Lost 'bold' effect on link
Josiah Jenkins
from c.i.www.a.h when I was looking for help some months back),
I've just worked my way through around a year's worth of posts.
Amongst the many snippets of useful info I found was :
Dust_Me selectors for Firefox, which I've now installed, run in
spider mode and have removed the unused selectors.
I don't know whether it's related to this or I changed something
previously, and didn't notice this at the time, but the text in the
header of my page (it's a link) used to go bold on a mouseover . . .
not now.
How do I restore the effect ?
Line 147 in the css (unchanged)
.headline {
font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;
color: #000000;
font-size: 24pt;
font-weight: bold;
font-style: oblique;
letter-spacing: 1px;
word-spacing: 3px;
padding-top: 20px;
padding-left:150px;
}
And the URL : http://www.ian-stewart.eu/
All the 'deleted' selectors are at the bottom of the stylesheet
(commented out) if that's of any help.
Obliged for any assistance.
PS. I confess to having started off with a 3-panel template,
http://www.freecsstemplates.org/preview/baseline, and have
hacked it to bits to get to what I have to-day, hence all the
unused selectors (25) which were floating about.
I know, I know, I did it the wrong way round !
--
dorayme
Josiah Jenkins <josiah-jenkins@somewhere_else.invalid> wrote:
> Having just found this ng (although I recognise many of the names
> from c.i.www.a.h when I was looking for help some months back),
> I've just worked my way through around a year's worth of posts.
>
> Amongst the many snippets of useful info I found was :
> Dust_Me selectors for Firefox, which I've now installed, run in
> spider mode and have removed the unused selectors.
>
> I don't know whether it's related to this or I changed something
> previously, and didn't notice this at the time, but the text in the
> header of my page (it's a link) used to go bold on a mouseover . . .
> not now.
>
> How do I restore the effect ?
Put your hover after your visited.
--
dorayme
Josiah Jenkins
<dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>In article <2u59g5l4k2cdg221o...@4ax.com>,
> Josiah Jenkins <josiah-jenkins@somewhere_else.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>> . . . the text in the header of my page (it's a link) used to go bold
>> on a mouseover . . . not now.
>>
>> How do I restore the effect ?
>
>Put your hover after your visited.
As easy as that ?
Thank you.
Strange thing is that the sidebar menu links were working as
I wanted and the sequence was also : link, hover, visited.
Which now begs another question, I've just noticed that
there were two almost identical entries in the css.
On Line 101 and Line 292
One had : font-size: 90%; which I seem to recall I reduced
from 100% to get the sidebar text to fit within the column.
I've removed one of these and everything still appeared to be
OK here on my machine. (I've got wamp server installed to
check pages when I've no Internet connection)
And I suddenly realised that I could increase the font-size from
13pt to 15pt for the tables.
I might be starting to finally get my head around this !
(It's a *very* old head !)
I've now uploaded (and validated) the revised css.
The page at : http://www.ian-stewart.eu/irs_freeware.php
shows the revisions.
Thanks again for the help.
--
C A Upsdell
> I don't know whether it's related to this or I changed something
> previously, and didn't notice this at the time, but the text in the
> header of my page (it's a link) used to go bold on a mouseover . . .
> not now.
You may want to rethink making the text become bold on :hover. The CSS
specification says:
"User agents are not required to reflow a currently displayed document
due to pseudo-class transitions. For instance, a style sheet may specify
that the 'font-size' of an :active link should be larger than that of an
inactive link, but since this may cause letters to change position when
the reader selects the link, a UA may ignore the corresponding style rule."
The browser may therefore legitimately decline to make the text bold on
:hover.
Changing the colour and/or adding an underline on :hover would be better.
dorayme
Josiah Jenkins <josiah-jenkins@somewhere_else.invalid> wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:15:25 +1100, dorayme
> <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >In article <2u59g5l4k2cdg221o...@4ax.com>,
> > Josiah Jenkins <josiah-jenkins@somewhere_else.invalid> wrote:
> >
> <sniP
> >
> >> . . . the text in the header of my page (it's a link) used to go bold
> >> on a mouseover . . . not now.
