Because when I asked for comments on my site-design (Remember? My site,
your opinion!) some of you told me never to change anything on
font-sizes!

What do you guys think of that: http://www.clagnut.com/blog/348/

I hope that's going to be a good discussion!

Michael

Quoth the raven Michael Kalina:
[color=blue]
> Because when I asked for comments on my site-design (Remember? My site,
> your opinion!) some of you told me never to change anything on font-sizes![/color]

...which was a Good Idea™.
[color=blue]
> What do you guys think of that: http://www.clagnut.com/blog/348/[/color]

From your CSS:

/* Clagnut.com typefaces - Lucida family */

/* This reduces default size from 16px to 13px.
All font-sizes after here are in ems and made to whole pixel sizes.
*/
BODY {font-size:81.25%;} <<<------ Bad Idea™.

/* page heading, main body text and side-col subheadings */
BODY, H1, P, BLOCKQUOTE, LI, TD, #footer, UL#bookmarks H2, #features
H2, .blogsupl H2, FORM H2, BODY#photo H2, #notes H2 {
font-family: "Lucida Bright", Lucidabright, Georgia, "Bitstream Vera
Serif", serif;
}

End quote. My machine seems to perhaps use Georgia (as I don't have
any of those other ones). Georgia is a fairly nice serif font, but at
81.25% it is looking like a bad (worse?) Times New Roman. I can't read it.

Rethink the body font-size, and change it to 100%. I had to resize
your page to about 140% in order to read it, and my eyes are pretty good.

You should also consider using only fonts that the majority of your
visitors will have. This is quite limited.
[color=blue]
> I hope that's going to be a good discussion![/color]

Undoubtedly.

Your page does scale correctly when resized or browser window size
changed. Kudos for that.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

Michael Kalina wrote:
[color=blue]
> Because when I asked for comments on my site-design (Remember? My
> site, your opinion!) some of you told me never to change anything
> on font-sizes![/color]

No. What we told you was that the most practical thing to do is not
set a font-size for body text, and to use percent for e.g. headings to
make them bigger as a percent of that body text.
[color=blue]
> What do you guys think of that: http://www.clagnut.com/blog/348/[/color]

I think you obviously ignored our advice.
[color=blue]
> I hope that's going to be a good discussion![/color]

Why are you hoping for that? What more is there to tell you? Perhaps
this will be a shock, but I don't really enjoy repeating myself. I'm
not interested in the least in telling you what you should already
know from the previous thread you mention, or from any of the numerous
other threads where the ciwas regulargs gave essentially the same advice.

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
[color=blue]
> Quoth the raven Michael Kalina:
>[color=green]
>> Because when I asked for comments on my site-design (Remember? My
>> site, your opinion!) some of you told me never to change anything on
>> font-sizes![/color]
>
> ..which was a Good Idea™.
>[color=green]
>> What do you guys think of that: http://www.clagnut.com/blog/348/[/color]
>
> From your CSS:[/color]

[snip site/font-check]

I was under the impression that Michael was asking opinions
about the content of the article, as I don't think it is his
site? It's about font-sizes, and has "Copyright © 1996–2003,
Richard Rutter." at the bottom of the page.

--
Els
http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -

Michael Kalina wrote:[color=blue]
>
> What do you guys think of that: http://www.clagnut.com/blog/348/[/color]

Bad advice, all around. First off, my default font size is _not_ 16px. I
changed it to something more suitable to my particular environment.

Setting body text to 62% like the author suggests only makes it
unreadably small. As it stands, I had to zoom to 150% to read that drivel.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Michael Kalina wrote:
[color=blue]
> What do you guys think of that: http://www.clagnut.com/blog/348/
>
> I hope that's going to be a good discussion![/color]

I smell trolls.

The author appears to be trying to create a site which will work best
for those undiscerning souls who bought a big display and left it
configured for some default display setting like 640x480 or 800x600,
while pissing-off anyone who bothered to configure to something which
uses that big display better.

|unless you know (not think) your audience won.t be using IE/Win or
|will never wish to resize their text then pixels are not yet a viable
|solution.

What's this "not yet" crap? Specifying px units in CSS is a request
to the display to display CSS px units, not to display user-resizable
text. So the author is telling us he's yearning to use something
which he presumably knows doesn't do what it's specified to do, but he
won't use it "yet" because it hasn't been broken enough "yet" by the
browser designers. Implying that he wants to make browser conformance
with the CSS specification even *worse* than it is now.

Meantime, as we know here, em units and percentages already do
pretty-much what it says on the tin, and are the closest thing we have
to responding to each and every user's individual need. But not when
you take their normal text size and reduce it to fly-droppings first.
Bleagh.

Quoth the raven Els:
[color=blue]
> I was under the impression that Michael was asking opinions about
> the content of the article, as I don't think it is his site? It's
> about font-sizes, and has "Copyright © 1996–2003, Richard Rutter."
> at the bottom of the page.[/color]

You could be right. In that case, change my comments from "your" to
"his" ... Still applies, though. <g>

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

Michael Kalina wrote:
[color=blue]
> What do you guys think of that: http://www.clagnut.com/blog/348/[/color]

I quoteth from that blog:

"The default size for 'medium' text in all modern browsers is 16px.
Our first step is to reduce this size for the entire document by
setting body size to 62.5%:

BODY {font-size:62.5%}

"This takes 16px down to 10px, which apart from being less huge is a
nice round number. From now on it's easy to think in pixels but still
set sizes in terms of ems: 1em is 10px, 0.8em is 8px, 1.6em is 16px,
etc."


Never have I seen the message so twisted. This blog says to its
audience: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. A little knowledge is
a dangerous thing."

A rare glimpse inside the mind of microfonter. Controversial.
Confrontational. Destined to become a modern classic. I gave it four
and a half stars.

This atmospheric, gritty blog lays bare the thought processes of the
microfonters in a way that Zeldman or Meyer never could. What did you
think, David?

I didn't like it. I gave it two stars.

On 3 Jun 2004 19:50:37 -0700, Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote:
[color=blue]
> ..What did you
> think, David?
>
> I didn't like it. I gave it two stars.[/color]

(chuckle) ..And I do not even watch TV,
let alone Australian TV.

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology

Brian <usenet3@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
> > What do you guys think of that: http://www.clagnut.com/blog/348/[/color]
> I think you obviously ignored our advice.[/color]

Dear Brian!

I do not understand why you are so pessimistic about me: MY Site
(http://michaelsremarks.com) does not ignore your advice! I only
wanted to know what you think of a site that is referred to as a "good
advice in working with em-units"!

Please do not put so much bad things on me, this is NOT my site, it is
a site I found while surfing the web!

Because I wondered what was written there (after we had the discussion
in this group and there were lot of advices how to use em-units), I
posted a link to this newsgroup to see what happens...

Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote:[color=blue]
> Michael Kalina wrote:[color=green]
>> What do you guys think of that: http://www.clagnut.com/blog/348/[/color]
>
> I quoteth from that blog:
> "The default size for 'medium' text in all modern browsers is 16px.[/color]

That is my conclusion too. I recently asked for a site check elsewhere, and my
analysis confirmed this, at least on my system.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...erver.ntli.net
[color=blue]
> Our first step is to reduce this size for the entire document by
> setting body size to 62.5%:
> BODY {font-size:62.5%}
>
> "This takes 16px down to 10px, which apart from being less huge is a
> nice round number. From now on it's easy to think in pixels but still
> set sizes in terms of ems: 1em is 10px, 0.8em is 8px, 1.6em is 16px,
> etc."
>
> Never have I seen the message so twisted. This blog says to its
> audience: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
> The road to hell is paved with good intentions. A little knowledge is
> a dangerous thing."[/color]
[snip]

I have come to a different conclusion. It is as follows.

- My PC is configured to my satisfaction. System text is the right size. I
think this happened "out of the box".

- When I view pages that don't specify font sizes & families, my set of
browsers, at their default settings, make them look OK to me. This appears to
mean that not only my *system*, but my *browsers*, are configured, at their
default settings, to my satisfaction. My default font is "Times New Roman", so
I am really saying "16px "Times New Roman"" is the ideal setting for main web
text for me.

- My experiments (see the above thread) suggest that the practical sans-serif
equivalent of "16px "Times New Roman"" is "13px Arial". It gives lines that
are about the same length, and key features of characters that are about the
same size. It is about as comfortable as "16px "Times New Roman"" for main
text, and I wouldn't even worry about the difference. It is better than serif
for short uses, such as button-links. Anyone specifying "13px Arial" will get
my approval. Or, in fact, "80% Arial", or "0.8em Arial", which appear the same
on my system. (Obviously they should provide a full font-family, but in this
case I don't need that).

But if *I*, as an author, let the main body text of my pages be the user's
default, yet specify "80% Arial" for buttons, that is bad authoring. If the
user has "Times New Roman" as the default font, my button text is then about
97% of the size. Pretty good - they are equally important. But if the user has
"Verdana" as the default font, my button-text is about 69% of the size. (See
the thread above, which gives the numbers). Pretty bad! *Don't* use "%" if you
haven't a clue what it is a % of. And the only way you can know what it is a %
of is to control this via something like the body-rule. Don't mix default
settings with combinations of specified fonts & %s. The results may be what
neither you nor the user thinks sensible.

Why is it that, when I browse the web, I rarely have trouble with font sizes?
I think it is because so many authors use something like "13px Arial", or "80%
Arial", or "0.8em Arial". I am flattered that millions of authors have taken
this trouble to please me! But ... a more realistic view is that I am not
alone, and perhaps the majority of users are just like me. Those properties
for main text are just right for millions of users across the planet.

This is not post-hoc rationalisation. It contradicts every page I have on the
web. I am being lead to the view that, contrary to what I have been doing,
authors *should* take more control of font sizes & families. In an ideal
world, no, but we live in a world of CSS, not an ideal world. And CSS hasn't a
clue about the concepts discussed above!

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

Alan J. Flavell wrote:[color=blue]
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Michael Kalina wrote:[color=green]
>> What do you guys think of that: http://www.clagnut.com/blog/348/
>> I hope that's going to be a good discussion![/color][/color]
[snip][color=blue]
>|unless you know (not think) your audience won.t be using IE/Win or
>|will never wish to resize their text then pixels are not yet a viable
>|solution.
>
> What's this "not yet" crap? Specifying px units in CSS is a request
> to the display to display CSS px units, not to display user-resizable
> text. So the author is telling us he's yearning to use something
> which he presumably knows doesn't do what it's specified to do, but he
> won't use it "yet" because it hasn't been broken enough "yet" by the
> browser designers. Implying that he wants to make browser conformance
> with the CSS specification even *worse* than it is now.[/color]

Not true. Any browser, (that I am aware of), *including* IE, can be made to
override text sizes specified in pixels. So why isn't it possible to assume
that an author who specifies text sizes in pixels is simply expressing a
starting position, knowing that any user can override it?

You have recently checked a site of mine, (thank you), in which, for example,
I had borders of 1px, images of Xpx, etc. But you should also remember that I
checked the pages to see what they looked like in browsers that changed things
entirely, such as zooming to a few 100%, or viewing in "small screen mode" to
simulate a 240px screen. Obviously I am fully aware that a 1px border doesn't
*really* mean 1 pixel on the screen consistently! And it doesn't mean what the
system thinks is 1 pixel. In the absence of a better presentation language, I
use CSS. That doesn't mean I believe everything I tell it to do! So why assume
that anyone else who uses "px" values actually expects them to be so many
pixels on a screen? Perhaps the author is trying to express how big they
should be relative to something else.

I don't believe that either authors or users really want full compliance all
the time with CSS. Does someone using Opera really want it to precisely obey
px values when zooming? (And how could it zoom if it did?) These are surely
simply default values, or starting positions. As an author, I want to
communicate with my audience. I don't have a good language to achieve this. So
I have to make do with HTML and CSS. I find myself trying to outwit the
obstacles that broken recommendations, supported by broken implementations,
put in the way of communication. And I suspect that millions of other authors
are trying to do exactly the same. We just want to communicate!
[color=blue]
> Meantime, as we know here, em units and percentages already do
> pretty-much what it says on the tin, and are the closest thing we have
> to responding to each and every user's individual need. But not when
> you take their normal text size and reduce it to fly-droppings first.
> Bleagh.[/color]

You should know, from the discussion in the thread I started for my site
check, that there are *massive* problems with % and em for text sizes. This is
especially the case when the font-family changes, and even worse when one of
the font-families is left unspecified. Quite simply, "%" doesn't mean much if
you don't know what it is a % of. And authors don't know what the user's
default text is like. So saying (for example) "80% Arial (etc)" for a button
link does not give a plausible correspondence with the user's text based on a
default font. It may be nearly the same size as the main text, or less than
70% of its size. That isn't good for the user!
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...erver.ntli.net

The principle appears to be a bit like the idea that you should always set the
foreground & background colour together, in case they are overridden. Not only
should %s and font-families be set together, but whenever text rules change,
the new % and the new font-family should have a known relationship with the
original. (Otherwise, what does % actually mean?)

I have been looking at lots of sites, to try to understand why they appear to
be OK to me. And a site that specifies, in the body rule, "16px "Times New
Roman" (etc)", or "13px Arial (etc)", will look comfortable to me, with my
well-configured (to me) system. And, I suspect, to millions of other users on
the planet. And, for me, "80% Arial" looks the same as "13px Arial" in the
body rule. If all authors used those values, I would be very happy. So would
those others.

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

"Barry Pearson" <news@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Any browser, (that I am aware of), *including* IE, can be made to
> override text sizes specified in pixels. So why isn't it possible to
> assume that an author who specifies text sizes in pixels is simply
> expressing a starting position, knowing that any user can override
> it?[/color]

So the excuse for suggesting a font size that does not naturally adapt to
users' choices is that they can override it if they know how to? Does
this extend to making link texts black and not underlined, etc.?

Much fewer people know how to override px sizes on IE than how to select
the basic font size. You would effectively make the vast majority suffer.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:[color=blue]
> "Barry Pearson" <news@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Any browser, (that I am aware of), *including* IE, can be made to
>> override text sizes specified in pixels. So why isn't it possible to
>> assume that an author who specifies text sizes in pixels is simply
>> expressing a starting position, knowing that any user can override
>> it?[/color]
>
> So the excuse for suggesting a font size that does not naturally
> adapt to users' choices is that they can override it if they know how
> to? Does this extend to making link texts black and not underlined,
> etc.?[/color]

It is a compromise. And so, I suggest, is *anything* you could suggest. (I'll
ignore your last sentence).

In the thread I quoted:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...erver.ntli.net
I asked for a site check for a web site I am developing. Like every site I
have on the web, it didn't have a px value for *any* text. They all use %.
Like every site I have on the web, it didn't specify a font-family or a
font-size (even %) for the default text. You are welcome to look & comment. I
encourage you & others, nay, *defy* you, to help me solve all the problems I
face:
http://www.kingsnorton.info/

And it ran into problems. The first criticism was that the main text was too
small. (Remember that this was not specified by me at all! It was that user's
default font & size. The user saw Arial). And I believe that nearly every user
who linked *to* that site from the most obvious sites would think the same.
And every user who linked *from* that site to one of the sites it linked to
would feel the same. Whatever the theoretical policies of people in authoring
newsgroups, my web site was an anomaly that I believe would have been
unacceptable to its users. I looked at those sites. I think any of "13px Arial
(etc)" or "80% Arial (etc)" or "0.8em Arial (etc)" would make my site
reasonably consistent with them.

A second problem was that the text for the button-links was too small. I has
specified "75% Arial (etc)", and I should at least have specified 80%. (The
CSS now says 80%). On my system, or that of anyone where the default font was
equivalent to "16px "Times New Roman"", "80% Arial" was visually about the
same size (actually 97%) as the default text, but just sans-serif instead. (It
is about the same as "13px Arial (etc)"). (The above thread has some details
of the pixel-counts I did, and I have more). (If my body-rule set a size, I
would not then say anything extra for the button-links).

But, of course, if the user's default font is Arial, then the button-links are
about 80% of the main text size, which is unacceptable! And if the user's
default is Verdana (!), the button-links would be 69% of the size, which is
even worse. Yet, to me & the user, both should be equally readable. The
difference that appears is not some conscious choice by the user. ("I want
button-links to be 69% of the size of my main text"). The difference is
because I have failed to let the user's system know that these pieces of text
should be equally readable, so perhaps considerable differences in sze would
inconvenient to the user. I should have used the limited features of CSS to
make that statement. And that (unfortunately) means specifying fonts & sizes.

So, if this user, who happens to be a disabled person who is authoring web
sites to be accessible, thinks my main text is too small (& Arial), what
should I do? This was a wake-up call. Remember - if I simply put "80% Arial
(etc)" as the body rule, that person would undoubtedly see my main text as
being too small, because that would be the same as my default, which was too
small. I think that I may need to use a px value, rather than a %, to
synchronise with the other web sites that person, and all my users, will have
looked at, before, after, and during, their stay at my site.
[color=blue]
> Much fewer people know how to override px sizes on IE than how to
> select the basic font size. You would effectively make the vast
> majority suffer.[/color]

No. I would simply be indistinguishable from what they see whenever they
browse the web. I've examined lots of sites to see what they specify. "13px
Arial (etc)" would do the trick. If users would then struggle with this site,
they would also be struggling with the others. Perhaps they would seek help.
But if users had succeeded with those other sites, they wouldn't have trouble
with this one.

Sometimes, the worst thing you can do is be different. Users also want
predictability. Especially those users with the most problems.

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

Barry Pearson <news@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:[color=blue]
> And it ran into problems. The first criticism was that the main text was too
> small. (Remember that this was not specified by me at all! It was that user's
> default font & size. The user saw Arial).[/color]

If users complain that their own browsers' font is too small, then your
best bet may be to refer them to a page like this one:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/main/adjust.html

That will improve their overall experience on the web, not just at your
site.

The alternative is to make things worse (perhaps much worse) for discerning
web users.
--
Darin McGrew, darin@TheRallyeClub.org, http://www.TheRallyeClub.org/
A gimmick car rallye is not a race, but a fun puzzle testing your
ability to follow instructions. Upcoming gimmick car rallye in
Silicon Valley: Best in Show (Saturday, June 5)

"Barry Pearson" <news@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
[color=blue]
> I have come to a different conclusion. It is as follows.
>
> - My PC is configured to my satisfaction. System text is the right size. I
> think this happened "out of the box".
>
> - When I view pages that don't specify font sizes & families, my set of
> browsers, at their default settings, make them look OK to me. This appears to
> mean that not only my *system*, but my *browsers*, are configured, at their
> default settings, to my satisfaction. My default font is "Times New Roman", so
> I am really saying "16px "Times New Roman"" is the ideal setting for main web
> text for me.[/color]

Stop right there! You just equivocated between "satisfactory" and
"ideal" - I'm not reading any further.

Andrew Thompson <SeeMySites@www.invalid> wrote:
[color=blue]
> On 3 Jun 2004 19:50:37 -0700, Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote:
>[color=green]
> > ..What did you think, David?
> >
> > I didn't like it. I gave it two stars.[/color]
>
> (chuckle) ..And I do not even watch TV,
> let alone Australian TV.[/color]

[Austrian TV? We only watch it because my dog likes it.]

And I do not even read books,
let alone Australian history.

Which is why I only found out yesterday
who Andrew Thompson was, you old rogue.

On 5 Jun 2004 01:20:34 -0700, Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote:[color=blue]
> Andrew Thompson <SeeMySites@www.invalid> wrote:[color=green]
>> On 3 Jun 2004 19:50:37 -0700, Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote:[/color][/color]
....[color=blue]
> [Austrian TV? We only watch it because my dog likes it.][/color]

Oh ..yeah, right.
Blame the dog! Mongrel. [ ;-) ]
[color=blue]
> And I do not even read books,
> let alone Australian history.
>
> Which is why I only found out yesterday
> who Andrew Thompson was, you old rogue.[/color]

ehhh? Went searching..
<http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22andrew+thompson%22+history>
found (about) 11,900 pages and discovered
that (lemme see..) 1,2,3..
'None', were about me. :-(

Though I did quite like the chap described here..
<http://www.scotlandisland.org.au/history.htm>

And this one is definitely prettier than I am..
<http://saints.com.au/default.asp?pg=players&spg=playerprofile&personid= 13500>
....and he's an AFL player. ;-)

[ If anyone is bored enough to wanna see a crude
depiction of me, you need to chase the links in
my sig. ..and you need to get out more. ]

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology

Darin McGrew wrote:[color=blue]
> Barry Pearson <news@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:[color=green]
>> And it ran into problems. The first criticism was that the main text
>> was too small. (Remember that this was not specified by me at all!
>> It was that user's default font & size. The user saw Arial).[/color]
>
> If users complain that their own browsers' font is too small, then
> your best bet may be to refer them to a page like this one:
> http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/main/adjust.html[/color]

The complaint *wasn't* that their own browser's font was too small. It was
that *my* main text size was too small.

I don't want users looking at the site and believing that there is something
wrong with it. I don't want to start off by making excuses and telling them
they should adjust their system. I would prefer that they simply didn't see
anything out of the ordinary, and just on with using it.
[color=blue]
> That will improve their overall experience on the web, not just at
> your site.[/color]

Hw much would that improve their experience of the web? What proportion of the
web sites that they view would then appear different? Putting it a bit more
narrowly, because I can more easily answer this, what proportion of the web
sites that cover this particular topic, and that they may have come from, and
may be going to from this site, would appear different? None that I have
found.

There are potentially 2 different things to adjust. Font & size. Consider my
own PC. Suppose I change the default font to Arial. Then, to make the size of
this site OK, I need to reduce the browser's text size, because Arial is
bigger, both subjectively & objectively, the Times New Roman I am used to. In
fact, I need to reduce the size to about half-way between IE's "medium", which
I normally use, and IE's "smaller". Suppose I change IE to "smaller". Now look
at the problem. If I now view a site that says "80% Arial (etc)", or "0.8em
Arial (etc)", which appears to be quite typical of the "surrounding" sites, I
see text that is too small! I have to change IE back to "medium" to view them
satisfactorily.

If that is what would happen to me, how can I be confident that it wouldn't
happen to a majority of users? Most of them don't have the degree of control
that Mozilla or Opera provide. And I'm not going to put "best viewed with
Mozilla or Opera" on the front of the web site. