Hello,

I work for a local council and have recently been part of the
project for a new website design which went live at the end of
september at www.tauntondeane.gov.uk.

I set the relative sizes on the CSS so that the page would be best
sized with Microsoft IE set to view:text size:Medium(which I assume is
the default value) as not many people know that the size of the
browser text can be changed.

We have had some complaints that the text is to small when being
viewed on AOL browsers.

We have also be told (which I sort of already knew) that those who
know how to change the text size setting have noticed a big gap
between the difference in text sizes (larger being Huge and smaller
being unreadable) I have been working for the last couple of days to
try and find a way of reducing the gap between the view sizes but have
only be able to do this by setting the CSS relative font sizes so that
what I consider normal appears when the text size in IE is set to
small.

I hope there is some one out there who can help or agrees that this
will happen.

Cheers

Luke

Luke Duddridge wrote:[color=blue]
> Hello,
>
> I work for a local council and have recently been part of the
> project for a new website design which went live at the end of
> september at www.tauntondeane.gov.uk.
>
> I set the relative sizes on the CSS so that the page would be best
> sized with Microsoft IE set to view:text size:Medium(which I assume is
> the default value) as not many people know that the size of the
> browser text can be changed.
>
> We have had some complaints that the text is to small when being
> viewed on AOL browsers.
>
> We have also be told (which I sort of already knew) that those who
> know how to change the text size setting have noticed a big gap
> between the difference in text sizes (larger being Huge and smaller
> being unreadable) I have been working for the last couple of days to
> try and find a way of reducing the gap between the view sizes but have
> only be able to do this by setting the CSS relative font sizes so that
> what I consider normal appears when the text size in IE is set to
> small.
>
> I hope there is some one out there who can help or agrees that this
> will happen.
>[/color]

don't set a text size for the main body of text...leave it at the
default...if somebody has serious problems with their default text size
they will have asked how to change it long before they see your site...if
you don't like your own default text size then change your own settings

--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
all these years I've waited for the revolution
and all we end up getting is spin

Luke Duddridge wrote:[color=blue]
> september at www.tauntondeane.gov.uk.
>
> I set the relative sizes on the CSS so that the page would be best
> sized with Microsoft IE set to view:text size:Medium(which I assume is
> the default value) as not many people know that the size of the
> browser text can be changed.
>
> We have had some complaints that the text is to small when being
> viewed on AOL browsers.[/color]

I wouldn't use keywords at all. Some keywords are MS-only, others are
not, but the easiest way is as follows:

body {font-size: 100% ;}

Then set other elements (h1, h2, p.important, etc.) relative to that
size. Works on all css conforming browsers. This has the strange
effect of making font-size larger in NS4. Thus, best to hide this
rule from that css-broken browser.

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

In message <fa370f0.0310030706.14c25d4e@posting.google.com> , Luke
Duddridge <luke@12-monkeys.freeserve.co.uk> writes[color=blue]
>Hello,
>
> I work for a local council and have recently been part of the
>project for a new website design which went live at the end of
>september at www.tauntondeane.gov.uk.
>[/color]
[snip]
[color=blue]
>
>Cheers
>
>Luke[/color]

Just wondering.

The page www.tauntondeane.gov.uk contains a 'W3C HTML 4.01' validation
flag.

Running the page through the w3c validator gives:

"This page is not Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional!"

........ followed by a list of the 13 errors that need fixing.

regards.



--
Jake

Just have to ask, under "report it" (www.tauntondeane.gov.uk. ) what is
Fly-tipping?

I heard of cow tipping but not fly tipping :-)



"Luke Duddridge" <luke@12-monkeys.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fa370f0.0310030706.14c25d4e@posting.google.co m...[color=blue]
> Hello,
>
> I work for a local council and have recently been part of the
> project for a new website design which went live at the end of
> september at www.tauntondeane.gov.uk.
>
> I set the relative sizes on the CSS so that the page would be best
> sized with Microsoft IE set to view:text size:Medium(which I assume is
> the default value) as not many people know that the size of the
> browser text can be changed.
>
> We have had some complaints that the text is to small when being
> viewed on AOL browsers.
>
> We have also be told (which I sort of already knew) that those who
> know how to change the text size setting have noticed a big gap
> between the difference in text sizes (larger being Huge and smaller
> being unreadable) I have been working for the last couple of days to
> try and find a way of reducing the gap between the view sizes but have
> only be able to do this by setting the CSS relative font sizes so that
> what I consider normal appears when the text size in IE is set to
> small.
>
> I hope there is some one out there who can help or agrees that this
> will happen.
>
> Cheers
>
> Luke[/color]

Randy wrote:[color=blue]
> Just have to ask, under "report it" (www.tauntondeane.gov.uk. ) what is
> Fly-tipping?
>
> I heard of cow tipping but not fly tipping :-)
>[/color]

"fly-tipping" is when somebody dumps waste without permission

--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
all these years I've waited for the revolution
and all we end up getting is spin

Sorry for not replying to the original post, but my ISP is having news
problems at the moment and the original isn't showing up (yet).
[color=blue]
> "Luke Duddridge" <luke@12-monkeys.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:fa370f0.0310030706.14c25d4e@posting.google.co m...[color=green]
>>
>> www.tauntondeane.gov.uk.
>>
>> We have also be told (which I sort of already knew) that those who
>> know how to change the text size setting have noticed a big gap
>> between the difference in text sizes (larger being Huge and smaller
>> being unreadable)[/color][/color]

You have triggered a bug in IE that shows itself when font-size is set
in em units. The fix is a 1-liner:
body {font-size:100%}
[color=blue][color=green]
>> I have been working for the last couple of days to
>> try and find a way of reducing the gap between the view sizes but have
>> only be able to do this by setting the CSS relative font sizes so that
>> what I consider normal appears when the text size in IE is set to
>> small.[/color][/color]

Your idea of "normal" isn't the same as mine. Please don't set the base
font size smaller than 100%. The reasons why have been posted in this
group numerous times, search google to read up on 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]
>
> You have triggered a bug in IE that shows itself when font-size is set
> in em units. The fix is a 1-liner:
> body {font-size:100%}[/color]

I have heard about a bug when setting font size using em as well.

My question is: If body {font-size:100%} is used can the rest of the
stylesheet use em's to handle font-size OR should the entire stylesheet
avoid using em's for font-size.

I assume its the former but now that it has been brought up it would be
nice to nail this one down for sure.

Thanks,

--Nikolaos

Nikolaos Giannopoulos wrote:[color=blue]
> kchayka wrote:[color=green]
> >
> > You have triggered a bug in IE that shows itself when font-size is set
> > in em units. The fix is a 1-liner:
> > body {font-size:100%}[/color]
>
> I have heard about a bug when setting font size using em as well.
>
> My question is: If body {font-size:100%} is used can the rest of the
> stylesheet use em's to handle font-size OR should the entire stylesheet
> avoid using em's for font-size.
>
> I assume its the former but now that it has been brought up it would be
> nice to nail this one down for sure.
>[/color]

why are people so keen to find a way to use em for font size?...if you
start from no body text size definition at all then there are few (if any)
inheritance issues with using % for headers and small print...em is surely
intended primarily for setting the size of other design elements in
relation to the font size, not for setting the font size itself

--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
all these years I've waited for the revolution
and all we end up getting is spin

Eric Jarvis wrote:[color=blue]
> Nikolaos Giannopoulos wrote:
>[color=green]
>>I have heard about a bug when setting font size using em as well.
>>
>>My question is: If body {font-size:100%} is used can the rest of the
>>stylesheet use em's to handle font-size OR should the entire stylesheet
>>avoid using em's for font-size.
>>
>>I assume its the former but now that it has been brought up it would be
>>nice to nail this one down for sure.[/color]
>
>
> why are people so keen to find a way to use em for font size?...if you
> start from no body text size definition at all then there are few (if any)
> inheritance issues with using % for headers and small print...[/color]

Actually, I use % for font-size but I am in the process of redoing
margin and padding to use em - instead of the inflexible px that I have
now (for margin/padding that is).

I guess the only reason I considered switching font-size to use em's, as
well, was because I was going to do it for margin/padding. Not a great
reason - mind you - but I imagine most people do it for the "why not be
consistent" in the units that are utilized - while your at it - thinking.

Your comment makes a lot of sense IMO.

[color=blue]
> em is surely
> intended primarily for setting the size of other design elements in
> relation to the font size, not for setting the font size itself[/color]

Thanks for the excellent points.

Personally, I actually prefer using % for font-size anyways and am glad
to stick to it.

I appreciate it,

--Nikolaos

jake <jake@gododdin.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<9ChZMmWVvdf$EwKh@gododdin.demon.co.uk>...[color=blue]
> In message <fa370f0.0310030706.14c25d4e@posting.google.com> , Luke
> Duddridge <luke@12-monkeys.freeserve.co.uk> writes[color=green]
> >Hello,
> >
> > I work for a local council and have recently been part of the
> >project for a new website design which went live at the end of
> >september at www.tauntondeane.gov.uk.
> >[/color]
> [snip]
>[color=green]
> >
> >Cheers
> >
> >Luke[/color]
>
> Just wondering.
>
> The page www.tauntondeane.gov.uk contains a 'W3C HTML 4.01' validation
> flag.
>
> Running the page through the w3c validator gives:
>
> "This page is not Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional!"
>
> ....... followed by a list of the 13 errors that need fixing.
>
> regards.[/color]

Cheers Jake.

I am still getting used to making some changes and then checking
that they are valid HTML.

Luke