handling multi browser font sizes
J
similar to this:
"font: bold 9pt/100% sans-serif
Warning: Absolute length units should not generally be used on the Web ..."
Yet if I use 'x-small' instead of 9pt, I get bigger type on IE6 and smaller
type on
Mozilla. My choices seem to be:
1. keep the absolute 9pt setting in order to maintain a much more consistent
display between browsers (and break the spirit of the stylesheets)
2. use 'x-small' and live with the different display results (yet be
compatible with
user defined stylesheets, and other output media).
Is that it?
Andrew Thompson
news:400d5ab6$0$43853$39ce...@news.twtelecom.net...
..
| 2. use 'x-small' and live with the different display results
(yet be
| compatible with
| user defined stylesheets, and other output media).
It is not you, but your users who have
to put up with it. They will set fonts
to a size of their own choosing if you
do not stuff them up by specifying
fonts in pixels.
For the sake of useability, you should
never specify fonts in pixels..
--
Andrew Thompson
* http://www.PhySci.org/ PhySci software suite
* http://www.1point1C.org/ 1.1C - Superluminal!
* http://www.AThompson.info/andrew/ personal site
Harlan Messinger
> similar to this:
>
> "font: bold 9pt/100% sans-serif
>
> Warning: Absolute length units should not generally be used on the Web
..."
>
> Yet if I use 'x-small' instead of 9pt, I get bigger type on IE6 and
smaller
> type on
> Mozilla. My choices seem to be:
>
> 1. keep the absolute 9pt setting in order to maintain a much more
consistent
> display between browsers (and break the spirit of the stylesheets)
Theoretically, it's not your job to assure absolute consistency among the
browsers. It's up to the browsers to decide what base size to use for text
they display. If a user doesn't like his browser's default, then he can use
the browser's mechanism for increasing or decreasing the text size. If he
prefers the way pages look in a different browser, then he'll use a
different browser. Life is just too short, unless the demand for consistency
comes from your customer and you're getting paid by the hour.
Having said that, I think it's reasonable to specify a font size from within
a range. Larger text is more open, more friendly; smaller text is more
formal, more serious, and makes better use of the available space. Moreover,
if I set
body { font-size: 100%; sans-serif; }
then the text seems ridiculously large to me in ALL the graphical browsers.
So if my general body text is to be sans-serif, then I'm inclined to use
font-size of 80%-90%. For serif, 90%-100%. Hmm, using "small" instead of
percentages, I seem to get decent results with both serif and
sans-serif--and I find x-small much too small in all browsers.
kaeli
@bigNOSPAMpond.com enlightened us with...
> "J" <sorry...@nobody.com> wrote in message
> news:400d5ab6$0$43853$39ce...@news.twtelecom.net...
> ..
> | 2. use 'x-small' and live with the different display results
> (yet be
> | compatible with
> | user defined stylesheets, and other output media).
>
> It is not you, but your users who have
> to put up with it. They will set fonts
> to a size of their own choosing if you
> do not stuff them up by specifying
> fonts in pixels.
>
> For the sake of useability, you should
> never specify fonts in pixels..
>
You know, no one told me that (nor did I see it in the beginner's sites
I was using at the time) when I started out with web design (personal
sites).
I found out quite some time later that when I specified font in pixels,
trying to up the size in the browser did nothing.
I immediately changed all my sizes to small, medium, etc.
So, add my opinion to this one - don't use pixels. It's mean to normal
users and downright awful to visually impaired people.
It is not your job to worry about how the browser renders those sizes -
because if you specify them in relative terms like percents or small,
medium, etc, the user can easily change the size if they find it too
small. They can't do that if you use pixels.
--
--
~kaeli~
A man's home is his castle..., in a manor of speaking.
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace
Philipp Lenssen
> I've run CSSCheck on my style sheets and I always get a warning
> similar to this:
>
> "font: bold 9pt/100% sans-serif
>
Unit "pt" is for print, not Web (as opposed to "px"). On the web you
better keep the font-sizes to the default size. Why would you want to
decrease that? It's one if not _the_ biggest accessibility issue on
today's Web and you want to repeat it? If it's something like a
footnote, try "90%" and the like.
Darin McGrew
> I've run CSSCheck on my style sheets and I always get a warning
> similar to this:
>
> "font: bold 9pt/100% sans-serif
>
> Warning: Absolute length units should not generally be used on the Web ..."
That is correct. See also http://css.nu/faq/ciwas-aFAQ.html#QA02
> Yet if I use 'x-small' instead of 9pt, I get bigger type on IE6 and smaller
> type on
> Mozilla. My choices seem to be:
>
> 1. keep the absolute 9pt setting in order to maintain a much more consistent
> display between browsers (and break the spirit of the stylesheets)
Why is consistency an issue? Who (besides you) will view your site with
more than one browser? And of the few who do view your site with more than
one browser, how many will care if the presentation is different?
And FWIW, 9pt is smaller than the minimum font size I've configured my
browser to use.
> 2. use 'x-small' and live with the different display results (yet be
> compatible with
> user defined stylesheets, and other output media).
That's going to be a size or two smaller than the browser's normal font
size, which is appropriate only for legalese and similar fine print that
the reader can safely ignore.
> Is that it?
You could use percentages to specify fonts relative to the browser's normal
font size. I've read that this generally produces better results than using
the keywords (xx-small through xx-large).
Or you could leave the font size alone, which is a very good idea for
normal body text anyway.
--
Darin McGrew, mcg...@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da...@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/
"Good teachers are costly. Bad teachers cost more." - Bob Talbert
Brian
>
> It is not your job to worry about how the browser renders those
> sizes - because if you specify them in relative terms like percents
> or small, medium, etc, the user can easily change the size if they
> find it too small.
And if you don't specify any size for body text (body, p, li, etc),
then the user likely won't have to change the size of the text. And if
they do need to change it, their changes will work on every properly
authored site without breaking anything on badly designed ones.
> They can't do that if you use pixels.
Sure. So use percent when you specify e.g. headings. But leave the
body text alone, and it's irrelvant.
--
Brian (follow directions in my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Brian
>
> Theoretically, it's not your job to assure absolute consistency
> among the browsers.
And practically, it's not possible to do that.
> It's up to the browsers to decide what base size to use for text
> they display. If a user doesn't like his browser's default, then he
> can use the browser's mechanism for increasing or decreasing the
> text size.
Right.
> Having said that, I think it's reasonable to specify a font size
> from within a range.
To suggest sizes for headings, and the like, sure.
> if I set
>
> body { font-size: 100%; sans-serif; }
>
> then the text seems ridiculously large to me in ALL the graphical
> browsers.
Funny.
body { font-size: 100%;}
produces text that is *precisely* the right size in my graphical
browser. Oh, right. I /configured/ my browser.
> So if my general body text is to be sans-serif, then I'm inclined
> to use font-size of 80%-90%. For serif, 90%-100%. Hmm, using
> "small" instead of percentages, I seem to get decent results with
> both serif and sans-serif
Perhaps you should configure *your* browser instead of solving your
browsing problem from the authoring end.
Mikko Rantalainen
> "J" <sorry...@nobody.com> wrote in message
> news:400d5ab6$0$43853$39ce...@news.twtelecom.net...
>
>> I've run CSSCheck on my style sheets and I always get a warning
>> similar to this:
>>
>> "font: bold 9pt/100% sans-serif
>>
>> Warning: Absolute length units should not generally be used on the
>> Web
>
>> smaller type on Mozilla.
The CSS spec doesn't define how 'smaller' should be rendered. It's only
defined to be smaller or equal in size to 'small'. Nobody should ever
use 'small', 'smaller' or 'x-small' for body text. See below.
> Theoretically, it's not your job to assure absolute consistency among
> the browsers. It's up to the browsers to decide what base size to use
> for text they display. If a user doesn't like his browser's default,
Actually, it's up to the user to decide what the base size for text
should look like. Unfortunately, many users and even some developers
using Microsoft's products are unaware of this fact simply because MSIE
lacks the user interface to set base size. The user is supposed to hint
his 'User Agent' (a.k.a. browser) how he wants to view pages and then
User Agent proceeds to render the page the view user wants. The User
Agent may be a graphical browser like MSIE, Mozilla or Opera, or it may
be a text-only browser like Lynx or Links. Or it could be output driver
of a speech synthesis software or braille display.
It's not your work - as a page author - to specify some pixel or point
size for the text. Use percentages instead: if something should be
emphasized when compared to body text, make it a bit larger (perhaps
110%), if it's less important than body text, make it a bit smaller
(like 90%). Be warned that MSIE (and Opera?) has a bug that causes weird
rendering unless you say also "body { font-size: 100%; }", which is
interesting because that should be the default...
The 100% is the correct setting for the body text. This is for two reasons:
1) If the user is aware that he can set the default body text size (like
me) he has already adjusted it and 100% is THE BEST possible font size
(he selected it, after all, how could you know any better than him??)
2) If the user isn't aware about the possibility, he doesn't care enough
to look for it. Ergo, he's already HAPPY with the font size of 100%. Why
should you then make it smaller??
> body { font-size: 100%; sans-serif; }
>
> then the text seems ridiculously large to me in ALL the graphical
> browsers. So if my general body text is to be sans-serif, then I'm
Yes, the DEFAULT SETTINGS of all graphical browsers DEFAULT to pretty
large body text. Why? Perhaps, because if you have to choice between
text being RIDICULOUSLY LARGE or UNREADABLE SMALL, then the former is
lesser of two evil. You cannot select a default settings that is perfect
for everybody, can you? You're supposed to change the settings of YOUR
user agent as you want. I repeat, if you don't change the setting or you
don't even bother for looking it, you don't mind enough and any web page
using the default size will be OK, really.
FYI, my MINIMUM font size is 11px. I'm using high resolution display and
using more pixels per character results to better rendering. Do not try
to destroy my beautifully shaped letters.
[ Note that 100% in the root element is supposed to be equal to
'medium'. However, you shouldn't use 'medium' or 'small' keywords for
any normal text because both of those keywords have different meaning in
different versions of MSIE -- that is, some versions interprete 'small'
as 100% and 'medium' as something like 110%. And some other versions of
the same browser interprete 'medium' as 100% and small as something like
90%. Considering that MSIE is the most used browser one cannot really
use keywords 'small' or 'medium' for anything. ]
--
Mikko
Stephen Poley
<h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Moreover, if I set
>
> body { font-size: 100%; sans-serif; }
>
>then the text seems ridiculously large to me in ALL the graphical browsers.
Well, if you haven't told the browser what size you like, it might.
Defaults tend to be on the large size for the benefit of people with
less good eyesight.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/main/adjust.html
--
Stephen Poley
Harlan Messinger
"Brian" <use...@julietremblay.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote in
message news:EqgPb.107810$8H.205662@attbi_s03...
> Harlan Messinger wrote:
> >
> > Theoretically, it's not your job to assure absolute consistency
> > among the browsers.
>
> And practically, it's not possible to do that.
>
> > It's up to the browsers to decide what base size to use for text
> > they display. If a user doesn't like his browser's default, then he
> > can use the browser's mechanism for increasing or decreasing the
> > text size.
>
> Right.
>
> > Having said that, I think it's reasonable to specify a font size
> > from within a range.
>
> To suggest sizes for headings, and the like, sure.
>
> > if I set
> >
> > body { font-size: 100%; sans-serif; }
> >
> > then the text seems ridiculously large to me in ALL the graphical
> > browsers.
>
> Funny.
>
> body { font-size: 100%;}
>
> produces text that is *precisely* the right size in my graphical
> browser. Oh, right. I /configured/ my browser.
Well, good for you. ;-) Consider that, in the US at least, it isn't
surprising to find on a can of franks and beans:
(1) Open can. (2) Empty contents into saucepan. (3) Heat until warm.