> >>
> >> How do I restore the effect ?
> >
> >Put your hover after your visited.
>
> As easy as that ?
>
> Thank you.
>
I agree with C A Upsdell about the advisability of doing this. The text
can 'jump about' to accommodate a bigger text object for bold. The
trouble with bigger things suddenly happening is that they can affect
other things to move aside to accommodate and it then becomes a bit too
much of an effect! (For what it is worth, I tend to use a simple change
of colour, I am a sucker for blue for link, red for hover and green for
active, please don't tell anyone, just a little private quirk).
> Strange thing is that the sidebar menu links were working as
> I wanted and the sequence was also : link, hover, visited.
>
> Which now begs another question, I've just noticed that
> there were two almost identical entries in the css.
> On Line 101 and Line 292
>
What happens with some CSS sheets is that they grow by trial and error.
Something does not work so something is repeated lower down so it
overrules something after the original instance and the original is
meant to be deleted to see if there is yet other effects but someone
either forgot or tried to play it "safe" now that things were happening
as wanted there and then.
> One had : font-size: 90%; which I seem to recall I reduced
> from 100% to get the sidebar text to fit within the column.
>
> I've removed one of these and everything still appeared to be
> OK here on my machine. (I've got wamp server installed to
> check pages when I've no Internet connection)
>
> And I suddenly realised that I could increase the font-size from
> 13pt to 15pt for the tables.
>
Best to get rid of all those units for font-size. Use em or %, pts are
for printing and do not relate to screens in useful ways for authors.
> I might be starting to finally get my head around this !
> (It's a *very* old head !)
>
> I've now uploaded (and validated) the revised css.
> The page at : http://www.ian-stewart.eu/irs_freeware.php
> shows the revisions.
>
- Some remarks that might be useful to you in the long run, (no
particular order)
- You might google up for issues to do with Verdana ("problems with
Verdana" or some such phrase)
- The problem with
* {
margin: 0;
padding: 0;
}
is that you then have to make sure you set all relevant margins and
paddings. You have to wonder a bit whether this is worth it. Perhaps the
more modest
body {margin: 0;...} might suffice.
- Best not to use px for font-sizes, one reason being that some browsers
make it then very hard for a user to up the text to suit the users
eyesight.
- You don't have to put in things like:
font-weight: bold;
font-style: normal;
for heading elements because they are generally taken care of by
browser's default style sheets. But it depends on how much you want to
nail down. There is wisdom in doing as little as possible and treading
lightly, others have provided for you. These sorts of things can help
reduce bloat and make it easier to troubleshoot.
--
dorayme
Ben C
> Josiah Jenkins wrote:
>> I don't know whether it's related to this or I changed something
>> previously, and didn't notice this at the time, but the text in the
>> header of my page (it's a link) used to go bold on a mouseover . . .
>> not now.
>
> You may want to rethink making the text become bold on :hover. The CSS
> specification says:
>
> "User agents are not required to reflow a currently displayed document
> due to pseudo-class transitions. For instance, a style sheet may specify
> that the 'font-size' of an :active link should be larger than that of an
> inactive link, but since this may cause letters to change position when
> the reader selects the link, a UA may ignore the corresponding style rule."
>
Is that in CSS2.1 or CSS2?
C A Upsdell
2.1, section 5.11.3.
Josiah Jenkins
<dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Josiah Jenkins <josiah-jenkins@somewhere_else.invalid> wrote:
>> <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> > Josiah Jenkins <josiah-jenkins@somewhere_else.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> <sniP
>> >
>> >> . . . the text in the header of my page (it's a link) used to go bold
>> >> on a mouseover . . . not now.
>> >
>
>can 'jump about' to accommodate a bigger text object for bold. The
>trouble with bigger things suddenly happening is that they can affect
>other things to move aside to accommodate and it then becomes a bit too
>much of an effect!
That's what was happening on the sidebar initially. I didn't want to
increase the width but reducing the font by 10% cured the problem.
But I've taken on-board what he says about a browser declining to
display the effect and changed "stuff".
>
>Best to get rid of all those units for font-size. Use em or %, pts are
>for printing and do not relate to screens in useful ways for authors.
