1

WCAG 2.0 说：

(1.4.4) 调整文本大小：除了文本的标题和图像外，无需辅助技术即可将文本大小调整到 200%，而不会丢失内容或功能。（AA级）

并详细说明：

内容的缩放主要是用户代理的责任。

和：

作者的职责是创建不妨碍用户代理有效扩展内容的 Web 内容。

Internet Explorer 的“文本大小”选项不会调整使用基于像素的字体大小编码的文本大小。因此，为了符合可访问性指南，我们的作者传统上避免在 CSS 中使用基于像素的字体大小，而是选择了更困难的基于 em 的字体大小。

但从第 7 版开始，Internet Explorer 提供了另一种增加文本大小的方法——“缩放”选项——它适用于基于像素的字体大小。

当浏览器设置中有替代的“缩放”功能时，我是否有法律义务继续支持 IE 的文本大小功能？

WCAG 2 继续说：

如果作者使用其用户代理不提供缩放支持的技术，则作者负责直接提供此类功能或提供与用户代理提供的功能类型一起使用的内容。

根据用户统计，我不再支持 IE6。这对答案有影响吗？就此而言，我不再支持 IE 3 或 Netscape 1，但这些浏览器似乎不是问题。

感谢您的回复。你所说的一切我都同意，但我认为我的问题的症结已经丢失，所以让我们添加一些上下文。

我在一个已经存在十多年的大型企业网站上工作，有数万页，数百个不同大小的 CSS 文件（是的，我们知道）和以像素为单位设置的字体大小（我们再次知道）

像素字体意味着 IE（甚至 IE10）中的“文本大小”浏览器设置不会调整文本大小。正如 Robooneus 所说，ems 将继承浏览器字体大小设置并且是更好的选择，但像素不会。

因此，任何需要更大文本才能访问我们服务的用户，使用任何版本的 IE，将无法使用“文本大小”设置增加字体大小，但可以缩放页面如果他们有 IE7 或更高版本。

Am I legally obliged to continue to support IE's Text Size feature when there is an alternative 'Zoom' feature in the browser settings? For example, a user may be restricted to using an old browser such as IE6, or may not want to zoom the page beyond the size of the screen.

4

1 回答 1

2

Will expand the comment a bit as an answer so we can maybe get some discussion on it for the question:

No, you probably shouldn't worry about using ems just to satisfy IE6. There is basically no reason to support this browser anymore unless you are building something targeted at a very specific user set. For example: business clients that require employees to use only IE6 on company computers.

At its latest, IE6 isn't even at half of a percent

However, you should be using ems anyway. They are more flexible and just make more sense. Chris Coyier explains it way better than I can here, so read on to find out: Why Ems? (CSS-Tricks)

EDIT:

In response to the edits/clarification that you have made, it seems like a question eithernot suited to stackoverflow (i.e. more legal than technical), or something which we don't quite have enough information to answer (likely both).

In terms of whether or not you are legally obliged to do so, that is likely something that requires even more context. I speak from a non-expert standpoint, but I would say that, at least in the US, you are (probably) not legally obliged to support a specific browser as a private business. If you are a government entity, that gets a little more complicated. If the company is based on (or perhaps even conducts a large amount of business in) another country, I can't really say much. It is probable that, in a majority of the EU countries (I can only really speak with any knowledge about Germany), the same would hold true.

If we assume the site is for a government entity or is heavily funded by the government (having said that for private entities you should not legally be obliged), the next question would be about what sort of service the company provides via the website. If it is something that you are legally obliged to allow all citizens easy access to, then you might need to worry. But, even then, I doubt there is really any issue as the service would also then be required to be accessible through a non-internet channel.

I am guessing that the question is more something like "For the website of a (large) private business, am I subject to claims of discrimination if I do not include this feature?" Or am I still missing the context? I would say that the answer is, pretty definitely, no. But I don't actually have a legally informed answer.

I hope anyone with more knowledge will edit or comment on this with more information.

于 2013-07-26T10:48:39.073 回答