Besides, at least with IE, as far as I can tell it won't remember what text
size you set previously, so you have to do it each time. Ick. So, anyway, I
figure plenty of people have their browsers permanently stuck on medium, and
I just think the default actual size of text is simply unwieldy on that
setting. I also have a feeling that people with visual difficulties are more
likely to have actually bothered to figure out how to fix their browsers to
suit them, than are people who might think the text is too large, but for
whom it's only an esthetic concern.
>
> > So if my general body text is to be sans-serif, then I'm inclined
> > to use font-size of 80%-90%. For serif, 90%-100%. Hmm, using
> > "small" instead of percentages, I seem to get decent results with
> > both serif and sans-serif
>
> Perhaps you should configure *your* browser instead of solving your
> browsing problem from the authoring end.
Or I can choose not to be dogmatic, and gear things just a little bit for
some of the most common viewing circumstances, as long as the ability of
others to adjust things remains.
Harlan Messinger
"Mikko Rantalainen" <mi...@st.jyu.fi> wrote in message
news:buk4n8$bm5$1...@mordred.cc.jyu.fi...
> 2) If the user isn't aware about the possibility, he doesn't care enough
> to look for it. Ergo, he's already HAPPY with the font size of 100%.
Non sequitur.
> Why
> should you then make it smaller??
Because my intuition tells me that, all things considered, it's a net
benefit. I could be wrong but it's my sense that I'm right. And that, after
all, is the kind of judgment that professionals in every field and in every
era have had to bring to the table.
>
> > body { font-size: 100%; sans-serif; }
> >
> > then the text seems ridiculously large to me in ALL the graphical
> > browsers. So if my general body text is to be sans-serif, then I'm
>
> Yes, the DEFAULT SETTINGS of all graphical browsers DEFAULT to pretty
> large body text. Why? Perhaps, because if you have to choice between
> text being RIDICULOUSLY LARGE or UNREADABLE SMALL, then the former is
> lesser of two evil. You cannot select a default settings that is perfect
> for everybody, can you? You're supposed to change the settings of YOUR
> user agent as you want. I repeat, if you don't change the setting or you
> don't even bother for looking it, you don't mind enough
You think I shouldn't second-guess people's preferences and motivations, but
you seem happy enough to do it, as you again show here.
> and any web page
> using the default size will be OK, really.
>
> FYI, my MINIMUM font size is 11px. I'm using high resolution display and
> using more pixels per character results to better rendering. Do not try
> to destroy my beautifully shaped letters.
>
> [ Note that 100% in the root element is supposed to be equal to
> 'medium'. However, you shouldn't use 'medium' or 'small' keywords for
> any normal text because both of those keywords have different meaning in
> different versions of MSIE -- that is, some versions interprete 'small'
> as 100% and 'medium' as something like 110%. And some other versions of
> the same browser interprete 'medium' as 100% and small as something like
> 90%. Considering that MSIE is the most used browser one cannot really
> use keywords 'small' or 'medium' for anything. ]
First you tell me that I should defer to the wisdom of the browser
manufacturers concerning the proper default text size because they
determined that too large is better than too small, and they know best. But
then the way they handle "small" and "medium" is dumb and we shouldn't trust
their judgment at all. I'm finding it very confusing being told I'm wrong
about one thing because the browser manufacturers are smart, but I'm wrong
about another thing because the browser manufacturers are dumb. Consistency
of argument is a virtue!
brucie
"Harlan Messinger" <h.mes...@comcast.net> said:
> Besides, at least with IE, as far as I can tell it won't remember what text
> size you set previously,
it does
--
brucie - i usenet nude
Christoph Paeper
>
> Unit "pt" is for print, not Web (as opposed to "px").
The Web can be printed as well, just not all at once.
I assume you meant "screen" instead of "Web".
--
"The scientific name for an animal that doesn't
either run from or fight its enemies is lunch."
Michael Friedman
Mikko Rantalainen
> "Mikko Rantalainen" <mi...@st.jyu.fi> wrote in message
> news:buk4n8$bm5$1...@mordred.cc.jyu.fi...
>
>>2) If the user isn't aware about the possibility, he doesn't care enough
>>to look for it. Ergo, he's already HAPPY with the font size of 100%.
>
> Non sequitur.
You did read the rest of my post, right? I explained, that if the
user really were unhappy with the font size of 100%, he would do
something. After that user has fixed the problem, font size of 100%
would be the best possible font size for that user. You cannot know
if an user has already adjusted his browser as he likes. If he has
already adjusted his browser and 100% is the perfect font size for
him, wouldn't it be a little dumb to readjust the font size to some
random smaller size? And if he hasn't adjusted the font size, does
that mean that he /really/ wants to read smaller text, but doesn't
have enough knowledge to fix the issue, or is it that the font size
he's seeing is already the best one for him?
The bottom line is that for advanced users that CAN configure their
browsers correctly, 100% is THE BEST possible font size for the body
text. And for the rest of the users, you cannot know which font size
would be the best.
If you know that 100% is THE BEST possible font size for some people
and the other people really wanted to use some smaller or bigger
font but don't know how to fix the problem, HOW do you know the
correct setting?
>>Why should you then make it smaller??
>
> Because my intuition tells me that, all things considered, it's a net
> benefit. I could be wrong but it's my sense that I'm right. And that, after
> all, is the kind of judgment that professionals in every field and in every
> era have had to bring to the table.
Ooh! Your intuition tells you that? Are you suggesting that you know
better than professional developers at Microsoft / Netscape / Opera
/ Apple / SomeBigCompany which font size an average user wants to
see? How many people have you interviewed? The fact that you like
smaller font than the browser's default isn't a good enough reason
to bug everybody, IMO.
>>>body { font-size: 100%; sans-serif; }
>>>
>>>then the text seems ridiculously large to me in ALL the graphical
>>>browsers. So if my general body text is to be sans-serif, then I'm
>>
>>Yes, the DEFAULT SETTINGS of all graphical browsers DEFAULT to pretty
>>large body text. Why? Perhaps, because if you have to choice between
>>text being RIDICULOUSLY LARGE or UNREADABLE SMALL, then the former is
>>lesser of two evil. You cannot select a default settings that is perfect
>>for everybody, can you? You're supposed to change the settings of YOUR
>>user agent as you want. I repeat, if you don't change the setting or you
>>don't even bother for looking it, you don't mind enough
>
> You think I shouldn't second-guess people's preferences and motivations, but
> you seem happy enough to do it, as you again show here.
I cannot understand where the word "here" refers to.
I'll list some facts:
1) You cannot make everybody happy. There isn't true
one-size-fits-all font size when it comes to personal preferences of
reading text on different devices. No matter what the default font
size is, somebody will be unhappy with it.
2) If you cannot provide PERFECT environment, it's better to provide
USABLE environment than UNUSABLE.
3) Reading text that's too large is uncomfortable (worst case), but
it might be IMPOSSIBLE to read text that's too small.
4) It's better to make sure that everybody can USE the environment
than to make it PERFECT for some and UNUSABLE for some.
I think we can agree that points 1)-3) are facts. I'm not sure if
you agree that 4) is a fact. However, if we take that 1)-4) are
facts, then it seems pretty simple to deduce that optimal
one-size-fits-all-default is to make default text big enough so that
almost everybody can read it (the legally-blind people would require
such a huge font size that the text would be PRACTICALLY UNUSABLE
for normal people).
>>[ Note that 100% in the root element is supposed to be equal to
>>'medium'. However, you shouldn't use 'medium' or 'small' keywords for
>>any normal text because both of those keywords have different meaning in
>>different versions of MSIE -- that is, some versions interprete 'small'
>>as 100% and 'medium' as something like 110%. And some other versions of
>>the same browser interprete 'medium' as 100% and small as something like
>>90%. Considering that MSIE is the most used browser one cannot really
>>use keywords 'small' or 'medium' for anything. ]
>
> First you tell me that I should defer to the wisdom of the browser
> manufacturers concerning the proper default text size because they
Perhaps I should have pointed out more clearly that you shouldn't
use 'small' or 'medium' if you care about MSIE users because some
versions of MSIE have BUGS (namely, 'small' and 'medium' have
different meanings than CSS spec says). Unless MSIE were such
popular the issue wouldn't be worth mentioning. But because it seems
that many people in this thread are suggesting that you should use
keywords to define font size, I decided to warn against it.
Percentages should work fine for defining the font size of other
than body text IF you define body { font-size: 100%; }, which is
only a workaround for an another MSIE bug.
I still think that the default font size of many browsers is the
best possible DEFAULT. If YOU think that the default font size is
too large, perhaps YOU should configure your browser. If you modify
the page instead, you get PERFECT text for you, but every visitor to
the page gets TOO SMALL text.
The reason I explain this issue so much is that I really don't want
the future where
1) Page author THINKS that the default font size is too large
2) Page author decides to set body text size to 80%
3) Majority of the page authors do steps 1) and 2) but they disagree
on the percentage; some set it to 95%, some set it to 65%.
Now, if I KNOW that perfect font size FOR ME would be EXACTLY 86% of
the default font size, what size I should set the base font size to
get correct end result after the fact that the page author
readjusted my body text size to "better" value? This is a real
problem already today, but I try to prevent it getting any worse.
--
Mikko
Harlan Messinger
> Harlan Messinger / 2004-01-21 00:33:
> > "Mikko Rantalainen" <mi...@st.jyu.fi> wrote in message
> > news:buk4n8$bm5$1...@mordred.cc.jyu.fi...
> >
> >>2) If the user isn't aware about the possibility, he doesn't care enough
> >>to look for it. Ergo, he's already HAPPY with the font size of 100%.
> >
> > Non sequitur.
>
> You did read the rest of my post, right? I explained, that if the
> user really were unhappy with the font size of 100%, he would do
> something.
Non sequitur. In other words, I don't believe as you do that one can or
should act on the assumption that stimulus and reaction go together in the
inevitable manner that you suggest.
> After that user has fixed the problem, font size of 100%
> would be the best possible font size for that user. You cannot know
> if an user has already adjusted his browser as he likes. If he has
> already adjusted his browser and 100% is the perfect font size for
> him, wouldn't it be a little dumb to readjust the font size to some
> random smaller size?
Isn't it dumb to assume that someone has exactly one perfect font size and
is incapable of dealing with any other? Since, as you keep repeating, I
can't know who the reader is, isn't it dumb to assume the reader *is*
someone who has made the adjustments that you claim?
>And if he hasn't adjusted the font size, does
> that mean that he /really/ wants to read smaller text, but doesn't
> have enough knowledge to fix the issue, or is it that the font size
> he's seeing is already the best one for him?
Any of these. It varies person by person. It is presumptuous of you to
assume he is happy with the status quo, or that he has even considered
whether he's happy with it.
>
> The bottom line is that for advanced users that CAN configure their
> browsers correctly, 100% is THE BEST possible font size for the body
> text. And for the rest of the users, you cannot know which font size
> would be the best.
>
> If you know that 100% is THE BEST possible font size for some people
> and the other people really wanted to use some smaller or bigger
> font but don't know how to fix the problem, HOW do you know the
> correct setting?
>
>
> >>Why should you then make it smaller??
> >
> > Because my intuition tells me that, all things considered, it's a net
> > benefit. I could be wrong but it's my sense that I'm right. And that,
after
> > all, is the kind of judgment that professionals in every field and in
every
> > era have had to bring to the table.
>
> Ooh! Your intuition tells you that? Are you suggesting that you know
> better than professional developers at Microsoft / Netscape / Opera
> / Apple / SomeBigCompany which font size an average user wants to
> see?