That's one of the next jobs to tackle. From what I've read, and if I
understand this correctly . . . use pixels for images, percentages for
columns in tables and use 'em' for defining font-size, margins and
borders ?
Is my understanding correct ?
After that I'll look into this 'Flexible' layout thingie !
>
>- Some remarks that might be useful to you in the long run, (no
>particular order)
Always appreciated !
>
>- You might google up for issues to do with Verdana ("problems with
>Verdana" or some such phrase)
Found a nice clear explanation on a page by a Stephen Poley.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
>
>- The problem with
>
>* {
> margin: 0;
> padding: 0;
>}
>
>is that you then have to make sure you set all relevant margins and
>paddings. You have to wonder a bit whether this is worth it. Perhaps the
>more modest
>
>body {margin: 0;...} might suffice.
Mmmm, tried that and it messed up the alignment of text, search box
and button in the header. Think I'll leave that one for the time being
and concentrate on sorting out the fonts.
>
>- Best not to use px for font-sizes, one reason being that some browsers
>make it then very hard for a user to up the text to suit the users
>eyesight.
I've now got a conversion chart here, I'll go through the css and
change all the font-sizes to 'em' and then see what needs 'tweaked'.
>
>- You don't have to put in things like:
>
>font-weight: bold;
>font-style: normal;
>
>for heading elements because they are generally taken care of by
>browser's default style sheets. But it depends on how much you want to
>nail down.
You'll see that my css is scattered with comments and there are
several selectors which have 'zero' values. Most of them really only
to help me keep track of what's what.
>
>There is wisdom in doing as little as possible and treading
>lightly, others have provided for you. These sorts of things can help
>reduce bloat and make it easier to troubleshoot.
Thanks for the input, it's appreciated.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson
...
> - You might google up for issues to do with Verdana ("problems with
> Verdana" or some such phrase)
There is no problem with Verdana. It is slightly larger than
Helvetica/Arial, which is considerably larger than most serif
faces.
There is only a problem when it is given a font-size less than
100%, and that is a problem with *any* font.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Pro Bash Programming: Scripting the GNU/Linux Shell (2009, Apress)
Josiah Jenkins
wrote:
>Josiah Jenkins wrote:
>
>You may want to rethink making the text become bold on :hover.
>The CSS specification says:
>
>
>The browser may therefore legitimately decline to make the text bold on
>:hover.
Aaah, back to the, 'you can't force users to see what *you* want' ?
>
>Changing the colour
The colours did change previously but I've changed them again to
get better contrast.
>
>and/or adding an underline on :hover would be better.
What about using the old Netscape <blink> ?
Only joking !!!
I've used 'underline'.
Thanks for the help.
--
dorayme
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2009-11-19, dorayme wrote:
> ...
> > - You might google up for issues to do with Verdana ("problems with
> > Verdana" or some such phrase)
>
> There is no problem with Verdana. It is slightly larger than
> Helvetica/Arial, which is considerably larger than most serif
> faces.
>
> There is only a problem when it is given a font-size less than
> 100%, and that is a problem with *any* font.
A climate change skeptic in the Australian federal parliament this week
was keen to point out that CO2 is not a poison. Me, I just think of the
higher principle: everything has its place.
--
dorayme
David Stone
dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> In article <7mldp9F...@mid.individual.net>,
> "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2009-11-19, dorayme wrote:
> > ...
> > > - You might google up for issues to do with Verdana ("problems with
> > > Verdana" or some such phrase)
> >
> > There is no problem with Verdana. It is slightly larger than
> > Helvetica/Arial, which is considerably larger than most serif
> > faces.
> >
> > There is only a problem when it is given a font-size less than
> > 100%, and that is a problem with *any* font.
>
> A climate change skeptic in the Australian federal parliament this week
> was keen to point out that CO2 is not a poison.
Then they are an idiot, for two reasons:
(1) It's not about the toxicity but the ability to trap heat
(2) You can suffocate if the CO2 levels are high enough
- remember Apollo 13?
dorayme
David Stone <no.e...@domain.invalid> wrote:
Yes, right enough, but I hope you got the point I was making...
