Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Safari and no-zoom
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted
nospam
Feb 25, 2013, 6:29:19 PM2/25/13
to
In article <slrnkinsng....@mbp55.local>, Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> Apple really needs to let the user override the no-zoom flag on
> websites. It is being abused to insane degrees by web-monkeys to force
> their shitty mobile views and tiny fonts on mobile users.
>
> It's gotten bad enough that when I get to some shit site that won't let
> me zoom, I just close the site. Trouble is, there are so many of them I
> can't keep track of them.
if there are so many, then give some examples. i've yet to encounter a
site that can't be zoomed. sounds like user error.
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> Apple really needs to let the user override the no-zoom flag on
> websites. It is being abused to insane degrees by web-monkeys to force
> their shitty mobile views and tiny fonts on mobile users.
>
> It's gotten bad enough that when I get to some shit site that won't let
> me zoom, I just close the site. Trouble is, there are so many of them I
> can't keep track of them.
if there are so many, then give some examples. i've yet to encounter a
site that can't be zoomed. sounds like user error.
JF Mezei
Feb 25, 2013, 6:51:34 PM2/25/13
to
On 13-02-25 18:29, nospam wrote:
> if there are so many, then give some examples. i've yet to encounter a
> site that can't be zoomed. sounds like user error.
us.imdb.com
> if there are so many, then give some examples. i've yet to encounter a
> site that can't be zoomed. sounds like user error.
Once they detect you are an iPhone, they redirect to an ipHone specific
content where zooming is disabled. Once you have done your search, you
can go to the bottom of page and request the "desktop version" where you
get the real content which is zoomable.
There are many such examples.
nospam
Feb 25, 2013, 7:04:38 PM2/25/13
to
In article <512bf906$0$55092$c3e8da3$e408...@news.astraweb.com>, JF
all tiny. it's much more usable than the normal website, which requires
zooming (except on devices with larger displays).
in fact, i often use the mobile version on the desktop because i want
the content, not the unnecessary fluff.
> Once you have done your search, you
> can go to the bottom of page and request the "desktop version" where you
> get the real content which is zoomable.
or get the imdb app, which is even better.
Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> > if there are so many, then give some examples. i've yet to encounter a
> > site that can't be zoomed. sounds like user error.
>
> us.imdb.com
>
> Once they detect you are an iPhone, they redirect to an ipHone specific
> content where zooming is disabled.
that's a mobile site. it doesn't need to zoom and the fonts are not at
> > if there are so many, then give some examples. i've yet to encounter a
> > site that can't be zoomed. sounds like user error.
>
> us.imdb.com
>
> Once they detect you are an iPhone, they redirect to an ipHone specific
> content where zooming is disabled.
all tiny. it's much more usable than the normal website, which requires
zooming (except on devices with larger displays).
in fact, i often use the mobile version on the desktop because i want
the content, not the unnecessary fluff.
> Once you have done your search, you
> can go to the bottom of page and request the "desktop version" where you
> get the real content which is zoomable.
Message has been deleted
nospam
Feb 25, 2013, 9:49:54 PM2/25/13
to
In article <slrnkio5fp....@mbp55.local>, Lewis
definitely not.
> or have never used an mobile
> browser.
i do so daily.
> > us.imdb.com
>
> > Once they detect you are an iPhone, they redirect to an ipHone specific
> > content where zooming is disabled. Once you have done your search, you
> > can go to the bottom of page and request the "desktop version" where you
> > get the real content which is zoomable.
>
> > There are many such examples.
>
> Thousands.
so name some. should be easy if there are 'thousands'. imdb isn't one
of them.
> Anyone who has ever used a mobile device of any sort to
> cruise the web has complained about this. It is, of course, not limited ot
> the iphone.
not that i've noticed. where are these so-called complainers you claim
exist?
if you're referring to mobile sites (versus the desktop version), most
normal people (i.e., not you) *want* a mobile site on their mobile
devices, or better yet a dedicated app. plus, mobile sites do not have
tiny fonts like you claimed. they use bigger fonts.
but when have facts mattered to you.
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> >> if there are so many, then give some examples. i've yet to encounter a
> >> site that can't be zoomed. sounds like user error.
>
> You are either a fucking liar (most likely)
> >> if there are so many, then give some examples. i've yet to encounter a
> >> site that can't be zoomed. sounds like user error.
>
definitely not.
> or have never used an mobile
> browser.
i do so daily.
> > us.imdb.com
>
> > Once they detect you are an iPhone, they redirect to an ipHone specific
> > content where zooming is disabled. Once you have done your search, you
> > can go to the bottom of page and request the "desktop version" where you
> > get the real content which is zoomable.
>
> > There are many such examples.
>
so name some. should be easy if there are 'thousands'. imdb isn't one
of them.
> Anyone who has ever used a mobile device of any sort to
> cruise the web has complained about this. It is, of course, not limited ot
> the iphone.
not that i've noticed. where are these so-called complainers you claim
exist?
if you're referring to mobile sites (versus the desktop version), most
normal people (i.e., not you) *want* a mobile site on their mobile
devices, or better yet a dedicated app. plus, mobile sites do not have
tiny fonts like you claimed. they use bigger fonts.
but when have facts mattered to you.
Wes Groleau
Feb 25, 2013, 9:52:45 PM2/25/13
to
On 02-25-2013 18:51, JF Mezei wrote:
> get the real content which is zoomable.
The non-mobile version that is so #$%^#$%^ packed
> get the real content which is zoomable.
with $%$%^&$^% links that you're guaranteed to
click one if you try to zoom.
--
Wes Groleau
“There are more people worthy of blame
than there is blame to go around."
Wes Groleau
Feb 25, 2013, 9:55:56 PM2/25/13
to
On 02-25-2013 20:53, Lewis wrote:
> Thousands. Anyone who has ever used a mobile device of any sort to
and hasn't complained about one much less thousands.
Here, let me say it for you: You're a f----- liar!
Somebody who doesn't believe in killfiles let me know
when he's back on his meds?
> Thousands. Anyone who has ever used a mobile device of any sort to
> cruise the web has complained about this. It is, of course, not limited ot the iphone.
Here's an "anyone" who has used three models of iPhone and one of iPad
and hasn't complained about one much less thousands.
Here, let me say it for you: You're a f----- liar!
Somebody who doesn't believe in killfiles let me know
when he's back on his meds?
nospam
Feb 25, 2013, 10:00:15 PM2/25/13
to
In article <kgh85r$2lv$1...@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau
<Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> Somebody who doesn't believe in killfiles let me know
> when he's back on his meds?
it could be he's on too many.
> Somebody who doesn't believe in killfiles let me know
> when he's back on his meds?
DevilsPGD
Feb 25, 2013, 10:06:34 PM2/25/13
to
In the last episode of <kgh7vq$1j5$2...@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau
--
The nice thing about standards, there is enough for everyone to have their own.
<Grolea...@FreeShell.org> said:
>On 02-25-2013 18:51, JF Mezei wrote:
>> get the real content which is zoomable.
>
>The non-mobile version that is so #$%^#$%^ packed
>with $%$%^&$^% links that you're guaranteed to
>click one if you try to zoom.
Use a two-finger method of zooming instead of tapping?
>On 02-25-2013 18:51, JF Mezei wrote:
>> get the real content which is zoomable.
>
>The non-mobile version that is so #$%^#$%^ packed
>with $%$%^&$^% links that you're guaranteed to
>click one if you try to zoom.
--
The nice thing about standards, there is enough for everyone to have their own.
Wes Groleau
Feb 25, 2013, 10:16:05 PM2/25/13
to
On 02-25-2013 22:06, DevilsPGD wrote:
> In the last episode of <kgh7vq$1j5$2...@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau
> <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> said:
>
>> On 02-25-2013 18:51, JF Mezei wrote:
>>> get the real content which is zoomable.
>>
>> The non-mobile version that is so #$%^#$%^ packed
>> with $%$%^&$^% links that you're guaranteed to
>> click one if you try to zoom.
>
> Use a two-finger method of zooming instead of tapping?
Always. And on imdb.com (and no other site) that has never succeeded in
> In the last episode of <kgh7vq$1j5$2...@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau
> <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> said:
>
>> On 02-25-2013 18:51, JF Mezei wrote:
>>> get the real content which is zoomable.
>>
>> The non-mobile version that is so #$%^#$%^ packed
>> with $%$%^&$^% links that you're guaranteed to
>> click one if you try to zoom.
>
> Use a two-finger method of zooming instead of tapping?
staying on the same page. So I got the app, which I oddly never use.
Never been to their mobile site either, because I gave up on them before
they had one. Or at least before they put in the sniff and scratch feature.
--
Wes Groleau
Measure with a micrometer, mark with chalk, and cut with an axe.
Savageduck
Feb 26, 2013, 1:38:50 AM2/26/13
to
On 2013-02-25 19:16:05 -0800, Wes Groleau <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> said:
> On 02-25-2013 22:06, DevilsPGD wrote:
>> In the last episode of <kgh7vq$1j5$2...@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau
>> <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> said:
>>
>>> On 02-25-2013 18:51, JF Mezei wrote:
>>>> get the real content which is zoomable.
>>>
>>> The non-mobile version that is so #$%^#$%^ packed
>>> with $%$%^&$^% links that you're guaranteed to
>>> click one if you try to zoom.
>>
>> Use a two-finger method of zooming instead of tapping?
>
> Always. And on imdb.com (and no other site) that has never succeeded
> in staying on the same page. So I got the app, which I oddly never
> use. Never been to their mobile site either, because I gave up on them
> before they had one. Or at least before they put in the sniff and
> scratch feature.
Personally I find the imdb.com app on both iPhone and iPad (the better
> On 02-25-2013 22:06, DevilsPGD wrote:
>> In the last episode of <kgh7vq$1j5$2...@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau
>> <Grolea...@FreeShell.org> said:
>>
>>> On 02-25-2013 18:51, JF Mezei wrote:
>>>> get the real content which is zoomable.
