Simple question... which is better to use for defining font sizes and why?
px and em seem to be the leading candidates. I know what the general answer
is going to be, but I'm hoping to ultimately get some good real world
examples.

Fire away! :)

Regards,
Peter Foti

Peter Foti wrote:[color=blue]
> Simple question... which is better to use for defining font sizes[/color]

em
[color=blue]
> and why?[/color]

For reasons discussed in ciwas *numerous* times before. Google will
help you find them if you haven't already read them.
[color=blue]
> I know what the general answer is going to be,[/color]

Then why pose the question? Seems like an waste of your time.
[color=blue]
> but I'm hoping to ultimately get some good real world examples.[/color]

examples of sites that use em for font-size? Ok, here's two:

http://www.julietremblay.com/
http://people.umass.edu/btrembla/

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

Peter Foti wrote:[color=blue]
> Simple question... which is better to use for defining font sizes and why?
> px and em seem to be the leading candidates. I know what the general answer
> is going to be, but I'm hoping to ultimately get some good real world
> examples.
>
> Fire away! :)
>[/color]

wrong

px is no use...it causes accessibility pro[lems and you have no way of
predicting it's appearance anyway...em is better, but the main use for em
is in relating non text elements to text size

the best bet in most cases is to leave main body text as the default size
and define larger and smaller text with %...it is the most predictable and
accessible method

--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"

"Brian" <usenet1@mangymutt.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote in message
news:TWGcb.431331$cF.134857@rwcrnsc53...[color=blue]
> Peter Foti wrote:[color=green]
> > Simple question... which is better to use for defining font sizes[/color]
>
> em
>[color=green]
> > and why?[/color]
>
> For reasons discussed in ciwas *numerous* times before. Google will
> help you find them if you haven't already read them.
>[color=green]
> > I know what the general answer is going to be,[/color]
>
> Then why pose the question? Seems like an waste of your time.[/color]


Not at all. It's just like watching a TV show you've already seen. :)
Actually, I'm trying to convert from the dark side but I still have some
reservations about ems, despite the fact that so many people sing their
praises. For example, since ems seem to inherit from parent font sizes,
then is it best to set a top level absolute font size? For obvious reasons,
I want my site to look the same (or very similar) whether the user is
browsing with IE, Mozilla, Opera, or any other UA. But if those browsers
have different default font size values, then something might come out
looking rediculously large or small on a different browser (especially if
you have any sort of nesting). So should I start with something like this:

<style type="text/css">
body
{
font-size: 12px;
}
h1
{
font-size: 2em;
}
</style>

Also, what about the differences with font sizes in relation to the actual
font family? For example, Verdana looks larger than Times, so perhaps
something that looks good in Verdana font with an em font size will look too
small when inherited by something with Times font. How are these issues
addressed in the real world... that's what I'm hoping to learn. :)

Thanks for your input.
-Peter



[color=blue][color=green]
> > but I'm hoping to ultimately get some good real world examples.[/color]
>
> examples of sites that use em for font-size? Ok, here's two:
>
> http://www.julietremblay.com/
> http://people.umass.edu/btrembla/
>
> --
> Brian
> follow the directions in my address to email me
>[/color]

Peter Foti wrote:[color=blue]
>
> For obvious reasons,
> I want my site to look the same (or very similar) whether the user is
> browsing with IE, Mozilla, Opera, or any other UA.
>[/color]

no...the reason isn't obvious...please explain

--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"

Peter Foti pounced upon this pigeonhole and pronounced:[color=blue]
> "Brian" <usenet1@mangymutt.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote in message
> news:TWGcb.431331$cF.134857@rwcrnsc53...[color=green]
> > Peter Foti wrote:[color=darkred]
> > > Simple question... which is better to use for defining font sizes[/color]
> >
> > em
> >[color=darkred]
> > > and why?[/color]
> >
> > For reasons discussed in ciwas *numerous* times before. Google will
> > help you find them if you haven't already read them.
> >[color=darkred]
> > > I know what the general answer is going to be,[/color]
> >
> > Then why pose the question? Seems like an waste of your time.[/color]
>
>
> Not at all. It's just like watching a TV show you've already seen. :)
> Actually, I'm trying to convert from the dark side but I still have some
> reservations about ems, despite the fact that so many people sing their
> praises.[/color]

It takes a while to grasp the concept.
[color=blue]
> For example, since ems seem to inherit from parent font sizes,
> then is it best to set a top level absolute font size?[/color]

ems are the visitors default font size. They inherit the same as 12px
would inherit.
[color=blue]
> For obvious reasons,
> I want my site to look the same (or very similar) whether the user is
> browsing with IE, Mozilla, Opera, or any other UA.[/color]

If your site falls apart between those three browsers, you've done
something wrong. Think: no two visitors have the same setup as you do.
What if visitor has a text browser? Or is partially blind? Or totally
blind?
[color=blue]
> But if those browsers
> have different default font size values, then something might come out
> looking rediculously large or small on a different browser (especially if
> you have any sort of nesting). So should I start with something like this:
>
> <style type="text/css">
> body
> {
> font-size: 12px;
> }
> h1
> {
> font-size: 2em;
> }
> </style>[/color]

body { font-size: 100%; } /* <- not really necessary */
h1 { font-size: 200%; }

[color=blue]
> Also, what about the differences with font sizes in relation to the actual
> font family? For example, Verdana looks larger than Times, so perhaps[/color]

