font-size: 76.1%;

On Nov 5, 6:27 am, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4... (AT) centralva (DOT) net> wrote:

Blinky the Shark wrote:
Stan Brown wrote:
Sun, 04 Nov 2007 12:42:52 -0500 from Jonathan N. Little
lws4... (AT) centralva (DOT) 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.

1001 Webs wrote:

On Nov 5, 6:27 am, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4... (AT) centralva (DOT) net> wrote:
Blinky the Shark wrote:
Stan Brown wrote:
Sun, 04 Nov 2007 12:42:52 -0500 from Jonathan N. Little
lws4... (AT) centralva (DOT) 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

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/

On Nov 6, 8:05 pm, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorp... (AT) cs (DOT) tut.fi> wrote:

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.