>>>
>>> The non-mobile version that is so #$%^#$%^ packed
>>> with $%$%^&$^% links that you're guaranteed to
>>> click one if you try to zoom.
>>
>> Use a two-finger method of zooming instead of tapping?
>
> Always. And on imdb.com (and no other site) that has never succeeded
> in staying on the same page. So I got the app, which I oddly never
> use. Never been to their mobile site either, because I gave up on them
> before they had one. Or at least before they put in the sniff and
> scratch feature.
being the iPad version) a far better experience than their web
offerings.
The worst experience web experience I have had on iDevices has been
with "streetfire.net" which is locked into a Flash world. On iDevices
you are directed to a page advising download of their non-functioning
App. A frustrating experience, as I still enjoy many of their motor
sport offerings on my Mac.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
JF Mezei
Feb 26, 2013, 3:34:52 AM2/26/13
to
Another one:
www.amtrak.com
once you skip the "download our app" and access their mobile web site,
you find they disabled ability to zoom.
I checked the Apple specs on the CSS for the iPhone and the disabling of
the zooming is optional.
www.amtrak.com
once you skip the "download our app" and access their mobile web site,
you find they disabled ability to zoom.
I checked the Apple specs on the CSS for the iPhone and the disabling of
the zooming is optional.
nospam
Feb 26, 2013, 7:10:54 AM2/26/13
to
In article <512c73ac$0$63253$c3e8da3$3a1a...@news.astraweb.com>, JF
main page. there's no need to zoom.
go directly to the mobile site and skip the 'get our mobile app' (which
is probably even better than the mobile site) with:
<http://m.amtrak.com/>
Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> Another one:
>
> www.amtrak.com
>
> once you skip the "download our app" and access their mobile web site,
> you find they disabled ability to zoom.
that's another site designed for mobile, and with nice big icons on the
> Another one:
>
> www.amtrak.com
>
> once you skip the "download our app" and access their mobile web site,
> you find they disabled ability to zoom.
main page. there's no need to zoom.
go directly to the mobile site and skip the 'get our mobile app' (which
is probably even better than the mobile site) with:
<http://m.amtrak.com/>
Jolly Roger
Feb 26, 2013, 10:39:47 AM2/26/13
to
In article <250220131829199838%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
and from mr.know-it-all... what a fucking idiot. anyone who has used
Safari mobile for more than a day knows if a website is designed
specifically for mobile, there often is no zooming what-so-ever, because
everything is sized for the mobile screen.
--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
JR
Safari mobile for more than a day knows if a website is designed
specifically for mobile, there often is no zooming what-so-ever, because
everything is sized for the mobile screen.
--
Send responses to the relevant news group rather than email to me.
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my very hungry SPAM
filter. Due to Google's refusal to prevent spammers from posting
messages through their servers, I often ignore posts from Google
Groups. Use a real news client if you want me to see your posts.
JR
nospam
Feb 26, 2013, 10:57:41 AM2/26/13
to
In article <jollyroger-F6EAD...@news.individual.net>,
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > Apple really needs to let the user override the no-zoom flag on
> > > websites. It is being abused to insane degrees by web-monkeys to force
> > > their shitty mobile views and tiny fonts on mobile users.
> > >
> > > It's gotten bad enough that when I get to some shit site that won't let
> > > me zoom, I just close the site. Trouble is, there are so many of them I
> > > can't keep track of them.
> >
> > if there are so many, then give some examples. i've yet to encounter a
> > site that can't be zoomed. sounds like user error.
>
> and from mr.know-it-all... what a fucking idiot. anyone who has used
> Safari mobile for more than a day knows if a website is designed
> specifically for mobile, there often is no zooming what-so-ever, because
> everything is sized for the mobile screen.
that's exactly what i said in another post.
> > > Apple really needs to let the user override the no-zoom flag on
> > > websites. It is being abused to insane degrees by web-monkeys to force
> > > their shitty mobile views and tiny fonts on mobile users.
> > >
> > > It's gotten bad enough that when I get to some shit site that won't let
> > > me zoom, I just close the site. Trouble is, there are so many of them I
> > > can't keep track of them.
> >
> > if there are so many, then give some examples. i've yet to encounter a
> > site that can't be zoomed. sounds like user error.
>
> and from mr.know-it-all... what a fucking idiot. anyone who has used
> Safari mobile for more than a day knows if a website is designed
> specifically for mobile, there often is no zooming what-so-ever, because
> everything is sized for the mobile screen.
JF Mezei
Feb 26, 2013, 1:21:46 PM2/26/13
to
On 13-02-26 07:10, nospam wrote:
> that's another site designed for mobile, and with nice big icons on the
> main page. there's no need to zoom.
Then they should use monospace fonts for text input. "little" and
> that's another site designed for mobile, and with nice big icons on the
> main page. there's no need to zoom.
"llttle" lok very similar in the iphone's small proportional fonts.
Again, they assume their users not only have teenage eyes, but also that
they are not moving. When you are moving, walking, on on a bumpy road,
reading small text is much much harder.
Mobile computing should be usable when youa re actually mobile instead
of siting on your couch at home too lazy to get up to use your computer.
JF Mezei
Feb 26, 2013, 1:25:36 PM2/26/13
to
On 13-02-26 10:39, Jolly Roger wrote:
> and from mr.know-it-all... what a fucking idiot. anyone who has used
> Safari mobile for more than a day knows if a website is designed
> specifically for mobile, there often is no zooming what-so-ever, because
> everything is sized for the mobile screen.
And this assumes that ALL users' eyes are the same as the guy who coded
> and from mr.know-it-all... what a fucking idiot. anyone who has used
> Safari mobile for more than a day knows if a website is designed
> specifically for mobile, there often is no zooming what-so-ever, because
> everything is sized for the mobile screen.
the fixed size mobile version and that nobody would ever need to zoom to
read the text.
Sorry, but when in a moving bus, the fixed unzoomable mobile version of
the BBC news web site has text which is very very hard to read. It may
be fine when you're in bed and not moving, but not on a bus.
I really don't see why they would want to disable a feature. If they
enable zooming and you are fine with the default size, you are not
forced to zoom.
But if they disable the zooming and you are not comfortable with the
text size, you are not allowed to zoom in t make text more readable.
nospam
Feb 26, 2013, 1:34:55 PM2/26/13
to
In article <512cfd3c$0$58713$c3e8da3$c8b7...@news.astraweb.com>, JF
letters combinations.
perhaps you need eyeglasses.
> Again, they assume their users not only have teenage eyes, but also that
> they are not moving. When you are moving, walking, on on a bumpy road,
> reading small text is much much harder.
that's why a bigger display helps. or, google glass :)
Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> > that's another site designed for mobile, and with nice big icons on the
> > main page. there's no need to zoom.
>
> Then they should use monospace fonts for text input. "little" and
> "llttle" lok very similar in the iphone's small proportional fonts.
monospace fonts won't fix that. i and l look similar, as do other
> > that's another site designed for mobile, and with nice big icons on the
> > main page. there's no need to zoom.
>
> Then they should use monospace fonts for text input. "little" and
> "llttle" lok very similar in the iphone's small proportional fonts.
letters combinations.
perhaps you need eyeglasses.
> Again, they assume their users not only have teenage eyes, but also that
> they are not moving. When you are moving, walking, on on a bumpy road,
> reading small text is much much harder.
nospam
Feb 26, 2013, 1:34:56 PM2/26/13
to
In article <512cfe21$0$58713$c3e8da3$c8b7...@news.astraweb.com>, JF
in fonts that are often smaller than what you get in a mobile web site,
and sometimes grey on grey, i.e., less contrast.
Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> And this assumes that ALL users' eyes are the same as the guy who coded
> the fixed size mobile version and that nobody would ever need to zoom to
> read the text.
>
> Sorry, but when in a moving bus, the fixed unzoomable mobile version of
> the BBC news web site has text which is very very hard to read. It may
> be fine when you're in bed and not moving, but not on a bus.
then you must not like many apps, because they have non-zoomable text
> And this assumes that ALL users' eyes are the same as the guy who coded
> the fixed size mobile version and that nobody would ever need to zoom to
> read the text.
>
> Sorry, but when in a moving bus, the fixed unzoomable mobile version of
> the BBC news web site has text which is very very hard to read. It may
> be fine when you're in bed and not moving, but not on a bus.
in fonts that are often smaller than what you get in a mobile web site,
and sometimes grey on grey, i.e., less contrast.
Message has been deleted
Jolly Roger
Feb 26, 2013, 2:41:54 PM2/26/13
to
In article <512cfe21$0$58713$c3e8da3$c8b7...@news.astraweb.com>,
JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 13-02-26 10:39, Jolly Roger wrote:
>
> > and from mr.know-it-all... what a fucking idiot. anyone who has used
> > Safari mobile for more than a day knows if a website is designed
> > specifically for mobile, there often is no zooming what-so-ever, because
> > everything is sized for the mobile screen.
>
> And this assumes that ALL users' eyes are the same as the guy who coded
> the fixed size mobile version and that nobody would ever need to zoom to
> read the text.
Obviously, yes.
>
> > and from mr.know-it-all... what a fucking idiot. anyone who has used
> > Safari mobile for more than a day knows if a website is designed
> > specifically for mobile, there often is no zooming what-so-ever, because
> > everything is sized for the mobile screen.
>
> And this assumes that ALL users' eyes are the same as the guy who coded
> the fixed size mobile version and that nobody would ever need to zoom to
> read the text.
> Sorry, but when in a moving bus, the fixed unzoomable mobile version of
> the BBC news web site has text which is very very hard to read. It may
> be fine when you're in bed and not moving, but not on a bus.
>
> I really don't see why they would want to disable a feature. If they
> enable zooming and you are fine with the default size, you are not
> forced to zoom.
>
> But if they disable the zooming and you are not comfortable with the
> text size, you are not allowed to zoom in t make text more readable.
for a mobile device, if user-scalable="yes" on the view port, you can
still zoom in on web content. I wasn't aware that was supported. Having
recently done LASIK, I certainly do see the value in that.