Wow. And I suppose everything else Microsoft, or Netscape, has done in the
best is smarter than anything I would come up with us well. Because no one
*ever* criticizes Microsoft or Netscape. Everyone in the world thinks that
everything about their browsers is just as good as good can possibly be. Oh,
and everybody in the world loves Clippy, the Help Agent in Microsoft Office
products. (The fact that their on-line help used to be context sensitive and
now no longer is is beside the point, I suppose.) And they were right on
about the need for a UI like Microsoft Bob, weren't they?
Don't *ever* try to get me to cave in on an opinion by holding the
"brilliance" of Microsoft, or of any other company, over my head.
> How many people have you interviewed? The fact that you like
> smaller font than the browser's default isn't a good enough reason
> to bug everybody, IMO.
I've already explained the theory behind choice of type size. I didn't make
it up.
>
> >>>body { font-size: 100%; sans-serif; }
> >>>
> >>>then the text seems ridiculously large to me in ALL the graphical
> >>>browsers. So if my general body text is to be sans-serif, then I'm
> >>
> >>Yes, the DEFAULT SETTINGS of all graphical browsers DEFAULT to pretty
> >>large body text. Why? Perhaps, because if you have to choice between
> >>text being RIDICULOUSLY LARGE or UNREADABLE SMALL, then the former is
> >>lesser of two evil. You cannot select a default settings that is perfect
> >>for everybody, can you? You're supposed to change the settings of YOUR
> >>user agent as you want. I repeat, if you don't change the setting or you
> >>don't even bother for looking it, you don't mind enough
> >
> > You think I shouldn't second-guess people's preferences and motivations,
but
> > you seem happy enough to do it, as you again show here.
>
> I cannot understand where the word "here" refers to.
Here. This place. The place where you used your psychic powers to determine
that if a user hasn't looked into whether his settings can be changed, it
can only mean that he doesn't "mind enough", and that you can proceed from
that conclusion.
[snip]
Noozer
Why not just omit the 100% altogether?
Leave my fonts ALONE!
Alan J. Flavell
> Any of these. It varies person by person. It is presumptuous of you to
> assume he is happy with the status quo,
Equally, it is presumptuous of you to assume that his vendor has
provided him with something that he cannot use.
> or that he has even considered whether he's happy with it.
Yes, I've seen this line of argument before.
1. "the vendor has provided the user with something horrible"
(unproven)
2. "the reader is too dumb to do anything about it" (unproven)
3. "everybody else sets an absolute font size, so the reader has
never seen their vendor's default font size. They would be appalled
if I were to use it" (unproven)
4. "if everyone else is delivering crap, then my only option is
to deliver the same crap". (Oh yes, no argument here!)
Well, it's a point of view. Fortunately, I have my web browser's min.
font size to save you. You can set as many different font sizes as
you like below that, and they'll all come out the same for me. Of
course, when I'm asked to actually _review_ a web page, I have to
remember to turn the min. font size off. And then it's Room 101 for
most of the reviewed pages, because they come out little better than
fly droppings for me.
Mikko Rantalainen
>>>>>>body { font-size: 100%; sans-serif; }
^^^^^^^^^^
> Why not just omit the 100% altogether?
>
> Leave my fonts ALONE!
The page author should set body { font-size: 100% } if he's going to
set font-size of any element (say h1, h2, h3, span.footnote etc
etc). This is because MSIE has a bug that causes View:Text Size
control to freak out if any font size is defined with percentage
unit without specifying font size of body element. The point is,
body { font-size: 100% } should already be the browser default, but
somehow, it makes difference in case of MSIE.
--
Mikko
Steve Pugh
>>
>set font-size of any element (say h1, h2, h3, span.footnote etc
>etc). This is because MSIE has a bug that causes View:Text Size
>control to freak out if any font size is defined with percentage
>unit without specifying font size of body element.
Not true. The bug in IE is when font-size is set in ems then the size
difference is vastly inflated when the user has anything other than
Medium set.
So the solution is to either:
1. Set 100% on the body and then use ems
2. Use percentages throughout in which case you don't need an explicit
size set on the body.
Compare http://steve.pugh.net/test/test67a.html and
http://steve.pugh.net/test/test67b.html to see the bug in action.
Steve
--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Steve Pugh <st...@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
Mark Woodward
> Not true. The bug in IE is when font-size is set in ems then the size
> difference is vastly inflated when the user has anything other than
> Medium set.
>
> So the solution is to either:
> 1. Set 100% on the body and then use ems
^ see below.
> 2. Use percentages throughout in which case you don't need an explicit
> size set on the body.
http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/typography/index.html
( and study this pages css )
http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/typography/template.html
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/elastic/
--
Mark
Steve Pugh
>
>> Not true. The bug in IE is when font-size is set in ems then the size
>> difference is vastly inflated when the user has anything other than
>> Medium set.
>>
>> So the solution is to either:
>
>> 1. Set 100% on the body and then use ems
> ^ see below.
Okay, "100% or any other non-em explicit size". Could be 80%, could be
22px, could be 12cm. But in the context that was being discussed 100%
is the logical example to give.
>> 2. Use percentages throughout in which case you don't need an explicit
>> size set on the body.
>
>http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/typography/index.html
Agress with what I said except that he seems to think that smaller
than 100% for main body text is a good idea. I disagree. His page is
also unreadably small when IE is set to Smallest, which is the very
thing we're trying to avoid.
He's also obsessed with making the text the same size in all browsers
which is frankly a waste of time. My primary browser is Opera 7 and
doesn't show the percentages the same size a his screenshot of Opera
7.
>( and study this pages css )
Yes, his CSS says that 76% is in his opinion the smallest you can
practiaclly use. So he's using the smallest possible font size for his
main body text. What's he going to use for his footnotes and legalese?
He's also using Verdana which as any long time reader of this
newsgroup knows causes most of the problems...
>http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/typography/template.html
Triggers my minimum font size setting in Opera. Not a good indication.
Some of the text becomes unreadably small at just a small reduction to
90% zoom in Mozilla.
>http://www.alistapart.com/articles/elastic/
Would work just as well (or badly as it also advocates much smaller
than default font sizes) with percentages used for all font sizes.
Some people seem obsessed by ems and don't seem to realise that for
font-size percentages are exactly the same thing.
Alan J. Flavell
> http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/typography/index.html
Was that supposed to be a recommendation? That page is only rescued
by my min. font size setting - if I turn that off, then I get
microfonts.
As, indeed, you'd expect from what it says in the text. The author
requires readers to select a font size much larger than what they want
to see, so as to let the author size it down for them. Logically
absurd (yes, yes, I'm perfectly well aware of Win/IE): calling that
"sane" is, well, petitio principii.
Harlan Messinger
"Alan J. Flavell" <fla...@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.53.04...@ppepc56.ph.gla.ac.uk...
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Harlan Messinger wibbled:
>
> > Any of these. It varies person by person. It is presumptuous of you to
> > assume he is happy with the status quo,
>
> Equally, it is presumptuous of you to assume that his vendor has
> provided him with something that he cannot use.
This is what Mikko said to me in the first place. I was responding to *him*
that *he* was being equally presumptuous. Is there a point to going around
in circles?
>
> > or that he has even considered whether he's happy with it.
>
> Yes, I've seen this line of argument before.
>
> 1. "the vendor has provided the user with something horrible"
> (unproven)
>
> 2. "the reader is too dumb to do anything about it" (unproven)
>
> 3. "everybody else sets an absolute font size, so the reader has
> never seen their vendor's default font size. They would be appalled
> if I were to use it" (unproven)
>
> 4. "if everyone else is delivering crap, then my only option is
> to deliver the same crap". (Oh yes, no argument here!)
Just like every book that has ever been published in other than the one and
only and unique perfect optimal font size for the average human being has
been crap. I feel that the view you are presenting of the narrowness of
human beings' requirements is grossly and needlessly simplistic, and that if
the situation were as dire as you paint it to be, it would be astounding
that the human species has managed as long as it has.
Harlan Messinger
"Noozer" <postm...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:_kEPb.215223$ts4.14712@pd7tw3no...
> > > >>>body { font-size: 100%; sans-serif; }
>
>
> Why not just omit the 100% altogether?
>
> Leave my fonts ALONE!
I take it you refuse to read any book, magazine, or newspaper that is
printed in other than your one and only and immutable font size, without any
tolerance for even the most minute deviation.
Harlan Messinger
those whose visual acuity is not a barrier, they greatly improve reading
speed an comprehension, because (obviously) the larger chunks of text are
within the main field of view and the brain is able to process them better.
Also, more material fits on the screen, making it easier for the user to
mentally relate parts of the display, follow the material, and find one's
place. Visual acuity is not the only consideration.
Alan J. Flavell
> I should point out that there are usability benefits
...in choosing an optimal font size, yes.
> to smaller fonts.
But not "smaller" than the reader's optimal choice!
By all means set *your* browser to an appropriate font size, and/or
lobby your vendor for better font sizing arrangements.
Recognise this? :-
The font size chosen by the user as a comfortable default (1 em)
provides more truly useful information about the rendering
environment than all the resolution-sniffing, window-querying,
"open-this-wide" logic you can throw at the problem.
That comes from a Real Typographer who understood the difference
between printed books and the web (as you have just demonstrated you
do not).
> For those whose visual acuity is not a barrier, they greatly improve
> reading speed an comprehension, because (obviously) the larger
> chunks of text are within the main field of view and the brain is
> able to process them better. Also, more material fits on the screen,
> making it easier for the user to mentally relate parts of the
> display, follow the material, and find one's place.
(Talk about stating the bleeding obvious...)
> Visual acuity is not the only consideration.
If the author has made the text too small to be read comfortably - or
at all, then it *is* the primary consideration, nevertheless. And the
notorious operating system component (the very one that all the
argument rages around) does not support a min. font size setting.
Unlike quite a number of WWW-compatible browsers. So we mustn't be
too surprised that its vendor errs on the side of caution and sets its
initial default font size too large for many people's tastes and
needs.
Brian
> Mark Woodward <markwoodwar...@internode.on.net> wrote:
>
>>http://www.alistapart.com/articles/elastic/
>
> it also advocates much smaller than default font sizes
A List Apart's site is really user unfriendly. I played around one day
making it better with user css. The following produces reasonable
results in Mozilla 1.3. Here it is in case anyone else wants to fix
their site.
body[onload*="A List Apart"] * {
font-size: 100% !important ;
font-family: lucida, arial, helvetica, sans-serif !important;
}
body[onload*="A List Apart"] div#wrapper {
margin: 10px 25px !important;
width: auto !important;
}
body[onload*="A List Apart"] div#maincontent {
margin: auto !important;
width: 38em !important;
}
body[onload*="A List Apart"] div#pagebody,
body[onload*="A List Apart"] div#sidebar,
body[onload*="A List Apart"] div#subnav {
width: auto !important;
margin: auto !important;
}
body[onload*="A List Apart"] div#menu li#five a {
border-right: 1px solid #ccc !important;
}
body[onload*="A List Apart"] div#footer {
font-size: 90% !important ;
}
body[onload*="A List Apart"] a:link, body[onload*="A List Apart"]
a:visited {
text-decoration: underline !important;
}
body[onload*="A List Apart"] a:visited {
color: #03c !important ;
}
body[onload*="A List Apart"] a:hover, body[onload*="A List Apart"]
a:focus {
color: #e30 !important ;
background-color: #bbb !important ;
text-decoration: none !important;
}
body[onload*="A List Apart"] a:active {
color: #33d !important ;
background-color: #bbb !important ;
}
And if anyone can improve on this, I'd appreciate knowing how.
Brian
> The bug in IE is when font-size is set in ems then the size
> difference is vastly inflated when the user has anything other than
> Medium set
> Use percentages throughout in which case you don't need an explicit
> size set on the body.
