row
grows too much
And the H1,2,3 don't look nice.
If 100% is too big in *your browser*, then fix your browser, by setting
it to use a smaller default size.
It doesn't happen with font-size:76%;
It doesn't happen to *you*, because *your browser* is using a default size
that is far too large for you. To the many others whose browsers are already
configured to use the correct default size for their eyesight, monitor, etc.,
76% will result in text that's unacceptably small.

sherm--

--
WV News, Blogging, and Discussion: http://wv-www.com
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Nov 4 '07 #19
On 2007-11-04, Sherman Pendley wrote:
1001 Webs <10******@gmail.comwrites:
....
>It doesn't happen with font-size:76%;

It doesn't happen to *you*, because *your browser* is using a default size
that is far too large for you. To the many others whose browsers are already
configured to use the correct default size for their eyesight, monitor, etc.,
76% will result in text that's unacceptably small.
Many people set their browser defaults too large because of the
incredible number of sites that use ridiculously small font sizes
(like 76.1%).

What they should do is set a minimum font size in their browser
(this can be done in Firefox; I don't know about other browsers).
The small drawback is that you can lose the relative sizing when a
smaller font is appropriate (short phrases, legalese, footers,
etc.). On the other hand, it makes surfing the web a much more
pleasant experience without penalizing those who do a good job of
crating their sites.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Nov 4 '07 #20
1001 Webs wrote:
>
body {font-size : 100.01%;} /* For Stupid Opera */
That was an issue in a now ancient version of Opera. It hasn't been an
issue in several years now, but a kludge like that never should have
been done in the first place.

--
Berg
Nov 4 '07 #21
Stan Brown wrote:
Sun, 04 Nov 2007 12:42:52 -0500 from Jonathan N. Little
<lw*****@centralva.net>:
>Gee, I don't know...it seems like some site are improved with:

body { font-size: 1% !important; }

You forgot

color:#FFF; background-color:#FFF

:-)
Hell, why not make it complete!

body { display: none; }

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Nov 5 '07 #22
Stan Brown wrote:
Sun, 04 Nov 2007 12:42:52 -0500 from Jonathan N. Little
<lw*****@centralva.net>:
>Gee, I don't know...it seems like some site are improved with:

body { font-size: 1% !important; }

You forgot

color:#FFF; background-color:#FFF

:-)
Hey, I have something quite similar in my headers here. Take a peek. :)

--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
Nov 5 '07 #23
Blinky the Shark wrote:
Stan Brown wrote:
>Sun, 04 Nov 2007 12:42:52 -0500 from Jonathan N. Little
<lw*****@centralva.net>:
>>Gee, I don't know...it seems like some site are improved with:

body { font-size: 1% !important; }
You forgot

color:#FFF; background-color:#FFF

:-)

Hey, I have something quite similar in my headers here. Take a peek. :)
What you playing with the poor fools using WebTV? Now there's a service
that makes AOL look good!

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Nov 5 '07 #24
On Nov 5, 6:27 am, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@centralva.netwrote:
Blinky the Shark wrote:
Stan Brown wrote:
Sun, 04 Nov 2007 12:42:52 -0500 from Jonathan N. Little
<lws4...@centralva.net>:
>Gee, I don't know...it seems like some site are improved with:
>body { font-size: 1% !important; }
You forgot
color:#FFF; background-color:#FFF
:-)
Hey, I have something quite similar in my headers here. Take a peek. :)

What you playing with the poor fools using WebTV? Now there's a service
that makes AOL look good!

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIOhttp://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Hi,

Please let my know your opinion about this website that claims to
specialize in Section 508 standards and Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines (WCAG) 1.0.
When I look at your CSS style sheet I see this:

html, body{

margin: 0;

padding: 0;

font-size: 85%;

font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;

Does Section 508 standards and Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG) 1.0. approve of this kind of style sheet?

Thank you.

Nov 5 '07 #25
1001 Webs wrote:
On Nov 5, 6:27 am, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@centralva.netwrote:
>Blinky the Shark wrote:
>>Stan Brown wrote:
Sun, 04 Nov 2007 12:42:52 -0500 from Jonathan N. Little
<lws4...@centralva.net>:
Gee, I don't know...it seems like some site are improved with:
body { font-size: 1% !important; }
You forgot
color:#FFF; background-color:#FFF
:-)
Hey, I have something quite similar in my headers here. Take a peek. :)
What you playing with the poor fools using WebTV? Now there's a service
that makes AOL look good!
[Please learn to snip signatures]
Hi,

Please let my know your opinion about this website that claims to
specialize in Section 508 standards and Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines (WCAG) 1.0.
When I look at your CSS style sheet I see this:

html, body{

margin: 0;

padding: 0;

font-size: 85%;

font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;

Does Section 508 standards and Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
(WCAG) 1.0. approve of this kind of style sheet?
Who's stylesheet? Not *mine*!

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Nov 5 '07 #26
Scripsit 1001 Webs:
>Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIOhttp://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Please continue the clueless quotation style, quoting even sigs, as long as
you remain clueless. Also please continue using a fake name as long as your
message content is fake. Thank you in advance.
Please let my know your opinion about this website that claims to
specialize in Section 508 standards and Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines (WCAG) 1.0.
They are all false claims. I don't have to look at the site to know that it
fails to comply with those criteria, as the WCAG 1.0 guidelines themselves
do. They don't use the simplest possible language, to begin with.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Nov 6 '07 #27
On Nov 6, 8:05 pm, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorp...@cs.tut.fiwrote:
Scripsit 1001 Webs:
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIOhttp://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Please continue the clueless quotation style, quoting even sigs, as long as
you remain clueless. Also please continue using a fake name as long as your
message content is fake. Thank you in advance.
Are you talking about me?
I've been told many times about "clueless quotation style" and things
like that.
Apparently some newsreaders have difficulties reading messages posted
from the web.

And about using a fake name, I believe it should rather be defined as
a nick name.

Please let my know your opinion about this website that claims to
specialize in Section 508 standards and Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines (WCAG) 1.0.

They are all false claims. I don't have to look at the site to know that it
fails to comply with those criteria, as the WCAG 1.0 guidelines themselves
do. They don't use the simplest possible language, to begin with.
I see ...
Thanks in retrospect for your valuable opinion.

Nov 6 '07 #28

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

1 post views Thread by Justin Van Patten | last post: by
10 posts views Thread by Richard R Plourde | last post: by
3 posts views Thread by Barry Anderberg | last post: by
3 posts views Thread by Wim | last post: by
3 posts views Thread by pnp | last post: by
1 post views Thread by Henry Jones | last post: by
16 posts views Thread by carlbernardi | last post: by
reply views Thread by XIAOLAOHU | last post: by
reply views Thread by Anwar ali | last post: by

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.