[www.kde.org] [Bug 317553] www.kde.org webpages should not set font-size of unstyled body text and should comply with 100% Easy-2-Read Std
browserbugs at gtalbot.org
Sat Mar 30 17:40:34 UTC 2013
--- Comment #6 from Gérard Talbot <browserbugs at gtalbot.org> ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> First, it is a lie that your first link doesn't provide a font-size to its
> body or paragraphs.
This may be an honest mistake on my part. Such mistake does not per se
invalidate this bug report.
> It does set some rem based font size.
Unstyled body text at
appears to be specified as
at line 418 of
border-top: 0.14286em solid black;
padding: 2.90476em 0 3.04762em 0;
font-family: "iABCRegular", Georgia, serif;
/* Stops Mobile Safari from auto-adjusting font-sizes */
/* improves the text rendering in more recents browsers */
text-rendering: optimizeLegibility; }
On my system, at
p's font-size is computed as 21px... which is a bit too big for me.
1.3125 mult by 16px == 21px
> Second, notice the difference between the links you provided and what the
> KDE websites drive. A single column, no functions, no nothing, plain simple
> html page.
It's not so simple html page. As an expert in the field of CSS, I would not say
it is a "plain simple"
> This is very well done, if you have nothing more than just some
> texts, followed hierarchically.
> But it tends to break when you try to do complex layouts in a lot of
> different CMS. And that is the situation with KDE, we have a lot of them,
> and a lot of functionality that needs to be put somewhere, e.g. sidebars,
> horizontal bars, buttons, boxes etc.
Ingo, I undertstand what you're saying. But this may be caused by different
issues like: overcoding, side effects of declarations, misunderstanding how
some CSS properties work or do, etc...
And I am telling you that I see several errors and mistakes with regards to
HTML coding, CSS coding in those kde.org webpages.
> Now imagine how hard it will get when
> you just try to strike out any font declaration. Bad idea, especially
> considering, users favourites are something between 6px and 20px...
> Then, the referenced page from www.kde.org does use an old theme, which is
> no longer maintained. The newer themes use an em/rem approach, which is far
> more flexible regarding dimensions.
Where is that old theme? Where are those newer themes?
> Another point, we do use a specific font (on the new themes). We do so
> because we believe it is the most readable font, not only aesthetically
> pleasing. This of course removes the choice from the user, but for good
bug 53484 (user setting possibility to use only one specified font for each
generic font: sans-serif, serif, fixed, ...) somehow contradicts such
specific-font-for-each-theme policy. But anyway, this is a different matter.
> So, all in all, valid points you raise, the maintenance horror overweighs
Maintenance horror: people tend to over-code, over-declare, over-style, add
more containers instead of reducing code and using/relying on browser defaults.
This is a very frequently seen tendency on the web. There is such a thing as
over-excessively coding and over-excessively declaring when one of the main
goal and advantages of CSS was, in its design, to reduce code, reduce
declarations, relying on inheritance.
> This is no screenreader blogpage, this is a set of around a dozen
> different CMS that need to be themed and work properly.
> Oh, and i know the forum post, we have discussed there before. Rejected
That is not how I recall our KDE forum thread discussion. Basically, there was
a new theme being developped and I was too busy to get involved at that time.
But I nevertheless reported a lot of inappropriate, inaccurate HTML code.
> , rejected here. Any other accessibility request is welcome.
Isn't rejecting this bug a bit premature? What's the reason for wontfix-ing
this bug report?
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
More information about the kde-www