Are you sure of this? This is not intended to be read in a smart-alec
way. I too was under the (mistaken?) impression that you had to use
body {font-size: 100%} to avoid bugs. But I no longer use ems for
font-size. The thing is, I have only IE 5.01/Win2k to test on, and I'd
hate to have things break badly. So I just want to be sure before
removing that body font-size declaration. :)
Steve Pugh
>A List Apart's site is really user unfriendly. I played around one day
>making it better with user css. The following produces reasonable
>results in Mozilla 1.3. Here it is in case anyone else wants to fix
>their site.
[snip]
>And if anyone can improve on this, I'd appreciate knowing how.
http://steve.pugh.net/taming.html
I concentrated on removing the fixed widths as Opera's minimum font
size setting had already taken care of the tiny text.
I was also writing with the aim of creating a cross-browser user
stylesheet hence my use of the #sectionone as a selector rather than
the attribute selector you use which whilst betterin many ways isn't
supported by IE.
Fixing the lack of distinction between :link and :visted is a good
idea. I may add that to my stylesheet as well.
Brian
>
> The bug in IE is when font-size is set in ems then the size
> difference is vastly inflated when the user has anything other than
> Medium set.
>
> http://steve.pugh.net/test/test67b.html to see the bug in action.
BTW, there is no difference in the a and b tests in MSIE 5.01/Win2k.
In both cases, 80% is different than .8em. I tested on "large" and
"small."
Brian
> I feel that the view you are presenting of the narrowness of
> human beings' requirements is grossly and needlessly simplistic
Uh, that's backwards. We who argue that font-size: 100% for body text
is correct are assuming that "one-size fits all" is *not* going to
work. font-size: 100% means that lots of text-sizes will be used, and
that's a good thing.
Brian
> "Noozer" <postm...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:_kEPb.215223$ts4.14712@pd7tw3no...
>
>
> I take it you refuse to read any book, magazine, or newspaper that is
> printed in other than your one and only and immutable font size
I take it you don't see the difference between print and the web?
Steve Pugh
>Steve Pugh wrote:
>>
>> The bug in IE is when font-size is set in ems then the size
>> difference is vastly inflated when the user has anything other than
>> Medium set.
>>
>> Compare http://steve.pugh.net/test/test67a.html and
>> http://steve.pugh.net/test/test67b.html to see the bug in action.
>
>BTW, there is no difference in the a and b tests in MSIE 5.01/Win2k.
>In both cases, 80% is different than .8em. I tested on "large" and
>"small."
Would have helped if I'd put font-size: 100% instead of just size:
100%.
Now working as I described originally in IE 5.01, IE 5.5 and IE6 on
WinXP.
Steve Pugh
>Steve Pugh wrote:
>> The bug in IE is when font-size is set in ems then the size
>> difference is vastly inflated when the user has anything other than
>> Medium set
>
>> Use percentages throughout in which case you don't need an explicit
>> size set on the body.
>
>Are you sure of this? This is not intended to be read in a smart-alec
>way. I too was under the (mistaken?) impression that you had to use
>body {font-size: 100%} to avoid bugs.
I've never come across a bug with % sized text in Internet Explorer
(apart from when it screws up inheritence, e.g. with tables, but that
applies equally to ems).
Opera 5 and 6 (and very early versions of 7?) had a bug whereby 100%
was rendered 1px too small and thus inherited 100% would actually make
the font size increasingly small. This is why some people suggest
using 101% instead. But this bug was fixed in Opera a fairly early 7.x
release. Netscape 4 has a funny idea of what a % is, but Netscape 4
has a funny idea of what everything is.
Brian
> Brian wrote:
>
>> A List Apart's site is really user unfriendly. I played around
>> one day making it better with user css.
>
> http://steve.pugh.net/taming.html
clever name :)
From A List Apart (which you quoted):
<quote>
ALA’s layout is CSS-based and our articles share a common id attribute
to the body tag, so if your browser provides the option to "Use My
Style Sheet" you can adjust ALA's look and feel to fit your fancy.
</quote>
Balderdash! They offer no such common id. Some pages use "sectionone",
some use "sectionthree". I don't know how many sections there are.
That's why I had to resort to the onload attrib selector.
> I concentrated on removing the fixed widths as Opera's minimum font
> size setting had already taken care of the tiny text.
I don't use that on Mozilla because I want to be able to critique
sites without opening up prefs and turning things off and on too often.
> I was also writing with the aim of creating a cross-browser user
> stylesheet hence my use of the #sectionone as a selector
But what do you do when your browse to a different section of the site?
> rather than the attribute selector you use which whilst betterin
> many ways isn't supported by IE.
My solution will only work in Moz and possibly Opera. I figure that
for the ciwas audience, that will help lots of people. If there were a
common id, it could work in MSIE, too. And it would have been easier
for me to write it. (I had some trouble getting the attrib selector to
work.)
> Fixing the lack of distinction between :link and :visted is a good
> idea. I may add that to my stylesheet as well.
:)
I wonder if showing them the user css would embarass them?
Brian
> Steve Pugh wrote:
>
>> I was also writing with the aim of creating a cross-browser user
>> stylesheet hence my use of the #sectionone as a selector
>
> But what do you do when your browse to a different section of the
> site?
Sorry, I didn't finish reading the page before replying. I see how
you've done it now. BTW, I wish I had known about your page before
spending a couple of hours on my user css. Dang!
Brian
> Brian wrote:
>
>>> http://steve.pugh.net/test/test67b.html to see the bug
>>
>
> WinXP.
Ditto for 5.01/Win2k (but then you knew that).
Harlan Messinger
"Alan J. Flavell" <fla...@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.53.04...@ppepc56.ph.gla.ac.uk...
>
> > I should point out that there are usability benefits
>
> ...in choosing an optimal font size, yes.
>
> > to smaller fonts.
>
> But not "smaller" than the reader's optimal choice!
Since "optimal" doesn't mean "minimal", there almost certainly *is* a range
around the optimal within which the reader is comfortable.
>
> By all means set *your* browser to an appropriate font size, and/or
> lobby your vendor for better font sizing arrangements.
>
> Recognise this? :-
>
> The font size chosen by the user as a comfortable default (1 em)
> provides more truly useful information about the rendering
> environment than all the resolution-sniffing, window-querying,
> "open-this-wide" logic you can throw at the problem.
None of which is applicable to users who haven't made a choice.
>
> That comes from a Real Typographer who understood the difference
> between printed books and the web (as you have just demonstrated you
> do not).
I understand that capabilities that people have of reading type within a
range of sizes and not just at a single size didn't disappear overnight with
the advent of the web.
>
> > For those whose visual acuity is not a barrier, they greatly improve
> > reading speed an comprehension, because (obviously) the larger
> > chunks of text are within the main field of view and the brain is
> > able to process them better. Also, more material fits on the screen,
> > making it easier for the user to mentally relate parts of the
> > display, follow the material, and find one's place.
>
> (Talk about stating the bleeding obvious...)
And yet you don't seem to see that it has any role in the discussion.
>
> > Visual acuity is not the only consideration.
>
> If the author has made the text too small to be read comfortably - or
> at all, then it *is* the primary consideration, nevertheless.
But there's no reason to assume that that's happening, unless you subscribe
to the "people can only read one exact font size comfortably" theory.
Harlan Messinger
"Brian" <use...@julietremblay.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote in
message news:3YSPb.125853$na.133696@attbi_s04...
> Harlan Messinger wrote:
> > I feel that the view you are presenting of the narrowness of
> > human beings' requirements is grossly and needlessly simplistic
>
> Uh, that's backwards. We who argue that font-size: 100% for body text
> is correct are assuming that "one-size fits all" is *not* going to
> work. font-size: 100% means that lots of text-sizes will be used, and
> that's a good thing.
I'm talking about *by one user*, and to show I have it backwards, you talk
about something else, which is the variance *across* users. Non sequitur.
Harlan Messinger
"Brian" <use...@julietremblay.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote in
message news:cZSPb.125860$na.134329@attbi_s04...
> Harlan Messinger wrote:
> > "Noozer" <postm...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> > news:_kEPb.215223$ts4.14712@pd7tw3no...
> >
> >> Leave my fonts ALONE!
> >
> > I take it you refuse to read any book, magazine, or newspaper that is
> > printed in other than your one and only and immutable font size
>
> I take it you don't see the difference between print and the web?
I don't see that human beings' capabilities or tolerances for variation
suddenly change when they read something on the web instead of on a printed
page.
Nicolai P. Zwar
> "Alan J. Flavell" <fla...@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.53.04...@ppepc56.ph.gla.ac.uk...
>
>>On Thu, 22 Jan 2004, Harlan Messinger wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I should point out that there are usability benefits
>>
>>...in choosing an optimal font size, yes.
>>
>>
>>> to smaller fonts.
>>
>>But not "smaller" than the reader's optimal choice!
>
>
> Since "optimal" doesn't mean "minimal", there almost certainly *is* a range
> around the optimal within which the reader is comfortable.
>
>
>>By all means set *your* browser to an appropriate font size, and/or
>>lobby your vendor for better font sizing arrangements.
>>
>>Recognise this? :-
>>
>> The font size chosen by the user as a comfortable default (1 em)
>> provides more truly useful information about the rendering
>> environment than all the resolution-sniffing, window-querying,
>> "open-this-wide" logic you can throw at the problem.
>
>
> None of which is applicable to users who haven't made a choice.
Which seems to be the very majority. The vast majority of users out
there use IE for browsing and are unlikely to know how to set the
default font size of their browser, or even that such a thing can be done.
--
Nicolai Zwar -- http://www.nicolaizwar.com
"I don't post off-topic digests. I consistently ask the antagonists
what their postings have to do with classical music, which happens to be
the topic of this newsgroup."
(Dr. David J. Tholen, Astronomer, in his "Antagonists Digest, Volume
2452972, posted in rec.music.classical)
Tim
>> Leave my fonts ALONE!
"Harlan Messinger" <h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I take it you refuse to read any book, magazine, or newspaper that is
> printed in other than your one and only and immutable font size, without any
> tolerance for even the most minute deviation.
You do realise, that if a book is published with fonts that are too
small for someone to read, that they're not likely to read it? Only
some people are willing to sit there with a magnifying glass.
--
My "from" address is totally fake. The reply-to address is real, but
may be only temporary. Reply to usenet postings in the same place as
you read the message you're replying to.
This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.
Noozer
"Harlan Messinger" <h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:buolkd$kdcc7$1...@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de...
Yup! If I can't read it then I can't read it.
Of course you're forgetting that newspapers don't come in different
resolutions. Would you buy a newspaper that was only readable if pressed
against your face or held 30 feet away?
Tell me how it is that a website designed to be readable on an 800x600
monitor and isn't on a 1600x1200 monitor is a good design.
Neal
<h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I take it you refuse to read any book, magazine, or newspaper that is
> printed in other than your one and only and immutable font size, without
> any
> tolerance for even the most minute deviation.
>
Why do you think most major magazines and newspapers have large-print
editions?
Eric Bohlman
> I don't see that human beings' capabilities or tolerances for
> variation suddenly change when they read something on the web instead
> of on a printed page.
What you're forgetting is that the Web introduces several sources of
variation that simply don't exist in print. When you print a page on a
printing press (at least one that works correctly), several important
aspects of it are completely fixed: everyone will get the same page size.
Everyone will get the same physical size of letters. Everyone will get the
exact same typefaces.
On the Web, though, everything I just mentioned will be variable, not
fixed. Those aspects will be influenced by factors like monitor size,
computer type, user settings, and software environment. If, for some
reason, you truly wanted a Web page to display exactly the same for
everybody, the only way to achieve this would be to leave nearly every
aspect of its physical display unspecified and allow the users to adjust
the display until it conformed to your desired appearance. Paradoxically,
the harder you try to fix those physical aspects, the more variation in
display you'll get.