Jolly Roger
Feb 26, 2013, 2:42:46 PM2/26/13
to
In article <512cfd3c$0$58713$c3e8da3$c8b7...@news.astraweb.com>,
I'd write them if I were you. They may not be aware of this.
Jolly Roger
Feb 26, 2013, 2:44:40 PM2/26/13
to
In article <260220131057416096%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
yes you seem to love contradicting yourself - good work
nospam
Feb 26, 2013, 2:46:43 PM2/26/13
to
In article <jollyroger-C178A...@news.individual.net>,
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > anyone who has used
> > > Safari mobile for more than a day knows if a website is designed
> > > specifically for mobile, there often is no zooming what-so-ever, because
> > > everything is sized for the mobile screen.
> >
> > that's exactly what i said in another post.
>
> yes you seem to love contradicting yourself - good work
i didn't contradict myself at all. you are once again lying.
> > > anyone who has used
> > > Safari mobile for more than a day knows if a website is designed
> > > specifically for mobile, there often is no zooming what-so-ever, because
> > > everything is sized for the mobile screen.
> >
> > that's exactly what i said in another post.
>
> yes you seem to love contradicting yourself - good work
Jolly Roger
Feb 26, 2013, 2:48:45 PM2/26/13
to
In article <260220131334552141%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
<http://jollyroger.kicks-ass.org/monospace.png>
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <512cfd3c$0$58713$c3e8da3$c8b7...@news.astraweb.com>, JF
> Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
> > > that's another site designed for mobile, and with nice big icons on the
> > > main page. there's no need to zoom.
> >
> > Then they should use monospace fonts for text input. "little" and
> > "llttle" lok very similar in the iphone's small proportional fonts.
>
> monospace fonts won't fix that. i and l look similar, as do other
> letters combinations.
yeah, monospaced fonts are not going to help at all, clearly:
> In article <512cfd3c$0$58713$c3e8da3$c8b7...@news.astraweb.com>, JF
> Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>
> > > that's another site designed for mobile, and with nice big icons on the
> > > main page. there's no need to zoom.
> >
> > Then they should use monospace fonts for text input. "little" and
> > "llttle" lok very similar in the iphone's small proportional fonts.
>
> monospace fonts won't fix that. i and l look similar, as do other
> letters combinations.
<http://jollyroger.kicks-ass.org/monospace.png>
nospam
Feb 26, 2013, 6:22:58 PM2/26/13
to
In article <jollyroger-5B77A...@news.individual.net>,
matters in your example, it's the font. also, if the point size is
small, any differences may still be indistinguishable, especially for
someone with less than perfect vision.
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > > that's another site designed for mobile, and with nice big icons on the
> > > > main page. there's no need to zoom.
> > >
> > > Then they should use monospace fonts for text input. "little" and
> > > "llttle" lok very similar in the iphone's small proportional fonts.
> >
> > monospace fonts won't fix that. i and l look similar, as do other
> > letters combinations.
>
> yeah, monospaced fonts are not going to help at all, clearly:
>
> <http://jollyroger.kicks-ass.org/monospace.png>
he said text input, but regardless, it's not the monospacing that
> > > > that's another site designed for mobile, and with nice big icons on the
> > > > main page. there's no need to zoom.
> > >
> > > Then they should use monospace fonts for text input. "little" and
> > > "llttle" lok very similar in the iphone's small proportional fonts.
> >
> > monospace fonts won't fix that. i and l look similar, as do other
> > letters combinations.
>
> yeah, monospaced fonts are not going to help at all, clearly:
>
> <http://jollyroger.kicks-ass.org/monospace.png>
matters in your example, it's the font. also, if the point size is
small, any differences may still be indistinguishable, especially for
someone with less than perfect vision.
bj
Feb 26, 2013, 8:55:06 PM2/26/13
to
JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 13-02-26 07:10, nospam wrote:
>
>> that's another site designed for mobile, and with nice big icons on the
>> main page. there's no need to zoom.
>
> Then they should use monospace fonts for text input. "little" and
> "llttle" lok very similar in the iphone's small proportional fonts.
>
> Again, they assume their users not only have teenage eyes,
>
Why not?
> On 13-02-26 07:10, nospam wrote:
>
>> that's another site designed for mobile, and with nice big icons on the
>> main page. there's no need to zoom.
>
> Then they should use monospace fonts for text input. "little" and
> "llttle" lok very similar in the iphone's small proportional fonts.
>
> Again, they assume their users not only have teenage eyes,
>
Since so many here seem to assume we all have NBA-size hands that can
handle a Bigger Phone and we (should?) want one so why doesn't Apple make
the iPhone Giant Size, why is it so surprising that designers assume users
are just like them with young eyes?
Even the same-width but longer iPhone is pushing it to fit in some of my
pockets, which are getting skimpy even on men's sweats, let alone on
women's clothes. But at least I'd be able to hold on to it.
My iPhone4 is going to get pretty long in the tooth if they keep
"improving" the device!
bj
Andreas Rutishauser
Feb 27, 2013, 1:58:19 AM2/27/13
to
Salut nospam
In article <260220131446430616%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
what did I not understand in your statement?
---------
Or was that not you?
Cheers
Andreas
--
MacAndreas Rutishauser, <http://www.MacAndreas.ch>
EDV-Dienstleistungen, Hard- und Software, Internet und Netzwerk
Beratung, Unterstuetzung und Schulung
<mailto:and...@MacAndreas.ch>, Fon: 044 / 721 36 47
In article <260220131446430616%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
---------
if there are so many, then give some examples. i've yet to encounter a
site that can't be zoomed. sounds like user error.
---------
site that can't be zoomed. sounds like user error.
Or was that not you?
Cheers
Andreas
--
MacAndreas Rutishauser, <http://www.MacAndreas.ch>
EDV-Dienstleistungen, Hard- und Software, Internet und Netzwerk
Beratung, Unterstuetzung und Schulung
<mailto:and...@MacAndreas.ch>, Fon: 044 / 721 36 47
nospam
Feb 27, 2013, 8:30:11 AM2/27/13
to
In article <andreas-321AAA...@news.individual.de>, Andreas
Rutishauser <and...@macandreas.ch> wrote:
> > > > > anyone who has used
> > > > > Safari mobile for more than a day knows if a website is designed
> > > > > specifically for mobile, there often is no zooming what-so-ever,
> > > > > because everything is sized for the mobile screen.
> > > >
> > > > that's exactly what i said in another post.
> > >
> > > yes you seem to love contradicting yourself - good work
> >
> > i didn't contradict myself at all. you are once again lying.
>
> what did I not understand in your statement?
> ---------
> if there are so many, then give some examples. i've yet to encounter a
> site that can't be zoomed. sounds like user error.
> ---------
all of it.
> > > > > anyone who has used
> > > > > Safari mobile for more than a day knows if a website is designed
> > > > > specifically for mobile, there often is no zooming what-so-ever,
> > > > > because everything is sized for the mobile screen.
> > > >
> > > > that's exactly what i said in another post.
> > >
> > > yes you seem to love contradicting yourself - good work
> >
> > i didn't contradict myself at all. you are once again lying.
>
> what did I not understand in your statement?
> ---------
> if there are so many, then give some examples. i've yet to encounter a
> site that can't be zoomed. sounds like user error.
> ---------
Jolly Roger
Feb 27, 2013, 10:26:40 AM2/27/13
to
In article <andreas-321AAA...@news.individual.de>,
Andreas Rutishauser <and...@macandreas.ch> wrote:
Andreas Rutishauser <and...@macandreas.ch> wrote:
> Salut nospam
>
> In article <260220131446430616%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <jollyroger-C178A...@news.individual.net>,
> > Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > anyone who has used
> > > > > Safari mobile for more than a day knows if a website is designed
> > > > > specifically for mobile, there often is no zooming what-so-ever,
> > > > > because
> > > > > everything is sized for the mobile screen.
> > > >
> > > > that's exactly what i said in another post.
> > >
> > > yes you seem to love contradicting yourself - good work
> >
> > i didn't contradict myself at all. you are once again lying.
>
> what did I not understand in your statement?
> ---------
> if there are so many, then give some examples. i've yet to encounter a
> site that can't be zoomed. sounds like user error.
> ---------
>
> Or was that not you?
>
> Cheers
> Andreas
nospam (also known as mr.know-it-all) won't admit he is wrong no matter
>
> In article <260220131446430616%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
> nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> > In article <jollyroger-C178A...@news.individual.net>,
> > Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > anyone who has used
> > > > > Safari mobile for more than a day knows if a website is designed
> > > > > specifically for mobile, there often is no zooming what-so-ever,
> > > > > because
> > > > > everything is sized for the mobile screen.
> > > >
> > > > that's exactly what i said in another post.
> > >
> > > yes you seem to love contradicting yourself - good work
> >
> > i didn't contradict myself at all. you are once again lying.
>
> what did I not understand in your statement?
> ---------
> if there are so many, then give some examples. i've yet to encounter a
> site that can't be zoomed. sounds like user error.
> ---------
>
> Or was that not you?
>
> Cheers
> Andreas
what. He's the ultimate weasel. ; )
Jolly Roger
Feb 27, 2013, 10:27:17 AM2/27/13
to
In article <260220131822589583%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
weasel weasel weasel... so predictable.
nospam
Feb 27, 2013, 10:38:08 AM2/27/13
to
In article <jollyroger-EFF66...@news.individual.net>,
means as well as learning something about fonts and text layout before
putting your foot in your mouth any deeper than it already is.
what i said is exactly correct.
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > > > > that's another site designed for mobile, and with nice big icons on
> > > > > > the main page. there's no need to zoom.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then they should use monospace fonts for text input. "little" and
> > > > > "llttle" lok very similar in the iphone's small proportional fonts.
> > > >
> > > > monospace fonts won't fix that. i and l look similar, as do other
> > > > letters combinations.