There are many many threads as to why Verdana is not a good idea.
[color=blue]
> something that looks good in Verdana font with an em font size will look too
> small when inherited by something with Times font. How are these issues
> addressed in the real world... that's what I'm hoping to learn. :)[/color]

Can you show why you would want to mix Verdana (or any sans-serif font)
with a serif font? Times is generally ugly, imo. You could use Times in a
*print* style sheet, though, or better yet, just specify serif.

body { font-size: 100%; } /* <- not really necessary */
h1 { font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 150%; }
p { font-family: serif; } /* not recommended for screen, imo */
#footnote { font-size: 90%; }

Have a look at this site of mine. Make your browser window big or small,
make your default font size big or small. Change the resolution of your
monitor. Use a text browser. Notice how everything floats, and you are in
charge.
http://www.freezeblock.com/

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Peter Foti wrote:
[color=blue]
> then is it best to set a top level absolute font size?[/color]

No. If the reader's default font size isn't the one that they want,
that's their fault. If it _is_ the one that they want, how pleased
will they be when you go and change it?
[color=blue]
> For obvious reasons,[/color]

bzzzt - next contestant please...
[color=blue]
> I want my site to look the same (or very similar) whether the user is
> browsing with IE, Mozilla, Opera,[/color]

You don't seriously believe that the end users will display your page
on all of those browsers and award points for similarity?

If your customer mistakenly believes that, then you (as the expert in
such matters) are tasked with making it clear to them why that is
wrong.
[color=blue]
> or any other UA.[/color]

Such as Lynx, or a Brailler? A theatre projector, a hand-held
display?
[color=blue]
> But if those browsers
> have different default font size values, then something might come out
> looking rediculously large or small on a different browser (especially if
> you have any sort of nesting).[/color]

You don't seriously believe that users have their default font size
_soooo_ far away from reality? It's your job to make a design that
copes with what they've got and what they need, based on the size
choices they already made.
[color=blue]
> Also, what about the differences with font sizes in relation to the actual
> font family?[/color]

The answer's the same as the last hundred times this has been played
out on the groups.



[superfluous quotage snipped.]

Eric Jarvis wrote:
[snip][color=blue]
> px is no use...it causes accessibility pro[lems and you have no way of
> predicting it's appearance anyway...em is better, but the main use
> for em is in relating non text elements to text size
>
> the best bet in most cases is to leave main body text as the default
> size and define larger and smaller text with %...it is the most
> predictable and accessible method[/color]

I read the following and realised that if you get too fussy you can't win!

http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tut...ont/index.html

So I do what you say, and use % from smallest to largest. (San-serif fonts can
look larger than serif, so I let small san-serif areas get down to about 75% -
80% of the serif size for minor purposes. I don't use serif fonts less than
100%. But I've had criticisms about all this too).

But ...

What should you put in the CSS "body" rule, or elsewhere? Should you set an
initial value (eg. medium) or leave it to default, or what? Is medium the
default? I got a bit confused when reading a Microsoft page on the subject,
below. "In standards-compliant mode, the default font-size is small, not
medium. If not explicitly set, font-size returns a point value".

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...rties/font.asp

Although this has been thrashed out before, I assert that there is no
consensus. I feel that there are simply people with different views who all
think they've won the argument!

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.nous@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:UGIcb.7490$oa4.3500@twister.nyroc.rr.com...[color=blue]
> Have a look at this site of mine. Make your browser window big or small, >[/color]
make your default font size big or small. Change the resolution of your[color=blue]
> monitor. Use a text browser. Notice how everything floats, and you are in
> charge.
> http://www.freezeblock.com/[/color]

Actually, In Firebird and IE6, if the window is too small and the navigation
starts to wrap, it covers the navigation above it. I'm just nitpicking. :)

Jonathan

Barry Pearson wrote:[color=blue]
> Eric Jarvis wrote:
> [snip][color=green]
> > px is no use...it causes accessibility pro[lems and you have no way of
> > predicting it's appearance anyway...em is better, but the main use
> > for em is in relating non text elements to text size
> >
> > the best bet in most cases is to leave main body text as the default
> > size and define larger and smaller text with %...it is the most
> > predictable and accessible method[/color]
>
> I read the following and realised that if you get too fussy you can't win!
>
> http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tut...ont/index.html
>
> So I do what you say, and use % from smallest to largest. (San-serif fonts can
> look larger than serif, so I let small san-serif areas get down to about 75% -
> 80% of the serif size for minor purposes. I don't use serif fonts less than
> 100%. But I've had criticisms about all this too).
>
> But ...
>
> What should you put in the CSS "body" rule, or elsewhere? Should you set an
> initial value (eg. medium) or leave it to default, or what? Is medium the
> default? I got a bit confused when reading a Microsoft page on the subject,
> below. "In standards-compliant mode, the default font-size is small, not
> medium. If not explicitly set, font-size returns a point value".
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...rties/font.asp
>
> Although this has been thrashed out before, I assert that there is no
> consensus. I feel that there are simply people with different views who all
> think they've won the argument!
>[/color]

I work on the basis that since it is impossible to predict the user's
browsing environment one has a choice...attempt to control their
environment which risks making the site totally unusable...or assume that
the vast majority of viewers would have altered their settings if they
couldn't read sites at them...once one chooses the latter the objective is
setting things so that they alter predictably compared to the default,
rather than aiming for either control or absolute consistency