The only way, for example, that any Web author could even remotely hope to
get his text displayed in the same physical size on my 21" desktop CRT and
my 13" laptop LCD is to let me control the sizing. If he tries to fix its
size in pixels, it will be much bigger (quite possibly too big) on my
desktop than on my laptop, which it will quite possibly be too small.
The simple fact is that in print, the appearance of your work is only
slightly affected by one's viewing situation (and good print designers know
how to minimize that variation). On the Web, however, the opposite is
true, and trying to use print-design techniques for it only increases the
variation. To paraphrase Neal's examples from another thread, the more a
jazz quintet tries to play like a symphony orchestra, the worse it will
sound. What works well in one medium often falls flat on its face in
another medium. It matters not a bit that the techniques are long-
established in the first medium; they are in fact specific to that medium
and don't transfer well.
Eric Cartman
Steve Pugh
>You guys just bitch about anything. If it's not yours then it's wrong.
"if your browser provides the option to "Use My
Style Sheet" you can adjust ALA's look and feel to fit your fancy."
That's from the site in question.
Maybe your happy to passively sit there with your mouth open accepting
whatever excrement other people want to shovel in, but don't presume
to think that everyone else should be as undiscriminating as you.
And it's funny that someone calling themselves after Eric Cartman
would complain about other people bitching.
Bye.
kchayka
>
> The only way, for example, that any Web author could even remotely hope to
> get his text displayed in the same physical size on my 21" desktop CRT and
> my 13" laptop LCD is to let me control the sizing. If he tries to fix its
> size in pixels, it will be much bigger (quite possibly too big) on my
> desktop than on my laptop, which it will quite possibly be too small.
I find it to be the reverse. Everything tends to look larger on the
lower resolution laptop and smaller on the higher resolution CRT. It's
the same issue nonetheless - the two will never look identical.
--
To email a reply, remove (dash)un(dash). Mail sent to the un
address is considered spam and automatically deleted.
Eric Bohlman
news:4011119f$0$40211$39ce...@news.twtelecom.net:
> Eric Bohlman wrote:
>>
>> The only way, for example, that any Web author could even remotely
>> hope to get his text displayed in the same physical size on my 21"
>> desktop CRT and my 13" laptop LCD is to let me control the sizing.
>> If he tries to fix its size in pixels, it will be much bigger (quite
>> possibly too big) on my desktop than on my laptop, which it will
>> quite possibly be too small.
>
> I find it to be the reverse. Everything tends to look larger on the
> lower resolution laptop and smaller on the higher resolution CRT.
> It's the same issue nonetheless - the two will never look identical.
In my case, it's probably because my blasted on-board video controller
limits me to 1024x768 unless I go to an unacceptably low refresh rate, and
the funds for a motherboard upgrade aren't in yet.
Harlan Messinger
>"Harlan Messinger" <h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote in
>news:bup68t$ka9rj$1...@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
>> I don't see that human beings' capabilities or tolerances for
>> variation suddenly change when they read something on the web instead
>> of on a printed page.
>
>What you're forgetting is that the Web introduces several sources of
>variation that simply don't exist in print. When you print a page on a
>printing press (at least one that works correctly), several important
>aspects of it are completely fixed: everyone will get the same page size.
>Everyone will get the same physical size of letters. Everyone will get the
>exact same typefaces.
>
>On the Web, though, everything I just mentioned will be variable, not
>fixed. Those aspects will be influenced by factors like monitor size,
>computer type, user settings, and software environment. If, for some
>reason, you truly wanted a Web page to display exactly the same for
>everybody, the only way to achieve this would be to leave nearly every
>aspect of its physical display unspecified and allow the users to adjust
>the display until it conformed to your desired appearance.
I don't, and one shouldn't expect to be able to. That was my response
to the original poster.
> Paradoxically,
>the harder you try to fix those physical aspects, the more variation in
>display you'll get.
>
>The only way, for example, that any Web author could even remotely hope to
>get his text displayed in the same physical size on my 21" desktop CRT and
>my 13" laptop LCD is to let me control the sizing. If he tries to fix its
>size in pixels, it will be much bigger (quite possibly too big) on my
>desktop than on my laptop, which it will quite possibly be too small.
>
>The simple fact is that in print, the appearance of your work is only
>slightly affected by one's viewing situation (and good print designers know
>how to minimize that variation). On the Web, however, the opposite is
>true, and trying to use print-design techniques for it only increases the
>variation. To paraphrase Neal's examples from another thread, the more a
>jazz quintet tries to play like a symphony orchestra, the worse it will
>sound. What works well in one medium often falls flat on its face in
>another medium.
Some of the arguments others have been using are more like, "Because
it works in one medium, it won't work here." As though it is
implicitly impossible for a principle to apply to multiple media.
>It matters not a bit that the techniques are long-
>established in the first medium; they are in fact specific to that medium
>and don't transfer well.
I'm am claiming that with the Web, *especially* given that people can
set their browsers to view text at a general size that works for them,
they haven't lost the ability that they have always possessed with
print media to deal comfortably with a small degree of *variation* in
text sizes. Normally sighted people deal with 8pt, 10pt, 12pt, 14pt
text in different contexts. The same people can deal with that degree
of variation on a computer screen, and *in addition*, people whose
readable range hovers around 36pt can handle variation around *that*.
Is there any reason not to think so? Talk here has been about people
setting their browsers for their "optimal" type size. I think it's
reasonable to suggest that a person's optimal type size is not also
the minimal type size he can work with.
--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
Brian
> You guys just bitch about anything. If it's not yours then it's wrong.
charming fellow.
BTW,
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/dont.html#3
Brian
> You guys just bitch about anything. If it's not yours then it's wrong.
Oh, one more thing: *plonk*.
Harlan Messinger
"Eric Bohlman" <eboh...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9478EBD68B6FB...@130.133.1.4...
> "Harlan Messinger" <h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:bup68t$ka9rj$1...@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
> > I don't see that human beings' capabilities or tolerances for
> > variation suddenly change when they read something on the web instead
> > of on a printed page.
>
> What you're forgetting is that the Web introduces several sources of
> variation that simply don't exist in print. When you print a page on a
> printing press (at least one that works correctly), several important
> aspects of it are completely fixed: everyone will get the same page size.
> Everyone will get the same physical size of letters. Everyone will get
the
> exact same typefaces.
>
> On the Web, though, everything I just mentioned will be variable, not
> fixed. Those aspects will be influenced by factors like monitor size,
> computer type, user settings, and software environment. If, for some
> reason, you truly wanted a Web page to display exactly the same for
> everybody,
I don't. I said that I don't. My original contribution to this thread was
precisely to TELL THE ORIGINAL POSTER that this can't be accomplished. You
are the second person within a day to take off at me as though it was my
position that you *should* be able to do this, or that it's realistic to
think that you can. The least you folks can do is pay attention to what the
position is that 's being taken before you take issue with it.
Harlan Messinger
this one, your message showed up as new, and for some reason I didn't
realize it was the one I'd already responded to. You are NOT the second
person to take off after me for this non-position of mine. Just the first.
Harlan Messinger
"Tim" <T...@mail.localhost> wrote in message
news:89j0101q1fusek4sl...@4ax.com...
> "Noozer" <postm...@127.0.0.1> wrote
>
> >> Leave my fonts ALONE!
>
>
> "Harlan Messinger" <h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > I take it you refuse to read any book, magazine, or newspaper that is
> > printed in other than your one and only and immutable font size, without
any
> > tolerance for even the most minute deviation.
>
> You do realise, that if a book is published with fonts that are too
> small for someone to read, that they're not likely to read it? Only
> some people are willing to sit there with a magnifying glass.
I'm not going to repeat myself any more. You and others are obviously
responding without paying attention to the details of what I have said. One
would think that I had written something like "I like to set my body text in
fixed 4-point type"?
Harlan Messinger
>
> "Harlan Messinger" <h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:buolkd$kdcc7$1...@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Noozer" <postm...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> > news:_kEPb.215223$ts4.14712@pd7tw3no...
> > > > > >>>body { font-size: 100%; sans-serif; }
> > >
> > >
> > > Why not just omit the 100% altogether?
> > >
> > > Leave my fonts ALONE!
> >
> > I take it you refuse to read any book, magazine, or newspaper that is
> > printed in other than your one and only and immutable font size, without
> any
> > tolerance for even the most minute deviation.
>
> Yup! If I can't read it then I can't read it.
You really mean that your optimal reading size is also your minimal reading
size, and that you are incapable of reading anything that's one point off in
either direction? Fascinating. You should be on display in the Smithsonian.
>
> Of course you're forgetting that newspapers don't come in different
> resolutions. Would you buy a newspaper that was only readable if pressed
> against your face or held 30 feet away?
Non sequitur. Try again without the premise that I've taken a position that
I haven't taken.
>
> Tell me how it is that a website designed to be readable on an 800x600
> monitor and isn't on a 1600x1200 monitor is a good design.
Non sequitur. Try again without the premise that I've taken a position that
I haven't taken.
Harlan Messinger
"Neal" <nea...@spamrcn.com> wrote in message
news:opr17hkm...@news.rcn.com...
Not because people don't have tolerances for deviations *within* a range.
Because some people can't read within the normal range *at all*. So versions
in a larger size are provided for those people. Suppose it's in 36-pt text.
That doesn't mean that *those* people can't read text in 34 or 38. Or am I
missing something?
Brian
> "Noozer" <postm...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:46_Pb.224113$JQ1.2262@pd7tw1no...
>
>> different resolutions.
>
> position that I haven't taken.
>
>> monitor and isn't on a 1600x1200 monitor is a good design.
>
> Non sequitur. Try again without the premise that I've taken a
> position that I haven't taken.
I detect a pattern. From earlier in the thread:
Harlan Messinger wrote:
> "Mikko Rantalainen" <mi...@st.jyu.fi> wrote in message
> news:buk4n8$bm5$1...@mordred.cc.jyu.fi...
>
>> If the user isn't aware about the possibility, he doesn't care
>> enough to look for it.
>
> Non sequitur.
You seem awfully fond of Latin deponents.
Harlan Messinger
"Brian" <use...@julietremblay.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote in
message news:p2fQb.105001$Rc4.718436@attbi_s54...
> Harlan Messinger wrote:
> > "Noozer" <postm...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> > news:46_Pb.224113$JQ1.2262@pd7tw1no...
> >
> >> Of course you're forgetting that newspapers don't come in
> >> different resolutions.
> >
> > Non sequitur. Try again without the premise that I've taken a
> > position that I haven't taken.
> >
> >> how it is that a website designed to be readable on an 800x600
> >> monitor and isn't on a 1600x1200 monitor is a good design.
> >
> > Non sequitur. Try again without the premise that I've taken a
> > position that I haven't taken.
>
> I detect a pattern. From earlier in the thread:
>
> Harlan Messinger wrote:
> > "Mikko Rantalainen" <mi...@st.jyu.fi> wrote in message
> > news:buk4n8$bm5$1...@mordred.cc.jyu.fi...
> >
> >> If the user isn't aware about the possibility, he doesn't care
> >> enough to look for it.
> >
> > Non sequitur.
I learned it from my father when I was a boy. I'm rather fond of it. I
didn't know anything about deponents until years later, though. I like "res
ipsa loquitur" too but don't use it as much.
Alan J. Flavell
> I'm not going to repeat myself any more. You and others are obviously
> responding without paying attention to the details of what I have said.
When you keep trying to contradict fictional positions that no-one has
presented, we can't help worrying that you too are exhibiting a degree
of selective blindness to what others have posted.
> One would think that I had written something like "I like to set my
> body text in fixed 4-point type"?
No, one wouldn't.