--
dorayme
Ben C
I don't know what point he was making, but it is easy to lose
perspective. If you're planning on spewing a lot of stuff out of a
chimney or something, it doesn't get much more harmless than CO2.
One problem with all the hysteria about CO2 is you may get worse
pollution from the alternatives. Tax carbon enough and nuclear power
will become economical ahead of its time.
Now I like nuclear power, but it does demand a certain level of
responsibility, which things can easily lose once they become
economical.
dorayme
Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote:
> >> > There is only a problem when it is given a font-size less than
> >> > 100%, and that is a problem with *any* font.
> >>
> >> A climate change skeptic in the Australian federal parliament this week
> >> was keen to point out that CO2 is not a poison.
> >
> I don't know what point he was making,
A bit less than 100% for Verdana is less of a problem than for many
other fonts. So it is not quite true that the very same problem exists
for *any* font. One notable problem, perhaps the only real one, is that
if you set a font-size for Verdana less than 100% and someone does not
have Verdana on their machine, they will probably get a font that is
naturally smaller than Verdana and so less than 100% can *more* easily
trip them into having reading difficulties.
Let's put this in another way: There *are* problems with all texts set
too small to read - obviously! It is a constant phenomenon and does not
depend on Verdana being in the equation at all. But if Verdana is in the
equation, then there is a particular danger because Verdana is not only
a bit bigger to start with than many other fonts but is also a bit
better designed to be read at smaller sizes than some other fonts. If
Verdana is in the author's mind when setting a size less than 100%, he
is likely not imagining or testing for when some other naturally smaller
font is fell back upon when the user does not have Verdana.
In other words, to put it simply, there is a special sort of problem
with Verdana.
So too with the CO2 being produced on earth lately. It has not been a
problem for billions of years. But it is now. In a particular situation,
it is a problem. Never mind some very narrow technical definition of
"poison", it is a very bad gas to have in some quantities for many
living things in certain circumstances. That it is not a bad gas in
other "normal" situations does not change this fact. Pointing out that
it is not bad normally might well distract people from the fact that in
some special circumstances it is very bad. Pointing out that all text
that is less than 100% is a problem could similarly distract from what
is particularly pertinent to the problem with Verdana.
--
dorayme
Ben C
I see, I think I follow the logic.
Verdana is rather big which makes setting small font sizes even worse
than it would be in a world without Verdana.
We're all doomed because of global warming, so that makes CO2 even worse
than it would be in a world without global warming.
Just saying small fonts are bad is like saying CO2 is bad-- neither is
bad per se, well not that bad anyway (small fonts are probably worse
than CO2 on their own merits)-- but this distracts from the contexts
that make them really bad in practice: Verdana and the Apocalypse.
dorayme
Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote:
> On 2009-11-21, dorayme <dorayme...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > In article <slrnhgfd59....@bowser.marioworld>,
> > Ben C <spam...@spam.eggs> wrote:
> >
> >> >> > There is only a problem when it is given a font-size less than
> >> >> > 100%, and that is a problem with *any* font.
> >> >>
> >> >> A climate change skeptic in the Australian federal parliament this week
> >> >> was keen to point out that CO2 is not a poison.
> >> >
> >
> >> I don't know what point he was making,
> >
> > [...fast talking ...]
> I see, I think I follow the logic.
>
I do admit that the sudden leaps my brain makes sometimes require
serious post-leap fast-talking to justify. My brain seems not to
understand that analogies are best made clear and transparent and
helpful rather than convoluted and opaque to outsiders.
> Verdana is rather big which makes setting small font sizes even worse
> than it would be in a world without Verdana.
>
> We're all doomed because of global warming, so that makes CO2 even worse
> than it would be in a world without global warming.
>
> Just saying small fonts are bad is like saying CO2 is bad-- neither is
> bad per se, well not that bad anyway (small fonts are probably worse
> than CO2 on their own merits)-- but this distracts from the contexts
> that make them really bad in practice: Verdana and the Apocalypse.
It brings a little tear to my eye how you can understand me - yes,
Verdana and the Apocalypse is at the heart of the matter. I might have
to hire you from now on for my communications with earthlings.
--
dorayme