> > >
> > > yeah, monospaced fonts are not going to help at all, clearly:
> > >
> > > <http://jollyroger.kicks-ass.org/monospace.png>
> >
> > he said text input, but regardless, it's not the monospacing that
> > matters in your example, it's the font. also, if the point size is
> > small, any differences may still be indistinguishable, especially for
> > someone with less than perfect vision.
>
> weasel weasel weasel... so predictable.
nothing weasel about it. perhaps you need to learn what weasel really
> > > > > > that's another site designed for mobile, and with nice big icons on
> > > > > > the main page. there's no need to zoom.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then they should use monospace fonts for text input. "little" and
> > > > > "llttle" lok very similar in the iphone's small proportional fonts.
> > > >
> > > > monospace fonts won't fix that. i and l look similar, as do other
> > > > letters combinations.
> > >
> > > yeah, monospaced fonts are not going to help at all, clearly:
> > >
> > > <http://jollyroger.kicks-ass.org/monospace.png>
> >
> > he said text input, but regardless, it's not the monospacing that
> > matters in your example, it's the font. also, if the point size is
> > small, any differences may still be indistinguishable, especially for
> > someone with less than perfect vision.
>
> weasel weasel weasel... so predictable.
means as well as learning something about fonts and text layout before
putting your foot in your mouth any deeper than it already is.
what i said is exactly correct.
Jolly Roger
Feb 27, 2013, 10:58:48 AM2/27/13
to
In article <270220131038081267%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
your words, not mine:
> monospace fonts won't fix that. i and l look similar, as do other
> letters combinations.
FACT: some monospaced fonts are perfectly legible. in particular the i
and l are easily distinguishable in some monospaced fonts
so your statement is untrue. yeah, but don't let that stop you from
carrying on with your childishly silly argument. we expect nothing less
from mr.know-it-all
> what i said is exactly correct.
you're only digging yourself deeper
and you are quite boring.
> monospace fonts won't fix that. i and l look similar, as do other
> letters combinations.
and l are easily distinguishable in some monospaced fonts
so your statement is untrue. yeah, but don't let that stop you from
carrying on with your childishly silly argument. we expect nothing less
from mr.know-it-all
> what i said is exactly correct.
and you are quite boring.
JF Mezei
Feb 27, 2013, 1:33:58 PM2/27/13
to
On 13-02-27 10:38, nospam wrote:
>> weasel weasel weasel... so predictable.
>
> nothing weasel about it.
You two should get a room...
>> weasel weasel weasel... so predictable.
>
> nothing weasel about it.
Reminds me of that Fraser episode where Fraser is mad as hell about his
new boss, goes in her office to yell and argue, but the arguments
quickly turns into mad passionate love on the desk :-)
Jolly Roger
Feb 27, 2013, 1:44:03 PM2/27/13
to
In article <512e5197$0$64436$c3e8da3$5e5e...@news.astraweb.com>,
we were to meet face-to-face. ; )
> Reminds me of that Fraser episode where Fraser is mad as hell about his
> new boss, goes in her office to yell and argue, but the arguments
> quickly turns into mad passionate love on the desk :-)
Not interested.
JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 13-02-27 10:38, nospam wrote:
>
> >> weasel weasel weasel... so predictable.
> >
> > nothing weasel about it.
>
> You two should get a room...
I think we'd straighten out mr.know-it-all's problems really quickly if
> On 13-02-27 10:38, nospam wrote:
>
> >> weasel weasel weasel... so predictable.
> >
> > nothing weasel about it.
>
> You two should get a room...
we were to meet face-to-face. ; )
> Reminds me of that Fraser episode where Fraser is mad as hell about his
> new boss, goes in her office to yell and argue, but the arguments
> quickly turns into mad passionate love on the desk :-)
Andreas Rutishauser
Feb 27, 2013, 1:46:48 PM2/27/13
to
In article <270220130830110667%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
ok. To me it seems that you make your statements wherever the wind comes
from, and you seem to live in a region where wind directions change
frequently.
Lesson understood...
from, and you seem to live in a region where wind directions change
frequently.
Lesson understood...
nospam
Feb 27, 2013, 2:11:26 PM2/27/13
to
In article <jollyroger-A7234...@news.individual.net>,
some fonts, both monospace and proportional, have easily
distinguishable characters, while other fonts do not, which means it's
not the spacing that matters, it's the choice of font, just as i said.
you just proved yourself wrong.
for example, in courier, a monospaced font, zero and capital o look
similar, while in apple's monaco, another monospaced font, they look
different.
> so your statement is untrue.
it is not untrue at all.
what *is* true is that you haven't a clue about fonts and typefaces,
not to mention quite a bit more.
> yeah, but don't let that stop you from
> carrying on with your childishly silly argument. we expect nothing less
> from mr.know-it-all
more accurately, we expect nothing less than bashing from you,
especially when you are completely wrong and talking out your ass.
> > what i said is exactly correct.
>
> you're only digging yourself deeper
wrong again.
it's you who is digging a deeper hole and making yourself look more and
more foolish with every post.
> and you are quite boring.
yet you keep replying. it must not be that boring.
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Then they should use monospace fonts for text input. "little" and
> > > > > > > "llttle" lok very similar in the iphone's small proportional
> > > > > > > fonts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > monospace fonts won't fix that. i and l look similar, as do other
> > > > > > letters combinations.
> > > > >
> > > > > yeah, monospaced fonts are not going to help at all, clearly:
> > > > >
> > > > > <http://jollyroger.kicks-ass.org/monospace.png>
> > > >
> > > > he said text input, but regardless, it's not the monospacing that
> > > > matters in your example, it's the font. also, if the point size is
> > > > small, any differences may still be indistinguishable, especially for
> > > > someone with less than perfect vision.
> > >
> > > weasel weasel weasel... so predictable.
> >
> > nothing weasel about it. perhaps you need to learn what weasel really
> > means as well as learning something about fonts and text layout before
> > putting your foot in your mouth any deeper than it already is.
>
> your words, not mine:
>
> > monospace fonts won't fix that. i and l look similar, as do other
> > letters combinations.
>
> FACT: some monospaced fonts are perfectly legible. in particular the i
> and l are easily distinguishable in some monospaced fonts
'some' is a weasel word. why am i not surprised you phrased it that way.
> > > > > > > Then they should use monospace fonts for text input. "little" and
> > > > > > > "llttle" lok very similar in the iphone's small proportional
> > > > > > > fonts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > monospace fonts won't fix that. i and l look similar, as do other
> > > > > > letters combinations.
> > > > >
> > > > > yeah, monospaced fonts are not going to help at all, clearly:
> > > > >
> > > > > <http://jollyroger.kicks-ass.org/monospace.png>
> > > >
> > > > he said text input, but regardless, it's not the monospacing that
> > > > matters in your example, it's the font. also, if the point size is
> > > > small, any differences may still be indistinguishable, especially for
> > > > someone with less than perfect vision.
> > >
> > > weasel weasel weasel... so predictable.
> >
> > nothing weasel about it. perhaps you need to learn what weasel really
> > means as well as learning something about fonts and text layout before
> > putting your foot in your mouth any deeper than it already is.
>
> your words, not mine:
>
> > monospace fonts won't fix that. i and l look similar, as do other
> > letters combinations.
>
> FACT: some monospaced fonts are perfectly legible. in particular the i
> and l are easily distinguishable in some monospaced fonts
some fonts, both monospace and proportional, have easily
distinguishable characters, while other fonts do not, which means it's
not the spacing that matters, it's the choice of font, just as i said.
you just proved yourself wrong.
for example, in courier, a monospaced font, zero and capital o look
similar, while in apple's monaco, another monospaced font, they look
different.
> so your statement is untrue.
what *is* true is that you haven't a clue about fonts and typefaces,
not to mention quite a bit more.
> yeah, but don't let that stop you from
> carrying on with your childishly silly argument. we expect nothing less
> from mr.know-it-all
especially when you are completely wrong and talking out your ass.
> > what i said is exactly correct.
>
> you're only digging yourself deeper
it's you who is digging a deeper hole and making yourself look more and
more foolish with every post.
> and you are quite boring.
nospam
Feb 27, 2013, 2:11:30 PM2/27/13
to
In article <andreas-07B7DA...@news.individual.de>, Andreas
which isn't surprising given your email address.
Rutishauser <and...@macandreas.ch> wrote:
> > > > > > > anyone who has used
> > > > > > > Safari mobile for more than a day knows if a website is designed
> > > > > > > specifically for mobile, there often is no zooming what-so-ever,
> > > > > > > because everything is sized for the mobile screen.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > that's exactly what i said in another post.
> > > > >
> > > > > yes you seem to love contradicting yourself - good work
> > > >
> > > > i didn't contradict myself at all. you are once again lying.
> > >
> > > what did I not understand in your statement?
> > > ---------
> > > if there are so many, then give some examples. i've yet to encounter a
> > > site that can't be zoomed. sounds like user error.
> > > ---------
> >
> > all of it.
>
> ok. To me it seems that you make your statements wherever the wind comes
> from, and you seem to live in a region where wind directions change
> frequently.
and to me, it seems that you don't understand english all that well,
> > > > > > > anyone who has used
> > > > > > > Safari mobile for more than a day knows if a website is designed
> > > > > > > specifically for mobile, there often is no zooming what-so-ever,
> > > > > > > because everything is sized for the mobile screen.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > that's exactly what i said in another post.
> > > > >
> > > > > yes you seem to love contradicting yourself - good work
> > > >
> > > > i didn't contradict myself at all. you are once again lying.
> > >
> > > what did I not understand in your statement?
> > > ---------
> > > if there are so many, then give some examples. i've yet to encounter a
> > > site that can't be zoomed. sounds like user error.
> > > ---------
> >
> > all of it.
>
> ok. To me it seems that you make your statements wherever the wind comes
> from, and you seem to live in a region where wind directions change
> frequently.
which isn't surprising given your email address.