I've had enough of this now. We're getting nowhere, you're just
inventing ever more-extreme positions for the other participants, it's
pointless to continue.
Harlan Messinger
"Alan J. Flavell" <fla...@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.53.04...@ppepc56.ph.gla.ac.uk...
Other participants keep reacting to a broader, less focused position than
the one I am actually taking. I can't help it if they do that, and, yes, it
causes the discussion to go nowhere when they do that. The fact that I point
out to them that they are doing this is not the problem.
Tim
>> You do realise, that if a book is published with fonts that are too
>> small for someone to read, that they're not likely to read it? Only
>> some people are willing to sit there with a magnifying glass.
"Harlan Messinger" <h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I'm not going to repeat myself any more. You and others are obviously
> responding without paying attention to the details of what I have said. One
> would think that I had written something like "I like to set my body text in
> fixed 4-point type"?
It doesn't have to be that extreme to be a problem. Merely using one
font size smaller than default, or just slightly smaller (if you're not
playing the change sizes in default steps game), can be enough to make a
page unreadable.
You're obviously typing without thinking what you're typing (now, and
before). You don't really think that everyone got wrong what you were
saying?
Tim
Harlan Messinger <hmessinger...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I think it's reasonable to suggest that a person's optimal type size
> is not also the minimal type size he can work with.
My experience says otherwise. On most browsers that I've played with,
the standard size has been what I'd call a normal font size, some even
too small. The next size down is typically too much smaller,
particularly when you consider the low resolution of many current visual
display units (not only is it below the threshold of good resolution,
it's also too small to read comfortably, even if the resolution was
high).
All I see in this argument, is someone in the corner desperately trying
not to change their point of view, against all evidence to the contrary.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
Harlan Messinger
>On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 07:31:44 -0500,
>Harlan Messinger <hmessinger...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> I think it's reasonable to suggest that a person's optimal type size
>> is not also the minimal type size he can work with.
>
>My experience says otherwise. On most browsers that I've played with,
>the standard size has been what I'd call a normal font size, some even
>too small. The next size down is typically too much smaller,
>particularly when you consider the low resolution of many current visual
>display units (not only is it below the threshold of good resolution,
>it's also too small to read comfortably, even if the resolution was
>high).
>
>All I see in this argument, is someone in the corner desperately trying
>not to change their point of view, against all evidence to the contrary.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^
All the "evidence" presented has been:
1. A repetition of one orthodoxy or another without regard to the
specifics of what I'm claiming, or
2. A response that specifically addresses something that I *didn't*
say, or
3. A claim that is responsive but that is ludicrous (such as the
implication that some people can read at *only* one rigid text size
and not at any other).
In this light, to say that I'm desperately trying not to change my
point of view is about as descriptive of the situation as if I were in
a room full of hidebound Mormons or Hasids disagreeing with their
"evidence", and it's as much a case of the pot calling the kettle
black.
Harlan Messinger
>"Tim" <T...@mail.localhost> wrote
>
>>> You do realise, that if a book is published with fonts that are too
>>> small for someone to read, that they're not likely to read it? Only
>>> some people are willing to sit there with a magnifying glass.
>
>
>"Harlan Messinger" <h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> I'm not going to repeat myself any more. You and others are obviously
>> responding without paying attention to the details of what I have said. One
>> would think that I had written something like "I like to set my body text in
>> fixed 4-point type"?
>
>It doesn't have to be that extreme to be a problem. Merely using one
>font size smaller than default, or just slightly smaller (if you're not
>playing the change sizes in default steps game), can be enough to make a
>page unreadable.
>
>You're obviously typing without thinking what you're typing (now, and
>before). You don't really think that everyone got wrong what you were
>saying?
Yeah, I do, because your response is to a supposed stance on my part
that one point less than default is still readable by everyone, when
I'm talking about one point (for the sake of argument) below
*optimal*. Yes, it started off with my suggesting
body { font-size: 80% }
but since, as at least a couple of people here have insisted,
EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD RESETS HIS BROWSER FOR AN OPTIMAL DISPLAY, this
doesn't mean 80% of the factory default, it means 80% of the user's
optimal. And I absolutely don't believe anybody's *optimal* is the
same as his *minimal* because--well, a person's optimal type size is
simply not the one where he can barely make it out! Unless one doesn't
know what "optimal" means, that is. In summary, I believe that if
someone simply can't read 80% of the default, then that person isn't
*using* the default, he's set his browser for a larger display. (And
anyone who says I'm wrong is disagreeing with the person who--sorry,
I'm not keeping track of who's making which argument--I got this
from.)
kchayka
>
> body { font-size: 80% }
>
> And I absolutely don't believe anybody's *optimal* is the
> same as his *minimal*
You are generally correct, optimal is the size the user deems is best
for reading large amounts of text on screen, i.e. body text. Minimal is
the smallest tolerable font size. But what you have done with the above
rule is set body text to the smallest tolerable font size. This will
only cause me eyestrain, plus it will make any elements with an even
smaller font-size (and you *know* there will be some) unreadable. I
fail to see how this is good usability.
> In summary, I believe that if
> someone simply can't read 80% of the default, then that person isn't
> *using* the default, he's set his browser for a larger display.
Huh? Tis true I don't use vendor default settings, but whether I have
set my optimal to larger or smaller than factory settings is irrelevant.
80% is suitable for copyright notices and the like, but not for body text.
Harlan Messinger
>Harlan Messinger wrote:
>>
>> body { font-size: 80% }
>>
>> And I absolutely don't believe anybody's *optimal* is the
>> same as his *minimal*
>
>You are generally correct, optimal is the size the user deems is best
>for reading large amounts of text on screen, i.e. body text. Minimal is
>the smallest tolerable font size. But what you have done with the above
>rule is set body text to the smallest tolerable font size.
Well, that's a reasonable possibility. But consider the following two
groups of people:
A. Users for whom 80% is at the threshold of comfort.
B. Users with normal vision who would find 100% for other than a
low-content casual web page to be off-putting. (With all the threats
of "I just won't look at your site if I'm not happy" coming from those
writing in defense of the visually impaired, I think it's fair to
bring into the equation such displeasure coming from the fully sighted
as well.)
Hypotheses:
1. Group A is smaller than group B. (Note that Group A is not "all
people with poor vision" or "all people who have adjusted their text
size upwards". It's the subset of those people who lie in the margin I
described above.)
2. Group A people probably know how to adjust the text to make it even
slightly larger (except, granted, for the subset of the subset who
already are on the "Largest" setting). Group B people probably don't
know to, or know how to, adjust the text size downward.
Then my 80% may be reasonable. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm not. Maybe
90% then. Or maybe not. It's a judgment call. In any event, I maintain
that considerations on one side are to be balanced against
considerations on the other side. I don't have any patience for the
attitude that the very existence of considerations on one side
eliminates the validity of considerations on the other. That attitude
is so prevalent here, that it is only now that you have been the first
person to address, in a reasoned manner, the specific position that I
was taking.
Stanimir Stamenkov
> kchayka <kcha-...@sihope.com> wrote:
>> Harlan Messinger wrote:
>>
>>> body { font-size: 80% }
>>>
>>> And I absolutely don't believe anybody's *optimal* is the
>>> same as his *minimal*
>>
>> You are generally correct, optimal is the size the user deems is best
>> for reading large amounts of text on screen, i.e. body text. Minimal is
>> the smallest tolerable font size. But what you have done with the above
>> rule is set body text to the smallest tolerable font size.
>
> Well, that's a reasonable possibility. But consider the following two
> groups of people:
>
> A. Users for whom 80% is at the threshold of comfort.
>
> B. Users with normal vision who would find 100% for other than a
> low-content casual web page to be off-putting. (With all the threats
> of "I just won't look at your site if I'm not happy" coming from those
> writing in defense of the visually impaired, I think it's fair to
> bring into the equation such displeasure coming from the fully sighted
> as well.)
A better approach, which would result in less harm to users already
set their preferred font size to something smaller than the default
(which you take as granted):
html { font: 8pt Verdana, Arial, sans-serif }
body { font-size: larger; line-height: 1.2 }
After all you want to enforce a particular font size but then
setting an absolute font size breaks the Text zoom feature in IE -
is this what you're trying to workaround? The above values would
result in equal target sizes in IE and Mozilla/Netscape.
--
Stanimir
Neal
<hmessinger...@comcast.net> wrote:
> but since, as at least a couple of people here have insisted,
> EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD RESETS HIS BROWSER FOR AN OPTIMAL DISPLAY,
... which is bullshit, but let's assume for the moment it's true...
> this
> doesn't mean 80% of the factory default, it means 80% of the user's
> optimal. And I absolutely don't believe anybody's *optimal* is the
> same as his *minimal* because--well, a person's optimal type size is
> simply not the one where he can barely make it out!
Ok. You're absolutely correct. But consider this...
I can make out letters down to a particular size on the screen. I want to
maximize content in the viewport while being able to read the text, so it
would be sensible to assume the user's setting would be close to, but not
quite equal to, the smallest size they can read, no? For many users, it is
possible, even likely, that 80% of their chosen size is too small to read.
Besides, this setting is where they WANT to read text. They don't get that
choice so easily in books, magazines and newspapers. They can shell out
the sheqels for a big-screen TV so they can read the text on the
broadcasts. But what makes the Internet unique is that they can set the
text size to what they prefer.
Making an overall body text size adjustment countermands their preference
or need for their optimal size. The author has presumed that (s)he knows
better what the user's going to want in text size, and we all know that's
not the author's place.
It's one thing to set up a small amount of small text for a legitimate
purpose, to differentiate that text from surrounding text. But to set it
globally for a stylesheet with a body selector, that's overstepping the
boundary between the author's and the user's domains. The user must
compensate by changing their user settings for one site, or visiting a
different site whose author respects their role as the main judge of how
text is rendered.
Delivering the body text at the standard size eliminates the possibility
that the user will ever find a problem reading your page. As we are not in
the business of pissing off the users, choosing smaller sizes on the large
scale is foolish.
Mikko Rantalainen
> A better approach, which would result in less harm to users already
> set their preferred font size to something smaller than the default
> (which you take as granted):
>
> html { font: 8pt Verdana, Arial, sans-serif }
> body { font-size: larger; line-height: 1.2 }
>
> After all you want to enforce a particular font size but then
> setting an absolute font size breaks the Text zoom feature in IE -
> is this what you're trying to workaround? The above values would
> result in equal target sizes in IE and Mozilla/Netscape.
Duh. If ALL you want is to set "correct" default font size for MSIE
without bothering other people, just use
body { font-size: 80%; } /* or whatever the "correct" value is */
html>body { font-size: 100%; } /* MSIE ignores this... */
(I still think that you shouldn't mess with user's default font
size. It might be that an MSIE user find his browsers default size
to be pretty much OK. He'd really prefer font size of 107% for the
default but the factory default 100% is so close he doesn't bother.
Now, you come with your uber style sheet and set the font size to
80%. Resulting text is nearly 1/3rd too small and the user has
trouble reading it. On the other hand, user it might be user really
preferred 94% but, again, the difference is small enough to warrant
the extra work to find out how to fix default font size. In that
case, your author style sheet font size of 80% would probably be ok.
The point is that YOU CANNOT KNOW which way the user really thinks
the font size should be adjusted. And IF YOU DON'T KNOW YOU
SHOULDN'T TRY TO FIX IT!)
--
Mikko
Mikko Rantalainen
> Eric Cartman wrote:
>>You guys just bitch about anything. If it's not yours then it's wrong.
>
> charming fellow.
The FROM was already a BIG hint <URL:http://www.cartman.org/>.
(Don't feed trolls)
--
Mikko
Alan J. Flavell
[ warning bells set off by the comprehensive quoting, now snipped.]
