Like many people, I can't see that well. Although I doubt that anyone would disagree that I have superior ability to perceive gestures and symbols in photographs and videos, I have trouble reading small print. So when I arrive at a website with small print, I hit "command + =" until I can read comfortably. Usually, this works. Sometimes it makes everything get out of line and become completely unreadable. What kind of campaign makes a website that instantly repels those of us with vision problems? Such callous disregard for our needs!
I'm writing about this now because I went to Barack Obama's website to try to find the full text (or video) of that religion-hijacking speech I just wrote about. His website fragments into chaos when I use my "command + =" approach. So let's test all major candidates.
Barack Obama: F. (Utter chaos.)
Hillary Clinton: C. (The various boxes remain fixed, some but not all of the text enlarges, and some enlarged text falls below the bottom line of its box.)
John Edwards: A. (The boxes stay put, and all the text enlarges. Terribly ugly website though, with way too much emphasis on fund-raising. )
Rudy Giuliani: C. (Boxes stay fixed, some text enlarges, and text at the bottom overlaps with other text.)
John McCain: B+. (Nearly everything enlarges properly.)
Mitt Romney: B. (Things enlarge properly for the most part, but some words disappear under the boundaries. And let me add, though it's outside of the scope of this test, that I love the way the little figure of Mitt Romney strolls into the bottom right hand corner of the screen and starts haranguing me about what "some of our liberal friends" are doing.)
So which candidate cares most? Edwards! Least? Obama!
NOTE: I did this test on a MacBook, using both Safari and Firefox.