JF Mezei
Feb 27, 2013, 2:52:09 PM2/27/13
to
On 13-02-27 14:11, nospam wrote:
> some fonts, both monospace and proportional, have easily
> distinguishable characters, while other fonts do not, which means it's
> not the spacing that matters, it's the choice of font,
But for proportional fonts, if you have 2 lower case L next to each
> some fonts, both monospace and proportional, have easily
> distinguishable characters, while other fonts do not, which means it's
> not the spacing that matters, it's the choice of font,
other, it becomes harder to know if you have 1 or 2 Ls, and if you have
"li" it becomes harder to know if you have ll or li on the iPhone in a
moving bus with non-teenage eyesight.
Jolly Roger
Feb 27, 2013, 4:04:09 PM2/27/13
to
In article <270220131411309382%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
What a jerk.
Jolly Roger
Feb 27, 2013, 4:18:50 PM2/27/13
to
In article <270220131411269174%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
well you would know
> why am i not surprised you phrased it that way.
probably because it's a perfectly natural and legitimate way to phrase
things in the English language, and because it's a true statement
naturally, you will try your best to weasel out of it
> some fonts, both monospace and proportional, have easily
> distinguishable characters
the fact is those letters are easily distinguishable from one another in
many monospaced fonts
so your statement that "monospace fonts won't fix that. i and l look
similar, as do others" is misleading at best, and false at worst, since,
again: those letters are easily distinguishable from one another in many
monospaced fonts.
> which means it's
> not the spacing that matters, it's the choice of font, just as i said.
your exact words:
> monospace fonts won't fix that. i and l look similar, as do other
> letters combinations.
dance around this all you want, you can't escape your own words,
mr.never-can-be-wrong
> for example, in courier, a monospaced font, zero and capital o look
> similar, while in apple's monaco, another monospaced font, they look
> different.
so switching to the monaco font would allow the OP to see the
difference, which is why your statement that "monospace fonts won't fix
that. i and l look similar, as do other letters combinations" is false.
good detective work, there!
> what *is* true is that you haven't a clue about fonts and typefaces,
> not to mention quite a bit more.
you have no fucking idea what i know, or what experience i have,
asshole. so just fuck off.
the fact that you can make such a bold statement without knowing much at
all about someone says everything i need to know about your true
character. you actually think you know more than everyone else, don't
you?
how sad.
> why am i not surprised you phrased it that way.
things in the English language, and because it's a true statement
naturally, you will try your best to weasel out of it
> some fonts, both monospace and proportional, have easily
> distinguishable characters
many monospaced fonts
so your statement that "monospace fonts won't fix that. i and l look
similar, as do others" is misleading at best, and false at worst, since,
again: those letters are easily distinguishable from one another in many
monospaced fonts.
> which means it's
> not the spacing that matters, it's the choice of font, just as i said.
> monospace fonts won't fix that. i and l look similar, as do other
> letters combinations.
mr.never-can-be-wrong
> for example, in courier, a monospaced font, zero and capital o look
> similar, while in apple's monaco, another monospaced font, they look
> different.
difference, which is why your statement that "monospace fonts won't fix
that. i and l look similar, as do other letters combinations" is false.
good detective work, there!
> what *is* true is that you haven't a clue about fonts and typefaces,
> not to mention quite a bit more.
asshole. so just fuck off.
the fact that you can make such a bold statement without knowing much at
all about someone says everything i need to know about your true
character. you actually think you know more than everyone else, don't
you?
how sad.
Jolly Roger
Feb 27, 2013, 4:20:02 PM2/27/13
to
In article <512e63ea$0$7672$c3e8da3$12bc...@news.astraweb.com>,
Yep, the choice of font does matter. And the OP's suggestion that
monospaced fonts are easier for him to read is perfectly fine.
mr.know-it-all just wants to argue for the sake of argument, as usual.
monospaced fonts are easier for him to read is perfectly fine.
mr.know-it-all just wants to argue for the sake of argument, as usual.
nospam
Feb 27, 2013, 6:05:58 PM2/27/13
to
In article <jollyroger-6C076...@news.individual.net>,
> And the OP's suggestion that
> monospaced fonts are easier for him to read is perfectly fine.
in some cases it can be and in others not. it depends on the font and
what it's for. proportional fonts are generally easier to read, but not
always. he's concerned about similar looking characters, which has
nothing to do with monospacing.
> mr.know-it-all just wants to argue for the sake of argument, as usual.
quite the opposite. you're the one who argues for the sake of argument,
even after contradicting yourself, as above.
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > some fonts, both monospace and proportional, have easily
> > > distinguishable characters, while other fonts do not, which means it's
> > > not the spacing that matters, it's the choice of font,
> >
> > But for proportional fonts, if you have 2 lower case L next to each
> > other, it becomes harder to know if you have 1 or 2 Ls, and if you have
> > "li" it becomes harder to know if you have ll or li on the iPhone in a
> > moving bus with non-teenage eyesight.
>
> Yep, the choice of font does matter.
changing your tune so quickly??
> > > some fonts, both monospace and proportional, have easily
> > > distinguishable characters, while other fonts do not, which means it's
> > > not the spacing that matters, it's the choice of font,
> >
> > But for proportional fonts, if you have 2 lower case L next to each
> > other, it becomes harder to know if you have 1 or 2 Ls, and if you have
> > "li" it becomes harder to know if you have ll or li on the iPhone in a
> > moving bus with non-teenage eyesight.
>
> Yep, the choice of font does matter.
> And the OP's suggestion that
> monospaced fonts are easier for him to read is perfectly fine.
what it's for. proportional fonts are generally easier to read, but not
always. he's concerned about similar looking characters, which has
nothing to do with monospacing.
> mr.know-it-all just wants to argue for the sake of argument, as usual.
even after contradicting yourself, as above.
nospam
Feb 27, 2013, 6:06:01 PM2/27/13
to
In article <jollyroger-1D170...@news.individual.net>,
what you obviously don't understand is it doesn't contradict what i
said.
> naturally, you will try your best to weasel out of it
i'm not weaseling out of anything. you, on the other hand, definitely
are. in fact, you even contradicted yourself another post. you can't
even keep your own story straight.
> > some fonts, both monospace and proportional, have easily
> > distinguishable characters
>
> the fact is those letters are easily distinguishable from one another in
> many monospaced fonts
another fact is those letters are *not* easily distinguishable in other
monospaced fonts.
that means changing to a monospaced font won't fix the problem.
changing to a font where they are distinguishable will fix the problem,
which might be monospaced or it might not.
again, it's the choice of font, not the spacing.
> so your statement that "monospace fonts won't fix that. i and l look
> similar, as do others" is misleading at best, and false at worst, since,
> again: those letters are easily distinguishable from one another in many
> monospaced fonts.
what's misleading is what you're spewing, that changing to a monospaced
font will fix the problem. it might, or it might not, depending on
*which* font one picks, and it doesn't even have to be monospaced.
again, choice of font is what matters, not the spacing, something you
even said in another post! at least try to be consistent.
> > which means it's
> > not the spacing that matters, it's the choice of font, just as i said.
>
> your exact words:
>
> > monospace fonts won't fix that. i and l look similar, as do other
> > letters combinations.
>
> dance around this all you want, you can't escape your own words,
> mr.never-can-be-wrong
what's clear is you can't admit you're wrong, even when you supply your
own proof of it!
> > for example, in courier, a monospaced font, zero and capital o look
> > similar, while in apple's monaco, another monospaced font, they look
> > different.
>
> so switching to the monaco font would allow the OP to see the
> difference, which is why your statement that "monospace fonts won't fix
> that. i and l look similar, as do other letters combinations" is false.
only because monaco is designed the way it is. choose another
monospaced font, such as courier, and it won't fix the problem.
it could even make it worse, for instance, if the original font was
clear and the new one was not.
once again, it's the particular font that matters, not its spacing.
> good detective work, there!
no detective work needed. it's common sense, which could be why you
don't get it.
> > what *is* true is that you haven't a clue about fonts and typefaces,
> > not to mention quite a bit more.
>
> you have no fucking idea what i know, or what experience i have,
> asshole. so just fuck off.
>
> the fact that you can make such a bold statement without knowing much at
> all about someone says everything i need to know about your true
> character. you actually think you know more than everyone else, don't
> you?
i'm going by what you write.
> how sad.
what's sad is that you're making an absolute buffoon of yourself and
worse, you don't realize it.
Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > your words, not mine:
> > >
> > > > monospace fonts won't fix that. i and l look similar, as do other
> > > > letters combinations.
> > >
> > > FACT: some monospaced fonts are perfectly legible. in particular the i
> > > and l are easily distinguishable in some monospaced fonts
> >
> > 'some' is a weasel word
>
> well you would know
>
> > why am i not surprised you phrased it that way.
>
> probably because it's a perfectly natural and legitimate way to phrase
> things in the English language, and because it's a true statement
nobody said it wasn't true.
> > > your words, not mine:
> > >
> > > > monospace fonts won't fix that. i and l look similar, as do other
> > > > letters combinations.
> > >
> > > FACT: some monospaced fonts are perfectly legible. in particular the i
> > > and l are easily distinguishable in some monospaced fonts
> >
> > 'some' is a weasel word
>
> well you would know
>
> > why am i not surprised you phrased it that way.
>
> probably because it's a perfectly natural and legitimate way to phrase
> things in the English language, and because it's a true statement
what you obviously don't understand is it doesn't contradict what i
said.
> naturally, you will try your best to weasel out of it
are. in fact, you even contradicted yourself another post. you can't
even keep your own story straight.
> > some fonts, both monospace and proportional, have easily
> > distinguishable characters
>
> the fact is those letters are easily distinguishable from one another in
> many monospaced fonts
monospaced fonts.
that means changing to a monospaced font won't fix the problem.
changing to a font where they are distinguishable will fix the problem,
which might be monospaced or it might not.
again, it's the choice of font, not the spacing.
> so your statement that "monospace fonts won't fix that. i and l look
> similar, as do others" is misleading at best, and false at worst, since,
> again: those letters are easily distinguishable from one another in many
> monospaced fonts.
font will fix the problem. it might, or it might not, depending on
*which* font one picks, and it doesn't even have to be monospaced.
again, choice of font is what matters, not the spacing, something you
even said in another post! at least try to be consistent.