--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"

Jonathan Snook pounced upon this pigeonhole and pronounced:[color=blue]
>
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.nous@example.invalid> wrote in message
> news:UGIcb.7490$oa4.3500@twister.nyroc.rr.com...[color=green]
> > Have a look at this site of mine. Make your browser window big or small, >[/color]
> make your default font size big or small. Change the resolution of your[color=green]
> > monitor. Use a text browser. Notice how everything floats, and you are in
> > charge.
> > http://www.freezeblock.com/[/color]
>
> Actually, In Firebird and IE6, if the window is too small and the navigation
> starts to wrap, it covers the navigation above it. I'm just nitpicking. :)[/color]

Yeah, I know. <g> At about 600px the buttons wrap. I wanted to make them a
bit smaller, but the client's wife objected. She insisted that I alter the
original colors as well.

I don't think there are any other glaring errors, though. Hopefully, it
will illustrate to the OP how websites should flex.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:[color=blue]
>
> body { font-size: 100%; } /* <- not really necessary */[/color]

But adding this rule can prevent WinIE from doing bizarre scaling with
View->Text Size changes. It doesn't hurt to include it.

--
To email a reply, remove (dash)un(dash). Mail sent to the un
address is considered spam and automatically deleted.

kchayka wrote:[color=blue]
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>[color=green]
>>body { font-size: 100%; } /* <- not really necessary */[/color]
>
> But adding this rule can prevent WinIE from doing bizarre scaling with
> View->Text Size changes. It doesn't hurt to include it.[/color]

Except in NS 4.79/win2k, where that actually causes a larger font size
to be displayed.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

Peter Foti wrote:[color=blue]
> "Brian" <usenet1@mangymutt.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote in message
> news:TWGcb.431331$cF.134857@rwcrnsc53...[color=green]
>>Then why pose the question? Seems like an waste of your time.[/color]
>
>
>
> Not at all. It's just like watching a TV show you've already seen. :)[/color]

Not at all. A TV show won't be produced anew every time you see it. They
get a tape from the archive and that's all. It's like you getting the
answers from the archive (e.g. Google).
--
Johannes Koch
In te domine speravi; non confundar in aeternum.
(Te Deum, 4th cent.)

"Eric Jarvis" <web@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.19dd5f41e629068d98b84b@News.CIS.DFN.DE...[color=blue]
> Peter Foti wrote:[color=green]
> >
> > For obvious reasons,
> > I want my site to look the same (or very similar) whether the user is
> > browsing with IE, Mozilla, Opera, or any other UA.
> >[/color]
>
> no...the reason isn't obvious...please explain[/color]

Let me correct myself... I want the site to look the same (or very similar)
whether the user is browsing with IE, Mozilla, Opera, or any other UA, but
without taking away the user's ability to make the site use their own
usability settings (for someone with a disability, for example). Also, it
should degrade nicely (for obsolete UA versions, or text based UAs). But
for the most part, I want the user's experience to be the same no matter
which browser they use.
[color=blue]
>
> --
> eric
> www.ericjarvis.co.uk
> "live fast, die only if strictly necessary"[/color]

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.nous@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:UGIcb.7490$oa4.3500@twister.nyroc.rr.com...[color=blue][color=green]
> > Also, what about the differences with font sizes in relation to the[/color][/color]
actual[color=blue][color=green]
> > font family? For example, Verdana looks larger than Times, so perhaps[/color]
>
> There are many many threads as to why Verdana is not a good idea.[/color]

Really? I haven't seen those. I typically use Arial, but have occasionally
used verdana. I'll have to look into that. :)
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > something that looks good in Verdana font with an em font size will look[/color][/color]
too[color=blue][color=green]
> > small when inherited by something with Times font. How are these issues
> > addressed in the real world... that's what I'm hoping to learn. :)[/color]
>
> Can you show why you would want to mix Verdana (or any sans-serif font)
> with a serif font? Times is generally ugly, imo. You could use Times in a
> *print* style sheet, though, or better yet, just specify serif.[/color]

I typically don't use Times, but I can imagine it being used in a newspaper
website, where perhaps news articles use Times, but the main site navigation
is a sans-serif font.

"Brian" <usenet1@mangymutt.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote in message
news:EHPcb.432905$cF.137601@rwcrnsc53...[color=blue]
> kchayka wrote:[color=green]
> > Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >>body { font-size: 100%; } /* <- not really necessary */[/color]
> >
> > But adding this rule can prevent WinIE from doing bizarre scaling with
> > View->Text Size changes. It doesn't hurt to include it.[/color]
>
> Except in NS 4.79/win2k, where that actually causes a larger font size
> to be displayed.[/color]

Ah yes... the evil NS 4! Who cares how web sites look in that browser. ;)
[color=blue]
>
> --
> Brian
> follow the directions in my address to email me
>[/color]

"Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.53.0309252200400.25781@ppepc56.ph. gla.ac.uk...[color=blue]
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Peter Foti wrote:
>[color=green]
> > then is it best to set a top level absolute font size?[/color]
>
> No. If the reader's default font size isn't the one that they want,
> that's their fault. If it _is_ the one that they want, how pleased
> will they be when you go and change it?[/color]