> A better approach, which would result in less harm to users already
> set their preferred font size to something smaller than the default
> (which you take as granted):
>
> html { font: 8pt Verdana, Arial, sans-serif }
If you're going to make such a preposterous suggestion, then you're
going to have to show the readership how it relates to previous
discussions which have repeatedly showed it to be completely
inappropriate for screen display purposes.
> body { font-size: larger; line-height: 1.2 }
That doesn't make it any better, though.
> After all you want to enforce a particular font size
To which the only useful answer in a WWW context would be "stop
wanting that". With the supporting arguments:
1. It doesn't work
2. Even if it did work, it isn't what the WWW needs
3. All attempts to achieve it, while maybe producing the desired
effect in some subset of situations, make things a lot worse in other
situations.
> The above values would result in equal target sizes in IE and
> Mozilla/Netscape.
I don't believe you. "IE" is at least two different lines of browsers
(Win IE and Mac IE), and Mozilla comes for a wide range of different
platforms, with different models for display resolution, sizing etc.
Even if you consider only one version of one browser, when you come to
compare it between different OSes, different display sizes, different
user settings, the results vary widely. That's a fact, whether you
like it or not (I like it, because it reinforces the principle of
flexible design that lies at the heart of the web concept).
So the only realistic approach (disregarding those fools who say that
their "target audience" is defined by a version of Win MSIE on one
size of screen at one popular resolution and window size, and assuming
normal eyesight) is to toss aside any attempts at absolute sizing
(other than perhaps for print stylesheets - but here again you don't
get to control the paper size, so it ain't as simple as it seems)
Stanimir Stamenkov
> Duh. If ALL you want
It's not me. :-)
> is to set "correct" default font size for MSIE
> without bothering other people, just use
>
> body { font-size: 80%; } /* or whatever the "correct" value is */
> html>body { font-size: 100%; } /* MSIE ignores this... */
That would be no better because I've set my preffered font size
(which is smaller than the default) in MSIE through the user style
sheet.
--
Stanimir
Stanimir Stamenkov
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:
>
>> After all you want to enforce a particular font size
>
> To which the only useful answer in a WWW context would be "stop
> wanting that".
I won't and I don't argue about that one.
> ... so it ain't as simple as it seems.
Yes, it is not as simple and if one doesn't supply at least 1
alternative style, every style rule applied could be considered harmful.
--
Stanimir
Harlan Messinger
>
>A better approach, which would result in less harm to users already
>set their preferred font size to something smaller than the default
>(which you take as granted):
>
>html { font: 8pt Verdana, Arial, sans-serif }
>body { font-size: larger; line-height: 1.2 }
>
>After all you want to enforce a particular font size
No, I don't, and you're the latest person to accuse me of that, which
is the antithesis of what I said in my initial contribution to this
thread. I really don't know how Alan Flavell can maintain that I'm the
one causing this discussion to go nowhere.
Harlan Messinger
>On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 00:20:07 -0500, Harlan Messinger
><hmessinger...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> but since, as at least a couple of people here have insisted,
>> EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD RESETS HIS BROWSER FOR AN OPTIMAL DISPLAY,
>
>... which is bullshit, but let's assume for the moment it's true...
>
>> this
>> doesn't mean 80% of the factory default, it means 80% of the user's
>> optimal. And I absolutely don't believe anybody's *optimal* is the
>> same as his *minimal* because--well, a person's optimal type size is
>> simply not the one where he can barely make it out!
>
>Ok. You're absolutely correct. But consider this...
>
>I can make out letters down to a particular size on the screen. I want to
>maximize content in the viewport while being able to read the text, so it
>would be sensible to assume the user's setting would be close to, but not
>quite equal to, the smallest size they can read, no?
Maybe. That's worth considering. Thanks.
>For many users, it is
>possible, even likely, that 80% of their chosen size is too small to read.
>
>Besides, this setting is where they WANT to read text.
Well, again, as I said previously, it's normal for text size to vary
according to the type of material, and I think the vast majority of
people don't even notice consciously that kind of variation. In other
words, people effectively have a preferred *range*, not a preferred
*size*.
>They don't get that
>choice so easily in books, magazines and newspapers. They can shell out
>the sheqels for a big-screen TV so they can read the text on the
>broadcasts. But what makes the Internet unique is that they can set the
>text size to what they prefer.
>
>Making an overall body text size adjustment countermands their preference
>or need for their optimal size. The author has presumed that (s)he knows
>better what the user's going to want in text size, and we all know that's
>not the author's place.
>
>It's one thing to set up a small amount of small text for a legitimate
>purpose, to differentiate that text from surrounding text. But to set it
>globally for a stylesheet with a body selector, that's overstepping the
>boundary between the author's and the user's domains. The user must
>compensate by changing their user settings for one site, or visiting a
>different site whose author respects their role as the main judge of how
>text is rendered.
>
>Delivering the body text at the standard size eliminates the possibility
>that the user will ever find a problem reading your page. As we are not in
>the business of pissing off the users, choosing smaller sizes on the large
>scale is foolish.
Do you think that no users get frustrated with a site where the print
is too big? They bother me.
Neal
<hmessinger...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Neal <nea...@spamrcn.com> wrote:
>> Besides, this setting is where they WANT to read text.
>
> Well, again, as I said previously, it's normal for text size to vary
> according to the type of material, and I think the vast majority of
> people don't even notice consciously that kind of variation. In other
> words, people effectively have a preferred *range*, not a preferred
> *size*.
Yes, but as I said, we have to presume the size they use is at the bottom
end of the range. Not all people will have difficulty with 80%, but enough
users to merit rethinking this strategy. Remember, it's the old folks who
have all the money to spend ;) so best cater to them a little, eh?
> Do you think that no users get frustrated with a site where the print
> is too big? They bother me.
>
If I have a choice of making my site annoying for User A or unusable for
User B, I'll annoy User A.
Brian
> Alan J. Flavell wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:
>>
>>> After all you want to enforce a particular font size
>
>
> Yes, it is not as simple and if one doesn't supply at least 1
> alternative style, every style rule applied could be considered
> harmful.
bzzzzz.
img {float: left;} does not override a user preference in such a way
as to make things unreadable. I do not consider it harmful.
body {font-size: 80%} does. I consider it harmful.
Stanimir Stamenkov
> Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:
>> Alan J. Flavell wrote:
>>> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:
>>>
>>>> After all you want to enforce a particular font size
>>>
>>> it ain't as simple as it seems.
>>
>> Yes, it is not as simple and if one doesn't supply at least 1
>> alternative style, every style rule applied could be considered
>> harmful.
>
> bzzzzz.
>
> img {float: left;} does not override a user preference in such a way
> as to make things unreadable. I do not consider it harmful.
Yeah, 'img { float: left }' may be, but:
<div class="nav"></div>
<div class="doc"></div>
.nav { float: left; width: 7em }
.doc { margin-left: 7.5em }
would be harmful for a small screen device.
> body {font-size: 80%} does. I consider it harmful.
Yes, I it is harmful to me, too - read my reply to Mikko Rantalainen
above.
--
Stanimir
Alan J. Flavell
> Yes, it is not as simple and if one doesn't supply at least 1
> alternative style, every style rule applied could be considered harmful.
Oh dear.
Fact is, the web comes with a practically infinite range of
alternative styles, implemented in the browser, optionally with
custom-designed user stylesheets that they can aquire if they need (or
if they simply want to).
Trying to convince readers that they get only one or two presentations
that have been designed for them by the author, is to impoverish them.
I'd rather encourage them to find out where their browser adjustments
are, than to pander to any widespread belief that this is just another
sort of TV show. Hell, even TVs have volume controls.
kchayka
>
> A better approach, which would result in less harm to users already
> set their preferred font size to something smaller than the default
> (which you take as granted):
>
> html { font: 8pt Verdana, Arial, sans-serif }
This is indeed harmful, and exactly what you should *not* do.
8pt is unreadably small for me to begin with. I don't have Verdana, so
would end up with another font which is no doubt rendered smaller than
Verdana. You've just poured salt in the wound and rubbed it in. It's
painful. Please stop.
> body { font-size: larger; line-height: 1.2 }
This is woefully inadequate for resolving the perceived problem.
> The above values would
> result in equal target sizes in IE and Mozilla/Netscape.
There is no reason why they need to be "equal" in the first place.
Harlan Messinger
Your premise is that we're talking about people who have set the text
size to the bottom of their range. If that's the case, then my
hypothetical site is *not* unusable for User B, who can increase his
text size further just as capably as I can decrease mine.
Stanimir Stamenkov
> This is woefully inadequate for resolving the perceived problem.
O.k. What is adequate for resolving the perceived problem?
Graphical designers still will need setting particular font faces
and if one can't rely on a proper 'font-size-adjust' implementation
how one could know if the selected font face won't result in too big
or too small font compared to the default reader's font?
--
Stanimir
Tim
"Alan J. Flavell" <fla...@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
> Hell, even TVs have volume controls.
TV sets should come with intelligence controls. I've tried adjusting
the brilliance, but it didn't help...
Tim
>> This is woefully inadequate for resolving the perceived problem.
Stanimir Stamenkov <s7a...@netscape.net> wrote:
> O.k. What is adequate for resolving the perceived problem?
>
> Graphical designers still will need setting particular font faces
> and if one can't rely on a proper 'font-size-adjust' implementation
> how one could know if the selected font face won't result in too big
> or too small font compared to the default reader's font?
There's a difference between "need" and "want," and generally speaking,
I find that specifying font faces without also specifying any sizes
usually ends up with something that's quite readable. My defaults, and
the defaults of nearly every single browser that I've played with, are
quite fine.
Sure, there's some fonts that are a bit smaller or bigger, but I can
adjust around that, as needed, if the styling doesn't make that
incredibly difficult. And avoiding specifying the well known problem
fonts certainly helps. I'm sorely tempted to remove a couple of the
annoying ones from my Windows box, and they were never a part of my
Linux box.
Any author who messes with font sizes, for whatever reasons, is bound to
make things worse for me, and lots of other people, too. Don't do it
without good reason, and there rarely seems to be "good reason."
Thus far, the only significantly noticeable reduction in a font size,
renders such fonts too small for me to read. I can live with the
occasional bottom of the page copyright link being tiny, but not an
entire page being too small to read (yes, even 80% is too small). And
continuing along the same theme; ever so slightly smaller than normal
fonts are almost indistinguishable from no change to the sizing, that
it's just a waste of time.
Unregistered
Hi people,
I'm currently learning CSS and XHTML so I'm no expert but after reading
this interesting thread (well actually I got bored after the first
couple of pages but really it did start off interesting) I decided to
change my fixed sized fonts to %.
Anyway glad I did but what I found was body font = 80% was best!
100% is too large. Now before you all jump at me let me explain.
I have my text size on 'default' (medium in IE, never adjusted in
Firebird) and so when I set the body text at 100% all of a sudden it
seemed too big in comparison to to all the other websites that I
frequent. So adjusting it to 80% made it 'normal' again.
I tested it each with IE's text size settings and every setting was
readable and didn't 'break' the website design.
I know I've left myself open to the 'Yeah it looks ok to you but what
about everyone else' argument, but surely if the text size is inline
with most other websites then that'll be equally true for everyone else
who prefers to adjust their text-size.
To summurise: I found 80% works great and 100% too big (in comparison
with most other websites).
Regards,
CW.
Unregistered -
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via http://www.forum4designers.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
View this thread: http://www.forum4designers.com/message35065.html
kchayka
> Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:
>> html { font: 8pt Verdana, Arial, sans-serif }
>
>
>> This is woefully inadequate for resolving the perceived problem.
>
> O.k. What is adequate for resolving the perceived problem?
I guess you don't see that there isn't any real problem to begin with,
only a perceived one. Thus, these rules you suggested are not a
solution to anything. They actually create a problem that wasn't there
before.
> Graphical designers still will need setting particular font faces
Noone *needs* to set particular font faces for body text, nor can the
author's choice be forced on anyone. The best anyone can do is suggest.
Authors may *want* to set a particular font family, but they cannot
rely on the users having that font installed.
> and if one can't rely on a proper 'font-size-adjust' implementation
Um, this property has already been dropped from the next CSS spec due to
lack of browser support. You weren't seriously thinking it would
salvage anything, were you?
> how one could know if the selected font face won't result in too big
> or too small font compared to the default reader's font?
This is a potential issue any time a particular font family is
specified. The author cannot know that a font is the same as a font of
the same name on someone else's system. The font face is only part of
the problem with your style suggestions, anyway. The crux is setting an
absolute font-size. Eliminate that and you have to wonder less about
the size the visitor gets, at least compared to their default font.
But then there's that Verdana thing again. The evils of Verdana have
been discussed numerous times. I already wrote about the problem I have
with it. Search google for more on the subject.
Alan J. Flavell
> Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:
>
> > and if one can't rely on a proper 'font-size-adjust' implementation
>
> Um, this property has already been dropped from the next CSS spec due to
> lack of browser support.
It has, yes; I think that's unfortunate.
> You weren't seriously thinking it would salvage anything, were you?
In the originally proposed form, it had some shortcomings, in as much
as it was designed to compensate for fonts' objective em/ex ratios;
but the reason that Verdana is such a problem is that it looks
subjectively even larger, at a given nominal em size, than other fonts
which have a similar objective em/ex ratio. So it may be that
font-size-adjust ought to apply some kind of perceptual adjustment
factor, rather than a mere objective value.
> > how one could know if the selected font face won't result in too big
> > or too small font compared to the default reader's font?
>
> This is a potential issue any time a particular font family is
> specified.
Indeed. If the user selected Verdana as their default, with a size
that suits them, then they're liable to find Times Roman too small for
comfort; conversely, if they left the vendor's initial choice of an
over-large Times Roman, then they will find Verdana looking absurdly
large. But the author cannot know which way the reader's choice has
fallen, so there is no way that they can compensate for it in their
font-size proposals.
I think it's a great shame that something like font-size-adjust
hasn't been implemented.
> But then there's that Verdana thing again. The evils of Verdana have
> been discussed numerous times. I already wrote about the problem I have
> with it. Search google for more on the subject.
It's well presented and demonstrated at:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html
There's nothing wrong with Verdana for its purpose (namely, getting
high legibility when font size is restricted, e.g on low-definition
displays): it's just not an appropriate choice for web use, due to
this sizing issue. Oh, and it's not very attractive at _large_ font
sizes, such as headings etc.
Brian
>
> I'm currently learning CSS and XHTML so I'm no expert
> what I found was body font = 80% was best!
Is this supposed to be some sort of revelation?
> 100% is too large. Now before you all jump at me let me explain.
What for? What could you, a self-described newcomer to web design,
possibly add to the long discussion that had already taken place?
> I have my text size on 'default' (medium in IE, never adjusted in
> Firebird) and so when I set the body text at 100% all of a sudden it
> seemed too big in comparison to to all the other websites that I
> frequent.
Then change the settings in your browser, as you've already learned if
you really have read this thread.
> So adjusting it to 80% made it 'normal' again.
In *your* browser. In *my* browser, adjusting it to 80% makes it 20%
too small.
> Posted via http://www.forum4designers.com
Your're posting to usenet group comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets
Please learn the proper quoting and replying style. For a good primer, see
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/dont.html
Mason A. Clark
wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, kchayka wrote:
Which, on my IE6 browser demonstrates the error of using
CSS for page layout. The bottom of the main text is cropped
when I set the font size to anything *less* than "Largest."
How much is lost with "Largest" I'll never know.
Mason C
Steve Pugh
>On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 15:08:24 +0000, "Alan J. Flavell" <fla...@ph.gla.ac.uk>
>wrote:
>
>
>Which, on my IE6 browser demonstrates the error of using
>CSS for page layout. The bottom of the main text is cropped
>when I set the font size to anything *less* than "Largest."
>
>How much is lost with "Largest" I'll never know.
The 'cropping' has nothing to do with the font size. It looks like the
peekaboo bug and is a bug in Internet Explorer.
Steve
--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Steve Pugh <st...@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
Alan J. Flavell
[snip-o-rama -1- ]
[AJF;]
> >It's well presented and demonstrated at:
> >http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html
>
> Which, on my IE6 browser demonstrates the error of using
> CSS for page layout.
Odd: it works great on Win IE6 as far as I can see. (Though I
normally use Mozilla).
> The bottom of the main text is cropped
> when I set the font size to anything *less* than "Largest."
It's displayed fine at any of IE's 5 settings on mine.
How very curious. Steve Pugh apparently has an explanation (and there
are several known fixes for this bug, out there on the web); so now
I'm curious why I don't see it on mine.
Have fun
-1- Is there any chance of persuading you to tidy-up the quotage
yourself, so that it highlights the specific issues you're commenting
on? thanks.
Tim
Unregistered <Guest....@mail.forum4designers.com> wrote:
> I'm currently learning CSS and XHTML so I'm no expert but after reading
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Don't stop learning. It's too easy to come to a conclusion too early,
and that's what you're doing.
> Anyway glad I did but what I found was body font = 80% was best!
>
> 100% is too large. Now before you all jump at me let me explain.
That's your browser, not mine. Adjust your *browser* to suit you.
> I have my text size on 'default' (medium in IE, never adjusted in
> Firebird) and so when I set the body text at 100% all of a sudden it
> seemed too big in comparison to all the other websites that I
> frequent. So adjusting it to 80% made it 'normal' again.
No, you haven't. Two wrongs don't make a right. I hate analogies, but
here goes: If your car is driving too fast, you take your foot off the
accelerator, you don't drive with the brakes applied. Surely people see
the faulty reasoning in that scenario? Kludging one WWW thing in one
direction, to accommodate something else adjusted in the other
direction, is just plain wrong. Somehow people just don't seem to
understand the same scenario in a different situation. It forces
everyone else to have to maladjust their equipment like you. Then the
next twit decides that things are still too big/small and further
kludges things.
When learning something, actually learn what you're doing. That doesn't
just mean what you're typing, but the technologies involved.
Particularly the interactions of interrelated things.
> I know I've left myself open to the 'Yeah it looks ok to you but what
> about everyone else' argument, but surely if the text size is inline
> with most other websites then that'll be equally true for everyone else
> who prefers to adjust their text-size.
>
> To summarise: I found 80% works great and 100% too big (in comparison
> with most other websites).
I find most websites, that I look at, don't specify font sizes, and they
look okay. I find many newbie websites that do play with fonts, and
they're too damn small. Particularly all those PHP toy forums that
people like to play with, without knowing what they're doing (typically
putting their data, into someone else's template).
One of the best features included on newer browsers is a threshold where
the browser will not let font sizes go below. It's only thanks to that
feature that some pages are readable. And, no, web twits shouldn't rely
on that sort of feature to make their site readable, they should be making
it readable in the first place. *Don't* rely on anything that should not
be relied on (it seems common sense doesn't exist these days).
CW.
Brian wrote:
> Is this supposed to be some sort of revelation?
>
Yes.
>
> What for? What could you, a self-described newcomer to web design,
> possibly add to the long discussion that had already taken place?
>
My point of view, just like everyone else.
>
> Then change the settings in your browser, as you've already learned
> if
> you really have read this thread.
>
Why should I if all the other websites I visit look fine - which will
be the same attitude as most other visiters to my or any site.
That's my whole point. What is 100%? What is normal? What is default?
Fact is if I set it to 100% it looks too big. When I set it to 80% it
looks 'normal'.
If it looks normal in my default setting my guess is it'll look
'normal' for whatever setting the user is accustomed to.
At the end of the day, upsetting as it may seem to some of you, the
crunch is that you have to go with the majority of the websites out
there - weither they do it 'right' or 'wrong' because the user will
adjust their browser to the common website.
C.W
CW. -
Andrew Thompson
...
| At the end of the day, ....the
| crunch is that you have to go with the majority of the websites out
| there
BaaaH! BaaaAAaah!
Gee I do not like being crushed into this
race with all the other sheep.. But I'll
keep walking, 'coz they all are..
..What's that smell of blood?
--
Andrew Thompson
* http://www.PhySci.org/ PhySci software suite
* http://www.1point1C.org/ 1.1C - Superluminal!
* http://www.AThompson.info/andrew/ personal site
CW.
Andrew Thompson wrote:
> *
>
> Gee I do not like being crushed into this
> race with all the other sheep.. But I'll
> keep walking, 'coz they all are..
>
> *
Er ok so given your analogy I guess you don't drive (if of course you
can drive) on the same side of the road as everyone else since that
would be following the 'sheep' right!
The masses have dictated that 80% seems to be the right size for
'normal' therefore since I'm catering for the masses I will take 80% as
'normal'.
If you want to make the average user adjust their browser to view your
site correctly that's up to you.
Adios.
CW.
Mikko Rantalainen
IMO, if you really use MSIE and use an user style sheet to change
base font size, the best way is to say body { font-size: xy%
!important; }. That's because so many pages set really stupid
font-sizes for body element.
Notice that I said "without bothering /other/ people". I'm aware
that [almost] all users of MSIE would see the change. It's just that
the MSIE is the only reason to change base font size because it's
the only browser where it's too hard to change that for a casual user.
I think that a page author shouldn't mess with font sizes at all but
I'm aware that sometimes the client has different thoughts and for
those cases, the workaround I wrote earlier (quoted above) does the
least damage. Of course, I tell the client about the thing but
sometimes I cannot get him to agree that MSIE users should adjust
their font size by theirself.
--
Mikko
Noozer
"Harlan Messinger" <h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:burt0m$l90n0$1...@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Tim" <T...@mail.localhost> wrote in message
> news:89j0101q1fusek4sl...@4ax.com...
> > "Noozer" <postm...@127.0.0.1> wrote
> >
> > >> Leave my fonts ALONE!
> >
> >
> > "Harlan Messinger" <h.mes...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > I take it you refuse to read any book, magazine, or newspaper that is
> > > printed in other than your one and only and immutable font size,
without
> any
> > > tolerance for even the most minute deviation.
> >
> > You do realise, that if a book is published with fonts that are too
> > small for someone to read, that they're not likely to read it? Only
> > some people are willing to sit there with a magnifying glass.
>
> I'm not going to repeat myself any more. You and others are obviously
> responding without paying attention to the details of what I have said.
One
> would think that I had written something like "I like to set my body text
in
> fixed 4-point type"?
And you do know that I can't read 8 point fonts on my system either, right?
Noozer
> that one point less than default is still readable by everyone, when
> I'm talking about one point (for the sake of argument) below
> *optimal*. Yes, it started off with my suggesting
>
> body { font-size: 80% }
Too small for me. A web page at 100% is the size that I can maximize the
usable space on my desktop AND be readable.
> but since, as at least a couple of people here have insisted,
> EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD RESETS HIS BROWSER FOR AN OPTIMAL DISPLAY, this
> doesn't mean 80% of the factory default, it means 80% of the user's
> optimal. And I absolutely don't believe anybody's *optimal* is the
> same as his *minimal* because--well, a person's optimal type size is
> simply not the one where he can barely make it out! Unless one doesn't
> know what "optimal" means, that is. In summary, I believe that if
> someone simply can't read 80% of the default, then that person isn't
> *using* the default, he's set his browser for a larger display. (And
> anyone who says I'm wrong is disagreeing with the person who--sorry,
> I'm not keeping track of who's making which argument--I got this
> from.)
Optimal to ME is the smallest font I can use while the page is still
readable.