> > which means it's
> > not the spacing that matters, it's the choice of font, just as i said.
>
> your exact words:
>
> > monospace fonts won't fix that. i and l look similar, as do other
> > letters combinations.
>
> dance around this all you want, you can't escape your own words,
> mr.never-can-be-wrong
own proof of it!
> > for example, in courier, a monospaced font, zero and capital o look
> > similar, while in apple's monaco, another monospaced font, they look
> > different.
>
> so switching to the monaco font would allow the OP to see the
> difference, which is why your statement that "monospace fonts won't fix
> that. i and l look similar, as do other letters combinations" is false.
monospaced font, such as courier, and it won't fix the problem.
it could even make it worse, for instance, if the original font was
clear and the new one was not.
once again, it's the particular font that matters, not its spacing.
> good detective work, there!
no detective work needed. it's common sense, which could be why you
don't get it.
> > what *is* true is that you haven't a clue about fonts and typefaces,
> > not to mention quite a bit more.
>
> you have no fucking idea what i know, or what experience i have,
> asshole. so just fuck off.
>
> the fact that you can make such a bold statement without knowing much at
> all about someone says everything i need to know about your true
> character. you actually think you know more than everyone else, don't
> you?
> how sad.
what's sad is that you're making an absolute buffoon of yourself and
worse, you don't realize it.
JF Mezei
Feb 27, 2013, 6:38:29 PM2/27/13
to
On 13-02-27 18:06, nospam wrote:
>> so your statement that "monospace fonts won't fix that. i and l look
>> similar, as do others" is misleading at best,
lil1 in proportional font used by the iPhone looks like s blob because
>> so your statement that "monospace fonts won't fix that. i and l look
>> similar, as do others" is misleading at best,
the letters are far too close to each other. But using a monospaced
font, you ensure there is sufficient space to separate those vertical
bar letters.
nospam
Feb 27, 2013, 6:54:56 PM2/27/13
to
In article <512e98f6$0$31547$c3e8da3$cc4f...@news.astraweb.com>, JF
proportional. pick another font, monospace or not, and capital i and
lower case l might look the same, or zero and capital o.
also, if it really looks like a blob, you might consider getting your
eyes checked. my vision isn't perfect and i can tell which is which.
Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> lil1 in proportional font used by the iPhone looks like s blob because
> the letters are far too close to each other. But using a monospaced
> font, you ensure there is sufficient space to separate those vertical
> bar letters.
that's because of *which* font the iphone uses, not because it's
> lil1 in proportional font used by the iPhone looks like s blob because
> the letters are far too close to each other. But using a monospaced
> font, you ensure there is sufficient space to separate those vertical
> bar letters.
proportional. pick another font, monospace or not, and capital i and
lower case l might look the same, or zero and capital o.
also, if it really looks like a blob, you might consider getting your
eyes checked. my vision isn't perfect and i can tell which is which.
DevilsPGD
Feb 27, 2013, 7:38:32 PM2/27/13
to
>FACT: some monospaced fonts are perfectly legible. in particular the i
>and l are easily distinguishable in some monospaced fonts
You seem to be a bit confused about what "monospace" means. This has
>and l are easily distinguishable in some monospaced fonts
nothing to do with the font being monospaced or not, but rather, the
font design in the first place. Monospaced fonts can be legible or not,
as can proportional fonts.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/nklc74702zcsjz1/2013-02-27_163247.png shows
your message in a well designed proportionally spaced font. Note that
the i and l are easily distinguished.
You might be thinking of sans-serif fonts, which tend to offer less
distinguishing features vs serif fonts, but again, you'll note my
screenshot which shows a predominately sans-serif example that offers
trivially distinguished characters.
--
The nice thing about standards, there is enough for everyone to have their own.
Jolly Roger
Feb 27, 2013, 9:47:17 PM2/27/13
to
In article <jj9ti8ppt199qvtq6...@4ax.com>,
> This has
> nothing to do with the font being monospaced or not, but rather, the
> font design in the first place.
I never claimed any different, did I?
> Monospaced fonts can be legible or not, as can proportional fonts.
I never claimed different.
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/nklc74702zcsjz1/2013-02-27_163247.png shows
> your message in a well designed proportionally spaced font. Note that
> the i and l are easily distinguished.
That's my point. Thanks. Let's recap: JF Mezei suggested that changing
the font to a monospaced font would help because often small
proportional fonts have characters that are hard to distinguish between.
Then mr.know-it-all opened his huge ass hole and shit this gem onto the
world: "monospace fonts won't fix that. i and l look similar, as do
other letters combinations". Then I showed that monospaced fonts can
actually have distinguishable characters where other fonts do not. Then
mr.never-can-be-wrong got his panties in a bunch, and the rest is
history.
> You might be thinking of sans-serif fonts, which tend to offer less
> distinguishing features vs serif fonts,
No, you are thinking of JF Mezei.
> but again, you'll note my
> screenshot which shows a predominately sans-serif example that offers
> trivially distinguished characters.
So what? I think you are reading more into my words than need be.
DevilsPGD <booga...@crazyhat.net> wrote:
> >FACT: some monospaced fonts are perfectly legible. in particular the i
> >and l are easily distinguishable in some monospaced fonts
>
> You seem to be a bit confused about what "monospace" means.
Not at all, I know exactly what it means.
> >FACT: some monospaced fonts are perfectly legible. in particular the i
> >and l are easily distinguishable in some monospaced fonts
>
> You seem to be a bit confused about what "monospace" means.
> This has
> nothing to do with the font being monospaced or not, but rather, the
> font design in the first place.
> Monospaced fonts can be legible or not, as can proportional fonts.
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/nklc74702zcsjz1/2013-02-27_163247.png shows
> your message in a well designed proportionally spaced font. Note that
> the i and l are easily distinguished.
the font to a monospaced font would help because often small
proportional fonts have characters that are hard to distinguish between.
Then mr.know-it-all opened his huge ass hole and shit this gem onto the
world: "monospace fonts won't fix that. i and l look similar, as do
other letters combinations". Then I showed that monospaced fonts can
actually have distinguishable characters where other fonts do not. Then
mr.never-can-be-wrong got his panties in a bunch, and the rest is
history.
> You might be thinking of sans-serif fonts, which tend to offer less
> distinguishing features vs serif fonts,
> but again, you'll note my
> screenshot which shows a predominately sans-serif example that offers
> trivially distinguished characters.
Jolly Roger
Feb 27, 2013, 9:48:29 PM2/27/13
to
In article <512e98f6$0$31547$c3e8da3$cc4f...@news.astraweb.com>,
And anyone with an iPhone and a brain can see that. Apparently nospam
doesn't qualify.
doesn't qualify.
Jolly Roger
Feb 28, 2013, 10:21:32 AM2/28/13
to
In article <270220131806013676%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
> > > why am i not surprised you phrased it that way.
> >
> > probably because it's a perfectly natural and legitimate way to phrase
> > things in the English language, and because it's a true statement
>
> nobody said it wasn't true.
good, then we're done here
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <jollyroger-1D170...@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > > > your words, not mine:
> > > >
> > > > > monospace fonts won't fix that. i and l look similar, as do other
> > > > > letters combinations.
> > > >
> > > > FACT: some monospaced fonts are perfectly legible. in particular the i
> > > > and l are easily distinguishable in some monospaced fonts
> > >
> > > 'some' is a weasel word
> >
> > well you would know
yeah, i thought so.
> In article <jollyroger-1D170...@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > > > your words, not mine:
> > > >
> > > > > monospace fonts won't fix that. i and l look similar, as do other
> > > > > letters combinations.
> > > >
> > > > FACT: some monospaced fonts are perfectly legible. in particular the i
> > > > and l are easily distinguishable in some monospaced fonts
> > >
> > > 'some' is a weasel word
> >
> > well you would know
> > > why am i not surprised you phrased it that way.
> >
> > probably because it's a perfectly natural and legitimate way to phrase
> > things in the English language, and because it's a true statement
>
> nobody said it wasn't true.
Jolly Roger
Feb 28, 2013, 10:21:46 AM2/28/13
to
In article <270220131805583468%nos...@nospam.invalid>,
nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <jollyroger-6C076...@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > > > some fonts, both monospace and proportional, have easily
> > > > distinguishable characters, while other fonts do not, which means it's
> > > > not the spacing that matters, it's the choice of font,
> > >
> > > But for proportional fonts, if you have 2 lower case L next to each
> > > other, it becomes harder to know if you have 1 or 2 Ls, and if you have
> > > "li" it becomes harder to know if you have ll or li on the iPhone in a
> > > moving bus with non-teenage eyesight.
> >
> > Yep, the choice of font does matter.
>
> changing your tune so quickly??
i haven't changed my tune, dummy
> In article <jollyroger-6C076...@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > > > some fonts, both monospace and proportional, have easily
> > > > distinguishable characters, while other fonts do not, which means it's
> > > > not the spacing that matters, it's the choice of font,
> > >
> > > But for proportional fonts, if you have 2 lower case L next to each
> > > other, it becomes harder to know if you have 1 or 2 Ls, and if you have
> > > "li" it becomes harder to know if you have ll or li on the iPhone in a
> > > moving bus with non-teenage eyesight.
> >
> > Yep, the choice of font does matter.
>
> changing your tune so quickly??
Message has been deleted
Jolly Roger
Mar 1, 2013, 11:06:44 AM3/1/13
to
In article <michelle-C9D805...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <jollyroger-A7234...@news.individual.net>,
> distinguishable, but what about other fonts?
Yeah, 1 and l are harder to distinguish for me - in any font.
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <jollyroger-A7234...@news.individual.net>,
> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > FACT: some monospaced fonts are perfectly legible. in particular the i
> > and l are easily distinguishable in some monospaced fonts
>
> How about 1 and l? In the font I'm using with MTNW, they're clearly
>
> > FACT: some monospaced fonts are perfectly legible. in particular the i
> > and l are easily distinguishable in some monospaced fonts
>
> distinguishable, but what about other fonts?