Honestly, I think most users probably don't even realize the amount of
control they have over this sort of thing and just judge a website by how it
is displayed in their browser. If it looks like crap because their
browser's default font size is too large (which is often the case IMO), then
they're going to think "this website sucks". Which is why it would be nice
to create a page where the author sets the default top level font, but the
user should still be able to change it if they need to.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > For obvious reasons,[/color]
>
> bzzzt - next contestant please...
>[color=green]
> > I want my site to look the same (or very similar) whether the user is
> > browsing with IE, Mozilla, Opera,[/color]
>
> You don't seriously believe that the end users will display your page
> on all of those browsers and award points for similarity?[/color]

No, but at the same time I don't want to alienate any users by creating a
site that looks good in one browser and not in another.
[color=blue]
>
> If your customer mistakenly believes that, then you (as the expert in
> such matters) are tasked with making it clear to them why that is
> wrong.
>[color=green]
> > or any other UA.[/color]
>
> Such as Lynx, or a Brailler? A theatre projector, a hand-held
> display?[/color]

I neglected to mention that the site should be able to degrade nicely (but
need not look as similar) for obsolete browsers, or non-graphical UAs.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > But if those browsers
> > have different default font size values, then something might come out
> > looking rediculously large or small on a different browser (especially[/color][/color]
if[color=blue][color=green]
> > you have any sort of nesting).[/color]
>
> You don't seriously believe that users have their default font size
> _soooo_ far away from reality? It's your job to make a design that
> copes with what they've got and what they need, based on the size
> choices they already made.[/color]

Like I said... I think most users don't actually make this choice, and the
browser defaults are often different.
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > Also, what about the differences with font sizes in relation to the[/color][/color]
actual[color=blue][color=green]
> > font family?[/color]
>
> The answer's the same as the last hundred times this has been played
> out on the groups.
>
>
>
> [superfluous quotage snipped.][/color]

Peter Foti wrote:[color=blue]
> "Eric Jarvis" <web@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:MPG.19dd5f41e629068d98b84b@News.CIS.DFN.DE...[color=green]
> > Peter Foti wrote:[color=darkred]
> > >
> > > For obvious reasons,
> > > I want my site to look the same (or very similar) whether the user is
> > > browsing with IE, Mozilla, Opera, or any other UA.
> > >[/color]
> >
> > no...the reason isn't obvious...please explain[/color]
>
> Let me correct myself... I want the site to look the same (or very similar)
> whether the user is browsing with IE, Mozilla, Opera, or any other UA, but
> without taking away the user's ability to make the site use their own
> usability settings (for someone with a disability, for example). Also, it
> should degrade nicely (for obsolete UA versions, or text based UAs). But
> for the most part, I want the user's experience to be the same no matter
> which browser they use.
>[/color]

that doesn't answer the question...why do you want them to have the same
experience?

I make a browser choice to suit myself...mostly I'm in a hurry so I'm
using something quite cut down and I'm multitasking so I'm using a small
window...sometimes I'm browsing for the pleasure of it and I'll use all
the browser features and a maximised window

I don't even always want the same experience as myself, let alone the same
as anyone else...I know people who like a large display and plenty of
features as a default...I know others who choose their browser purely for
speed or for a small footprint...we've chosen our browsers because they
give the sort of browsing experience we want...why is it obvious that you
should want to override that?

--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"

"Eric Jarvis" <web@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.19de631548fa4c0098b85f@News.CIS.DFN.DE...[color=blue]
> Peter Foti wrote:[color=green]
> > "Eric Jarvis" <web@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.19dd5f41e629068d98b84b@News.CIS.DFN.DE...[color=darkred]
> > > Peter Foti wrote:
> > > >
> > > > For obvious reasons,
> > > > I want my site to look the same (or very similar) whether the user[/color][/color][/color]
is[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > browsing with IE, Mozilla, Opera, or any other UA.
> > > >
> > >
> > > no...the reason isn't obvious...please explain[/color]
> >
> > Let me correct myself... I want the site to look the same (or very[/color][/color]
similar)[color=blue][color=green]
> > whether the user is browsing with IE, Mozilla, Opera, or any other UA,[/color][/color]
but[color=blue][color=green]
> > without taking away the user's ability to make the site use their own
> > usability settings (for someone with a disability, for example). Also,[/color][/color]
it[color=blue][color=green]
> > should degrade nicely (for obsolete UA versions, or text based UAs).[/color][/color]
But[color=blue][color=green]
> > for the most part, I want the user's experience to be the same no matter
> > which browser they use.
> >[/color]
>
> that doesn't answer the question...why do you want them to have the same
> experience?
>
> I make a browser choice to suit myself...mostly I'm in a hurry so I'm
> using something quite cut down and I'm multitasking so I'm using a small
> window...sometimes I'm browsing for the pleasure of it and I'll use all
> the browser features and a maximised window
>
> I don't even always want the same experience as myself, let alone the same
> as anyone else...I know people who like a large display and plenty of
> features as a default...I know others who choose their browser purely for
> speed or for a small footprint...we've chosen our browsers because they
> give the sort of browsing experience we want...why is it obvious that you
> should want to override that?[/color]

I don't want to alienate any users by creating a site that looks good in one
browser and not in another. I'm not saying that I want to override the
settings of the end users. I'm saying, I want something consistent across
browsers. Once I have a consistent base, then the end user is free to twist
it to their preferences. I'm not trying to override them... I'm trying to
create a common starting point for all browsers.

[color=blue]
>
> --
> eric
> www.ericjarvis.co.uk
> "live fast, die only if strictly necessary"[/color]

Peter Foti wrote:[color=blue]
>
> I think most users probably don't even realize the amount of
> control they have over this sort of thing and just judge a website
> by how it is displayed in their browser.[/color]

I doubt that this really is the problem that people claim, and the
evidence often seems apocryphal. But if you think it is, then tell
users in a help document how they can change the font size.
[color=blue]
> If it looks like crap because their browser's default font size is
> too large (which is often the case IMO),[/color]

On your system? Or on theirs? If the latter, how do you know this?
[color=blue]
> then they're going to think "this website sucks".[/color]

People are on the web for information, not production values.
[color=blue]
> Which is why it would be nice to create a page where the author
> sets the default top level font[/color]

based on which resolution? In short, this cannot be done in any
reliable way.
[color=blue]
> I think most users don't actually make this choice, and the browser
> defaults are often different.[/color]

different <> ugly

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Peter Foti wrote:
[color=blue]
> I don't want to alienate any users by creating a site that looks good in one
> browser and not in another.[/color]

Of course you don't - who ever suggested that you did?

What you have to accept is that a web page that looks good in one
viewing situation is going to look bad if you try to force it to be
the same in a very different situation. And then work from there.
Executive summary: flexible design.

Peter Foti wrote:[color=blue]
> "Eric Jarvis" <web@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:MPG.19de631548fa4c0098b85f@News.CIS.DFN.DE...[color=green]
> > Peter Foti wrote:[color=darkred]
> > > "Eric Jarvis" <web@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:MPG.19dd5f41e629068d98b84b@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> > > > Peter Foti wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > For obvious reasons,
> > > > > I want my site to look the same (or very similar) whether the user[/color][/color]
> is[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > > browsing with IE, Mozilla, Opera, or any other UA.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > no...the reason isn't obvious...please explain
> > >
> > > Let me correct myself... I want the site to look the same (or very[/color][/color]
> similar)[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > whether the user is browsing with IE, Mozilla, Opera, or any other UA,[/color][/color]
> but[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > without taking away the user's ability to make the site use their own
> > > usability settings (for someone with a disability, for example). Also,[/color][/color]
> it[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > should degrade nicely (for obsolete UA versions, or text based UAs).[/color][/color]
> But[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > for the most part, I want the user's experience to be the same no matter
> > > which browser they use.
> > >[/color]
> >
> > that doesn't answer the question...why do you want them to have the same
> > experience?
> >
> > I make a browser choice to suit myself...mostly I'm in a hurry so I'm
> > using something quite cut down and I'm multitasking so I'm using a small
> > window...sometimes I'm browsing for the pleasure of it and I'll use all
> > the browser features and a maximised window
> >
> > I don't even always want the same experience as myself, let alone the same
> > as anyone else...I know people who like a large display and plenty of
> > features as a default...I know others who choose their browser purely for
> > speed or for a small footprint...we've chosen our browsers because they
> > give the sort of browsing experience we want...why is it obvious that you
> > should want to override that?[/color]
>
> I don't want to alienate any users by creating a site that looks good in one
> browser and not in another. I'm not saying that I want to override the
> settings of the end users. I'm saying, I want something consistent across
> browsers. Once I have a consistent base, then the end user is free to twist
> it to their preferences. I'm not trying to override them... I'm trying to
> create a common starting point for all browsers.
>[/color]

you still aren't dealing with the basic question...why do you want
consistency?...you start by saying you want the right thing, excellence in
as many situations as possible...then you make a completely unjustified
assumption that this requires consistency

you are wasting time and effort on an unachievable goal that isn't
actually part of your intended overall aim

--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"Hey Lord don't ask me questions
There ain't no answer in me"

"Eric Jarvis" <web@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.19de7df11aa7d54d98b864@News.CIS.DFN.DE...[color=blue]
> Peter Foti wrote:[color=green]
> > "Eric Jarvis" <web@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.19de631548fa4c0098b85f@News.CIS.DFN.DE...[color=darkred]
> > > Peter Foti wrote:
> > > > "Eric Jarvis" <web@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > > news:MPG.19dd5f41e629068d98b84b@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> > > > > Peter Foti wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For obvious reasons,
> > > > > > I want my site to look the same (or very similar) whether the[/color][/color][/color]
user[color=blue][color=green]
> > is[color=darkred]
> > > > > > browsing with IE, Mozilla, Opera, or any other UA.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > no...the reason isn't obvious...please explain
> > > >
> > > > Let me correct myself... I want the site to look the same (or very[/color]
> > similar)[color=darkred]
> > > > whether the user is browsing with IE, Mozilla, Opera, or any other[/color][/color][/color]
UA,[color=blue][color=green]
> > but[color=darkred]
> > > > without taking away the user's ability to make the site use their[/color][/color][/color]
own[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > usability settings (for someone with a disability, for example).[/color][/color][/color]
Also,[color=blue][color=green]
> > it[color=darkred]
> > > > should degrade nicely (for obsolete UA versions, or text based UAs).[/color]
> > But[color=darkred]
> > > > for the most part, I want the user's experience to be the same no[/color][/color][/color]
matter[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > > which browser they use.
> > > >
> > >
> > > that doesn't answer the question...why do you want them to have the[/color][/color][/color]
same[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > experience?
> > >
> > > I make a browser choice to suit myself...mostly I'm in a hurry so I'm
> > > using something quite cut down and I'm multitasking so I'm using a[/color][/color][/color]
small[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > window...sometimes I'm browsing for the pleasure of it and I'll use[/color][/color][/color]
all[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > the browser features and a maximised window
> > >
> > > I don't even always want the same experience as myself, let alone the[/color][/color][/color]
same[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > as anyone else...I know people who like a large display and plenty of
> > > features as a default...I know others who choose their browser purely[/color][/color][/color]
for[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > speed or for a small footprint...we've chosen our browsers because[/color][/color][/color]
they[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > give the sort of browsing experience we want...why is it obvious that[/color][/color][/color]
you[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> > > should want to override that?[/color]
> >
> > I don't want to alienate any users by creating a site that looks good in[/color][/color]
one[color=blue][color=green]
> > browser and not in another. I'm not saying that I want to override the
> > settings of the end users. I'm saying, I want something consistent[/color][/color]
across[color=blue][color=green]
> > browsers. Once I have a consistent base, then the end user is free to[/color][/color]
twist[color=blue][color=green]
> > it to their preferences. I'm not trying to override them... I'm trying[/color][/color]
to[color=blue][color=green]
> > create a common starting point for all browsers.
> >[/color]
>
> you still aren't dealing with the basic question...why do you want
> consistency?...you start by saying you want the right thing, excellence in
> as many situations as possible...then you make a completely unjustified
> assumption that this requires consistency[/color]

I want consistency because it makes it more likely that 2 average (default)
users will have the same experience when they visit the site (unless they
WANT to have a different experience, in which case they would change their
settings).
[color=blue]
>
> you are wasting time and effort on an unachievable goal that isn't
> actually part of your intended overall aim
>
> --
> eric
> www.ericjarvis.co.uk
> "Hey Lord don't ask me questions
> There ain't no answer in me"[/color]

Peter Foti wrote:
[snip][color=blue]
> No, but at the same time I don't want to alienate any users by
> creating a site that looks good in one browser and not in another.[/color]
[snip]

I note the lack of sympathy you are getting from Alan J Flavell and Eric
Jarvis. They are formidable opponents! But in a fairly narrow sense I am on
your side. I'll try to stay focussed.

When we produce web sites, there are all sorts of things that we have no
control over. I upload photograph pages, and someone looks at them on an
uncalibrated monitor and criticises the colour balance. We do our honest best
to have good style sheets, and someone using a company PC with NN4.7 on it
gets a weird view of what we've done. With the best will in the world, we
can't please everyone all the time, and many people may never be able to see
what we've done. We have to live with it.

But there is a very well known strategy to adopt, whenever we are being
buffetted by diversity that is bordering on near-anarchy:

"Control the controllables".

Some things ARE under our control. We can control them and hence reduce
complexity. If we failed to ensure that our site looked good with Opera 7.2
with (say) standard settings, how can we sort out a problem if a user is using
Opera 7.2 with non-standard settings? Is the problem with our site, or Opera
7.2, or the settings?

Consider the following page. I had lots of problems wondering why I was
getting different presentations of the H1 and H2 heading boxes. They were
intended to have the text exactly midway vertically. It was varying from one
browser to the next.

http://www.barry.pearson.name/photog...olios/lrps.htm

I could have shrugged my shoulders and said "the web is like that, I've got to
accept it". But, first, it really mattered to me; and second, for all I know
the differences between different browsers will increase because of some other
factors. There may be all sorts of reasons why it will get changed / distorted
/ screwed-up later. But I want it to look right, by MY standards, when it
leaves me. So I identified that problem was different default top & bottom
margins in different browsers, and now set the margins of headers in the CSS.

If I resigned myself to the uncalibrated monitors, etc, of all the people who
may view my photographs, I might cease to care about what I put on the web
because it out of my control. But I process them to sRGB colour space on a
calibrated monitor, enabling a considerable degree of consistency among
willing participants. Then when a problem arises, I may rapidly be able to say
"the problem is at your end, not mine". And if they disagree - they can look
elsewhere! (There are 1000s more photograph sites they can look at. There are
millions more viewers I may be able to reach).

"Control the controllables".

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/

Brian wrote:
[snip][color=blue]
> People are on the web for information, not production values.[/color]
[snip]

Some may be. Not all.

For example, photographers looking at the web sites of other photographers may
be primarily concerned with the quality of the photographs and the quality of
their presentation.

People are on the web for very many different reasons, with many different
implications for authoring.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Peter Foti wrote:
[color=blue]
> Like I said... I think most users don't actually make this choice,[/color]

By not looking for the adjustments, they already did make a choice:
they consented to the size which their vendor set for them.

Just as if they'd switched on the TV and never looked for the volume
control.

Peter Foti wrote:[color=blue]
>
> I think most users probably don't even realize the amount of
> control they have over this sort of thing and just judge a website
> by how it is displayed in their browser.[/color]

I doubt that this really is the problem that people claim, and the
evidence often seems apocryphal. But if you think it is, then tell
users in a help document how they can change the font size.
[color=blue]
> If it looks like crap because their browser's default font size is
> too large (which is often the case IMO),[/color]

On your system? Or on theirs? If the latter, how do you know this?
[color=blue]
> then they're going to think "this website sucks".[/color]

People are on the web for information, not production values.
[color=blue]
> Which is why it would be nice to create a page where the author
> sets the default top level font[/color]

based on which resolution? In short, this cannot be done in any
reliable way.
[color=blue]
> I think most users don't actually make this choice, and the browser
> defaults are often different.[/color]

different <> ugly

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 13:22:46 -0400, "Peter Foti"
<peterf@systolicnetworks.com> wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
>> you still aren't dealing with the basic question...why do you want
>> consistency?...you start by saying you want the right thing, excellence in
>> as many situations as possible...then you make a completely unjustified
>> assumption that this requires consistency[/color]
>
>I want consistency because it makes it more likely that 2 average (default)
>users will have the same experience when they visit the site (unless they
>WANT to have a different experience, in which case they would change their
>settings).[/color]

Experience, is the interaction between the user and the site, it's not
the appearance, look at the big online brands, they have by
traditional brand ideas atrocious brand designs, yet their brands are
well known, and well understood. That's due to the interaction
experience not the look.

Two users of the same UA settings etc. will get an identical look, and
it will meet their interaction conventions on the good sites they're
used to. The user of a different UA will get a different look, but it
would mimic the interaction experience of the other sites they're used
to.

Jim.
--
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/

Barry,
Very well put.
-Peter

Peter Foti wrote:[color=blue]
>
> I want consistency because it makes it more likely that 2 average (default)
> users will have the same experience when they visit the site (unless they
> WANT to have a different experience, in which case they would change their
> settings).
>[/color]

one last time

why is it an advantage that all visitors have the same
experience?...almost nobody will visit your site in several different
browsers...the chances are that NOBODY but you knows that it looks
different between Mozilla and IE...what exactly is the problem with that
if it looks good in both?

I'm trying to help...this is a realisation that has saved me an immense
amount of time and a huge number of headaches...stop and think about what
you actually NEED from a design...if you know that it will have slightly
larger margins in IE than in Opera then you can take that into account in
the design...as Barry so eloquently puts it "control the controllables"
don't waste your time trying to turn the web page into a piece of paper
before you start

--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"

Barry Pearson wrote:[color=blue]
> Brian wrote:
>[color=green]
>>People are on the web for information, not production values.[/color]
>
> Some may be. Not all.
>
> For example, photographers looking at the web sites of other photographers may
> be primarily concerned with the quality of the photographs[/color]

....which is content, not presentation. Perhaps I should have phrased
that differently: People are on the web for content, not nifty layouts.
[color=blue]
> and the quality of their presentation.[/color]

Not sure what you mean by this. The layout of the photos? My sister
is a semi-professional photographer. The presentation of photos on
her site was important. I think that, to some degree, presentation
and content get blurred on artists' sites. Still, when she goes to
other sites, she is after content. I've seen those sites, and their
presentation can be dreadful. But when she talks about them to me,
she discusses *only* the photos -- their composition, originality, use
of light, etc. -- and never the site layout.

Other photographers may be different, it's true. Mostly, I see
anecdotal evidence. My anecdotal evidence contradicts others' claims
about the importance of attractive layout, and especially of the need
to have things look identical in a number of browsers.
[color=blue]
> People are on the web for very many different reasons, with many different
> implications for authoring.[/color]

No doubt. But the web is at the moment a content-rich and production
values-poor medium. If many people are on the web, that indicates
that content means more than style.

--
Brian
follow the directions in my address to email me

"Eric Jarvis" <web@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.19de931b5f83c0b498b869@News.CIS.DFN.DE...[color=blue]
> Peter Foti wrote:[color=green]
> >
> > I want consistency because it makes it more likely that 2 average[/color][/color]
(default)[color=blue][color=green]
> > users will have the same experience when they visit the site (unless[/color][/color]
they[color=blue][color=green]
> > WANT to have a different experience, in which case they would change[/color][/color]
their[color=blue][color=green]
> > settings).
> >[/color]
>
> one last time
>
> why is it an advantage that all visitors have the same
> experience?...almost nobody will visit your site in several different
> browsers...the chances are that NOBODY but you knows that it looks
> different between Mozilla and IE...what exactly is the problem with that
> if it looks good in both?[/color]

Well, for one it makes debugging easier. If I'm designing so the site looks
the same in Mozilla and IE, then I can verify that it looks the way I
intended it to look, and I don't get unwanted surprises like all of a sudden
a border is not where it's supposed to be or some other visual bug (a
real-life problem I ran into once where, due to differences in browser
defaults, the site looked good in one browser and bad in another... mostly
the cause of a browser bug, but still...). If the site looks the same using
the defaults of each browser, and I can verify that, then if someone has a
problem with the site (using one of those browsers), I can probably be
assured that it's because they have changed their settings, so the problem
is on their end.