Yeah, 1 and l are harder to distinguish for me - in any font.
Message has been deleted
DevilsPGD
Mar 1, 2013, 2:37:22 PM3/1/13
to
In the last episode of
<jollyroger-ADD22...@news.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jollyroger-5B77A...@news.individual.net> you implied that
monospace fonts would somehow help. My contention is that it doesn't
matter if it's monospaced or proportionally spaced at all, but rather,
that the clarity of the font is what matters.
Comparing a poorly designed proportional spaced font against a well
designed monospace font and then saying "Look, switching to monospaced
fonts helped!" is disingenuous at best.
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/nklc74702zcsjz1/2013-02-27_163247.png shows
>> your message in a well designed proportionally spaced font. Note that
>> the i and l are easily distinguished.
>
>That's my point. Thanks. Let's recap: JF Mezei suggested that changing
>the font to a monospaced font would help because often small
>proportional fonts have characters that are hard to distinguish between.
>Then mr.know-it-all opened his huge ass hole and shit this gem onto the
>world: "monospace fonts won't fix that. i and l look similar, as do
>other letters combinations". Then I showed that monospaced fonts can
>actually have distinguishable characters where other fonts do not. Then
>mr.never-can-be-wrong got his panties in a bunch, and the rest is
>history.
He was right though, changing from a proportionally space font to a
monospaced font with the same character designs wouldn't help anything
at all. What helps is to change to a font designed for clarity rather
than beauty, whether it's monospaced or not.
<jollyroger-ADD22...@news.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jolly...@pobox.com> said:
>In article <jj9ti8ppt199qvtq6...@4ax.com>,
> DevilsPGD <booga...@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>
>> >FACT: some monospaced fonts are perfectly legible. in particular the i
>> >and l are easily distinguishable in some monospaced fonts
>>
>> You seem to be a bit confused about what "monospace" means.
>
>Not at all, I know exactly what it means.
>
>> This has
>> nothing to do with the font being monospaced or not, but rather, the
>> font design in the first place.
>
>I never claimed any different, did I?
Starting in Message-ID:
>In article <jj9ti8ppt199qvtq6...@4ax.com>,
> DevilsPGD <booga...@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>
>> >FACT: some monospaced fonts are perfectly legible. in particular the i
>> >and l are easily distinguishable in some monospaced fonts
>>
>> You seem to be a bit confused about what "monospace" means.
>
>Not at all, I know exactly what it means.
>
>> This has
>> nothing to do with the font being monospaced or not, but rather, the
>> font design in the first place.
>
>I never claimed any different, did I?
<jollyroger-5B77A...@news.individual.net> you implied that
monospace fonts would somehow help. My contention is that it doesn't
matter if it's monospaced or proportionally spaced at all, but rather,
that the clarity of the font is what matters.
Comparing a poorly designed proportional spaced font against a well
designed monospace font and then saying "Look, switching to monospaced
fonts helped!" is disingenuous at best.
>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/nklc74702zcsjz1/2013-02-27_163247.png shows
>> your message in a well designed proportionally spaced font. Note that
>> the i and l are easily distinguished.
>
>That's my point. Thanks. Let's recap: JF Mezei suggested that changing
>the font to a monospaced font would help because often small
>proportional fonts have characters that are hard to distinguish between.
>Then mr.know-it-all opened his huge ass hole and shit this gem onto the
>world: "monospace fonts won't fix that. i and l look similar, as do
>other letters combinations". Then I showed that monospaced fonts can
>actually have distinguishable characters where other fonts do not. Then
>mr.never-can-be-wrong got his panties in a bunch, and the rest is
>history.
monospaced font with the same character designs wouldn't help anything
at all. What helps is to change to a font designed for clarity rather
than beauty, whether it's monospaced or not.
DevilsPGD
Mar 1, 2013, 2:37:22 PM3/1/13
to
In the last episode of
<jollyroger-3FDF2...@news.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
<jolly...@pobox.com> said:
>In article <michelle-C9D805...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>
>> In article <jollyroger-A7234...@news.individual.net>,
>> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> > FACT: some monospaced fonts are perfectly legible. in particular the i
>> > and l are easily distinguishable in some monospaced fonts
>>
>> How about 1 and l? In the font I'm using with MTNW, they're clearly
>> distinguishable, but what about other fonts?
>
>Yeah, 1 and l are harder to distinguish for me - in any font.
Do you find it difficult here:
>In article <michelle-C9D805...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>
>> In article <jollyroger-A7234...@news.individual.net>,
>> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> > FACT: some monospaced fonts are perfectly legible. in particular the i
>> > and l are easily distinguishable in some monospaced fonts
>>
>> How about 1 and l? In the font I'm using with MTNW, they're clearly
>> distinguishable, but what about other fonts?
>
>Yeah, 1 and l are harder to distinguish for me - in any font.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/30uuxoyok5ovxtm/2013-03-01_112811.png ?
Message has been deleted
JF Mezei
Mar 1, 2013, 2:56:48 PM3/1/13
to
On 13-03-01 14:37, DevilsPGD wrote:
> He was right though, changing from a proportionally space font to a
> monospaced font with the same character designs wouldn't help anything
> at all.
When a proportional font provides insufficient blank space around the
> He was right though, changing from a proportionally space font to a
> monospaced font with the same character designs wouldn't help anything
> at all.
characters l I and 1, then their combinations become hard to read when
oustide of ideal reading conditions.
even lp lr can be hard to read because the l might be seen as part of
the p or r because the 2 letters are too close to each other. Having
monospaced fonts ensures there is sufficient space between letters so
that even in a shaking bus, you can clearly see those separate characters.
(A propportional font designedto still provide sufficient spacing
between very think characters will be fine too, but I find that the
fonts on iPhone often leave insufficient space.
lli and lii are sometimes hard to distinguish in a moving bus. So I
delete all 3 letters and slowly type them in again just to be sure, or
use the 3 fingers to force zoom to make sure.
Jolly Roger
Mar 1, 2013, 4:04:08 PM3/1/13
to
In article <bc02j8dvup8hr8lui...@4ax.com>,
using either. : )
DevilsPGD <booga...@crazyhat.net> wrote:
> In the last episode of
> <jollyroger-3FDF2...@news.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
> <jolly...@pobox.com> said:
>
> >In article <michelle-C9D805...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <jollyroger-A7234...@news.individual.net>,
> >> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > FACT: some monospaced fonts are perfectly legible. in particular the i
> >> > and l are easily distinguishable in some monospaced fonts
> >>
> >> How about 1 and l? In the font I'm using with MTNW, they're clearly
> >> distinguishable, but what about other fonts?
> >
> >Yeah, 1 and l are harder to distinguish for me - in any font.
>
> Do you find it difficult here:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/30uuxoyok5ovxtm/2013-03-01_112811.png ?
Nope. But then I don't find it difficult in the monospaced fonts I am
> In the last episode of
> <jollyroger-3FDF2...@news.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
> <jolly...@pobox.com> said:
>
> >In article <michelle-C9D805...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <jollyroger-A7234...@news.individual.net>,
> >> Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > FACT: some monospaced fonts are perfectly legible. in particular the i
> >> > and l are easily distinguishable in some monospaced fonts
> >>
> >> How about 1 and l? In the font I'm using with MTNW, they're clearly
> >> distinguishable, but what about other fonts?
> >
> >Yeah, 1 and l are harder to distinguish for me - in any font.
>
> Do you find it difficult here:
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/30uuxoyok5ovxtm/2013-03-01_112811.png ?
using either. : )
Jolly Roger
Mar 1, 2013, 4:04:59 PM3/1/13
to
In article <michelle-AA5B1C...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Yep. I would never use this font for command line work. ; )
Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
> In article <bc02j8dvup8hr8lui...@4ax.com>,
> DevilsPGD <booga...@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>
> In article <bc02j8dvup8hr8lui...@4ax.com>,
> DevilsPGD <booga...@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>
> > >> How about 1 and l? In the font I'm using with MTNW, they're clearly
> > >> distinguishable, but what about other fonts?
> > >
> > >Yeah, 1 and l are harder to distinguish for me - in any font.
> >
> > Do you find it difficult here:
> > https://www.dropbox.com/s/30uuxoyok5ovxtm/2013-03-01_112811.png ?
>
> The l (lower-case of L)looks like | (shift-\) to me.
> > >> distinguishable, but what about other fonts?
> > >
> > >Yeah, 1 and l are harder to distinguish for me - in any font.
> >
> > Do you find it difficult here:
> > https://www.dropbox.com/s/30uuxoyok5ovxtm/2013-03-01_112811.png ?
>
Yep. I would never use this font for command line work. ; )
Jolly Roger
Mar 1, 2013, 4:09:02 PM3/1/13
to
In article <he02j8t3no5sshdk6...@4ax.com>,
monospaced font that was easier to read.
If you have a problem with JF Mezei, take it up with him.
> My contention is that it doesn't
> matter if it's monospaced or proportionally spaced at all, but rather,
> that the clarity of the font is what matters.
And I'm not arguing with you about that.
> Comparing a poorly designed proportional spaced font against a well
> designed monospace font and then saying "Look, switching to monospaced
> fonts helped!" is disingenuous at best.
In general, monospaced fonts have more space between the letters. In
general, I find them easier to read. It's subjective, but not
disingenuous.
> >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/nklc74702zcsjz1/2013-02-27_163247.png shows
> >> your message in a well designed proportionally spaced font. Note that
> >> the i and l are easily distinguished.
> >
> >That's my point. Thanks. Let's recap: JF Mezei suggested that changing
> >the font to a monospaced font would help because often small
> >proportional fonts have characters that are hard to distinguish between.
> >Then mr.know-it-all opened his huge ass hole and shit this gem onto the
> >world: "monospace fonts won't fix that. i and l look similar, as do
> >other letters combinations". Then I showed that monospaced fonts can
> >actually have distinguishable characters where other fonts do not. Then
> >mr.never-can-be-wrong got his panties in a bunch, and the rest is
> >history.
>
> He was right though, changing from a proportionally space font to a
> monospaced font with the same character designs wouldn't help anything
> at all.
I like how you conveniently added "with the same character designs" to
that statement. If anyone had said that earlier, perhaps we wouldn't be
having this conversation. But now we are already here. Oh well.
DevilsPGD <booga...@crazyhat.net> wrote:
> In the last episode of
> <jollyroger-ADD22...@news.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
> <jolly...@pobox.com> said:
>
> >In article <jj9ti8ppt199qvtq6...@4ax.com>,
> > DevilsPGD <booga...@crazyhat.net> wrote:
> >
> >> >FACT: some monospaced fonts are perfectly legible. in particular the i
> >> >and l are easily distinguishable in some monospaced fonts
> >>
> >> You seem to be a bit confused about what "monospace" means.
> >
> >Not at all, I know exactly what it means.
> >
> >> This has
> >> nothing to do with the font being monospaced or not, but rather, the
> >> font design in the first place.
> >
> >I never claimed any different, did I?
>
> Starting in Message-ID:
> <jollyroger-5B77A...@news.individual.net> you implied that
> monospace fonts would somehow help.
Nope. JF Mezei implied that. I backed him up by showing an example of a
> In the last episode of
> <jollyroger-ADD22...@news.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
> <jolly...@pobox.com> said:
>
> >In article <jj9ti8ppt199qvtq6...@4ax.com>,
> > DevilsPGD <booga...@crazyhat.net> wrote:
> >
> >> >FACT: some monospaced fonts are perfectly legible. in particular the i
> >> >and l are easily distinguishable in some monospaced fonts
> >>
> >> You seem to be a bit confused about what "monospace" means.
> >
> >Not at all, I know exactly what it means.
> >
> >> This has
> >> nothing to do with the font being monospaced or not, but rather, the
> >> font design in the first place.
> >
> >I never claimed any different, did I?
>
> Starting in Message-ID:
> <jollyroger-5B77A...@news.individual.net> you implied that
> monospace fonts would somehow help.
monospaced font that was easier to read.
If you have a problem with JF Mezei, take it up with him.
> My contention is that it doesn't
> matter if it's monospaced or proportionally spaced at all, but rather,
> that the clarity of the font is what matters.
> Comparing a poorly designed proportional spaced font against a well
> designed monospace font and then saying "Look, switching to monospaced
> fonts helped!" is disingenuous at best.
general, I find them easier to read. It's subjective, but not
disingenuous.
> >> https://www.dropbox.com/s/nklc74702zcsjz1/2013-02-27_163247.png shows
> >> your message in a well designed proportionally spaced font. Note that
> >> the i and l are easily distinguished.
> >
> >That's my point. Thanks. Let's recap: JF Mezei suggested that changing
> >the font to a monospaced font would help because often small
> >proportional fonts have characters that are hard to distinguish between.
> >Then mr.know-it-all opened his huge ass hole and shit this gem onto the
> >world: "monospace fonts won't fix that. i and l look similar, as do
> >other letters combinations". Then I showed that monospaced fonts can
> >actually have distinguishable characters where other fonts do not. Then
> >mr.never-can-be-wrong got his panties in a bunch, and the rest is
> >history.
>
> He was right though, changing from a proportionally space font to a
> monospaced font with the same character designs wouldn't help anything
> at all.
that statement. If anyone had said that earlier, perhaps we wouldn't be
having this conversation. But now we are already here. Oh well.
blinking...@gmail.com
Aug 8, 2020, 12:42:28 AM8/8/20
to
"Once they detect you are an iPhone, they redirect to an ipHone specific
content where zooming is disabled. Once you have done your search, you
can go to the bottom of page and request the "desktop version" where you
get the real content which is zoomable.
There are many such examples."
If only they got kneecapped everytime they
did this. Really, they should.
'Fuck the sites that do this
Fuck the web browser makers who enable this.
They all need to be socked in the face. Try
to 'cage' me like this, and I will become
an instant enemy.
I think it's time that the operators of
DDOS botnets put their 'army' to GOOD use,
if you know what I mean.
FYI- Android is plagued with this garbage too.
content where zooming is disabled. Once you have done your search, you
can go to the bottom of page and request the "desktop version" where you
get the real content which is zoomable.
There are many such examples."
If only they got kneecapped everytime they
did this. Really, they should.
'Fuck the sites that do this
Fuck the web browser makers who enable this.
They all need to be socked in the face. Try
to 'cage' me like this, and I will become
an instant enemy.
I think it's time that the operators of
DDOS botnets put their 'army' to GOOD use,
if you know what I mean.
FYI- Android is plagued with this garbage too.
JF Mezei
Aug 8, 2020, 2:38:46 PM8/8/20
to
On 2020-08-08 00:42, blinking...@gmail.com wrote:
> "Once they detect you are an iPhone, they redirect to an ipHone specific
> content where zooming is disabled. Once you have done your search, you
> can go to the bottom of page and request the "desktop version" where you
> get the real content which is zoomable.
Since Apple put up the "Reader view", this has been far less of an
> "Once they detect you are an iPhone, they redirect to an ipHone specific
> content where zooming is disabled. Once you have done your search, you
> can go to the bottom of page and request the "desktop version" where you
> get the real content which is zoomable.
issue. You can specify the tecxt size, and it will render the page with
some images and large text that is wrapped onto the size of screen.
On the left side of the address bar at the top, you's lee a small
capital a followed by a larger one. That also has a menu option to
request desktop site.
Note: Reader view does not work on all site.
Lewis
Aug 8, 2020, 6:32:57 PM8/8/20
to
In message <ViCXG.155371$7vd....@fx35.iad> JF Mezei <jfmezei...@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 2020-08-08 00:42, blinking...@gmail.com wrote:
>> "Once they detect you are an iPhone, they redirect to an ipHone specific
>> content where zooming is disabled. Once you have done your search, you
>> can go to the bottom of page and request the "desktop version" where you
>> get the real content which is zoomable.
> Since Apple put up the "Reader view", this has been far less of an
> issue. You can specify the tecxt size, and it will render the page with
> some images and large text that is wrapped onto the size of screen.
There are sites that disable this, but they are few of the sites I ever
> On 2020-08-08 00:42, blinking...@gmail.com wrote:
>> "Once they detect you are an iPhone, they redirect to an ipHone specific
>> content where zooming is disabled. Once you have done your search, you
>> can go to the bottom of page and request the "desktop version" where you
>> get the real content which is zoomable.
> Since Apple put up the "Reader view", this has been far less of an
> issue. You can specify the tecxt size, and it will render the page with
> some images and large text that is wrapped onto the size of screen.
encounter.
> Note: Reader view does not work on all site.
--
All I know is that using the strap makes me feel like a hot woman in
sunglasses. :-) ~jeffcarlson
blinking...@gmail.com
Aug 9, 2020, 4:06:38 PM8/9/20
to
> Since Apple put up the "Reader view",
> There are sites that disable this
Wow, fuck, really? >:(
I'm tired of this shit. Why the ACTUAL
FUCK are allowing sites to OVERRIDE WHAT
THE USER WANTS TO USE? This is bullshit!
It's clear that the makers of the major web browsers
puts the user's intrests below that of website
operators, operators who are in bed and exchanging
money with the likes of Google, Apple, and Micro$oft.
This is why you try to use browsers and other
programs from those who are *not* top companies.
Because those at the top are too busy in bed with
those who will give them the most money,
sucking each others dicks. YOU are just
a cog in their money generating machine
and they will entice you to their browser/platform
with stuff such as "reader mode", only
to allow their fuck buddies (and by extension every shitburg website) to "disable" it on you.
Don't let yourself be played like a fool like this.
blinking...@gmail.com
Aug 9, 2020, 4:09:20 PM8/9/20
to
> Since Apple put up the "Reader view",
> There are sites that disable this
Wow, fuck, really? >:(
I'm tired of this shit. Why the ACTUAL
FUCK are these browsers allowing sites
Wow, fuck, really? >:(
I'm tired of this shit. Why the ACTUAL
Alan Browne
Aug 11, 2020, 8:05:29 PM8/11/20
to
> I think it's time that the operators of
> DDOS botnets put their 'army' to GOOD use,
> if you know what I mean.
>
> FYI- Android is plagued with this garbage too.
Yeah, all that free software that doesn't do what you want.
> DDOS botnets put their 'army' to GOOD use,
> if you know what I mean.
>
> FYI- Android is plagued with this garbage too.
boohoo. Wahhhhh.
Arlen Holder
Aug 11, 2020, 8:17:45 PM8/11/20
to
On Sun, 9 Aug 2020 13:09:19 -0700 (PDT), blinking...@gmail.com wrote:
> This is why you try to use browsers and other
> programs from those who are *not* top companies.
There are so many web browsers to choose from, it's not funny.
> This is why you try to use browsers and other
> programs from those who are *not* top companies.
o If you don't like one browser, one can very easily try another.
I haven't tested all the main mobile device browsers... but I did test all
the main Windows & Linux web browsers, writing up a quick tutorial here:
o Do we have (yet) an actionable list of all free Windows & Linux web
browsers (and their main purpose)?
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.comp.freeware/krNaXA-YEbw/meEOqSQuAwAJ>
Pretty much whatever you want to do, you should be able to do it, even if
the parent company doesn't want you to do it (if you're intelligent, you
can do whatever you want to do in most cases).
For example, I have all three M$ web browsers running concurrently:
<https://i.postimg.cc/PrcV1pXF/browser06.jpg>
As described in this tutorial here:
o Tutorial to set up 3 Microsoft web browsers (Edge UWB, new Edge,
& Internet Explorer) to work concurrently coexisting peacefully
even after subsequent Windows Updates
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.comp.freeware/fZlJTYRxYFg>
I haven't tried Safari because I dislike it; but you should be able to
control Safari if you are intelligent about controlling it.
--
Usenet allows purposefully helpful people to add value & discuss options.
0 new messages