The problem with trying to allow for browser differences is that the design
must be much more generic... mediocre even. There are some cases where
that's just not acceptable.
[color=blue]
> I'm trying to help...this is a realisation that has saved me an immense
> amount of time and a huge number of headaches...stop and think about what
> you actually NEED from a design...if you know that it will have slightly
> larger margins in IE than in Opera then you can take that into account in
> the design...as Barry so eloquently puts it "control the controllables"[/color]

So I should assume then that font size is not a controllable?
[color=blue]
> don't waste your time trying to turn the web page into a piece of paper
> before you start[/color]

Now, having argued all of that, let me say that I understand what it is that
you are saying, and in fact, I agree with much of this philosophy. My
point, however, is that the base font size should be a controllable, and
that end users should feel free to alter the appearance by changing the font
size at their own risk. For example, if I want the page to have a
particular font size, I have no problem with the user getting to my site and
saying "Hmmm... that font is too small for my bad eyes... better crank up
the font size". Fine. Do it. The site might not look the same once they
do, but that's their decision. The only difference is that I think the
author should get to decide what the base level font is, instead of the UA
maker. From there, the user can change the font to their liking. Am I
wrong? I could be. But no one has given me a reason yet as to why I would
be wrong.

-Pete


[color=blue]
>
> --
> eric
> www.ericjarvis.co.uk
> "live fast, die only if strictly necessary"[/color]

In article <vn951cs95pao08@corp.supernews.com>, Peter Foti wrote:[color=blue]
> "Eric Jarvis" <web@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:MPG.19de931b5f83c0b498b869@News.CIS.DFN.DE...[color=green]
> > Peter Foti wrote:[color=darkred]
> > >
> > > I want consistency because it makes it more likely that 2 average[/color][/color]
> (default)[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > users will have the same experience when they visit the site (unless[/color][/color]
> they[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > WANT to have a different experience, in which case they would change[/color][/color]
> their[color=green][color=darkred]
> > > settings).
> > >[/color]
> >
> > one last time
> >
> > why is it an advantage that all visitors have the same
> > experience?...almost nobody will visit your site in several different
> > browsers...the chances are that NOBODY but you knows that it looks
> > different between Mozilla and IE...what exactly is the problem with that
> > if it looks good in both?[/color]
>
> Well, for one it makes debugging easier.[/color]

True. If rule is "It must look exactly same"
Then start of debuggin is easy:"It does not look exactly same"

If answer is not this, your testing envioronment is seriously broken.
[color=blue]
> If I'm designing so the site looks
> the same in Mozilla and IE, then I can verify that it looks the way I
> intended it to look, and I don't get unwanted surprises like all of a sudden
> a border is not where it's supposed to be or some other visual bug (a
> real-life problem I ran into once where, due to differences in browser
> defaults, the site looked good in one browser and bad in another... mostly
> the cause of a browser bug, but still...). If the site looks the same using
> the defaults of each browser, and I can verify that, then if someone has a
> problem with the site (using one of those browsers), I can probably be
> assured that it's because they have changed their settings, so the problem
> is on their end.[/color]

You forget all the settings of different browsers. There is _absolutely_
no way to make website look same in all browsers. The fact that it can be
done 80% of time for 80% of browsers is irrelevant.
[color=blue]
> The problem with trying to allow for browser differences is that the design
> must be much more generic... mediocre even. There are some cases where
> that's just not acceptable.[/color]

No, design must be planned right in the first place.
[color=blue]
> So I should assume then that font size is not a controllable?[/color]

It isn't. That is fact.
[color=blue]
> Now, having argued all of that, let me say that I understand what it is that
> you are saying, and in fact, I agree with much of this philosophy. My
> point, however, is that the base font size should be a controllable, and
> that end users should feel free to alter the appearance by changing the font
> size at their own risk.[/color]

You mean that when he looks your site with his best money can buy screen
and has to look 2mm high letters, he then needs to make decision if he
wants to break layout to read something. Each and every time? Web is
designed so that he don't need to do that decision each and every time.
[color=blue]
> [author] instead of the UA maker.[/color]

No, USER makes the decision. Even if that decision is that browser
default font suits her just fine.
[color=blue]
> From there, the user can change the font to their liking. Am I
> wrong? I could be.[/color]

Yes. Why? Because when UA maker makes decisiopn on font size, user needs
to change that once. If user would need to change that for each and every
page, that would be very stupid.
[color=blue]
> But no one has given me a reason yet as to why I would
> be wrong.[/color]

Too bad there is not much we can't do if you don't want to understand.
Well, not my problem, I'll never here you again.


--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Saapi lähettää meiliä, jos aihe ei liity ryhmään, tai on yksityinen
tjsp., mutta älä lähetä samaa viestiä meilitse ja ryhmään.

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 20:03:20 +0100, Eric Jarvis <web@ericjarvis.co.uk>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>px is no use...it causes accessibility pro[lems and you have no way of
>predicting it's appearance anyway...em is better, but the main use for em
>is in relating non text elements to text size[/color]

Hmm, the W3's current public CSS for new documents seems to be:

body {
font: 14px/19px "Gill Sans", GillSans, "Lucida Grande", "Lucida Sans
Unicode", Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;
background: white;
color: black;
margin: 0px 0px 0px 20px;
font-weight: normal;
}
(e.g. <URL: http://www.w3.org/Graphics/SVG/ > but on other pages too)

To me this not only looks hideous (I'm not a fan of Gill Sans anyway,
but it's about 40% too large for my default) it's not the best
practice we're discussing. However it would be odd for the W3
communications team to not ask their WAI people for best practice in
the area, so aren't we all getting it wrong?

Setting the body font to some big ugly mess comes with a W3 stamp...

Jim.
--
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq/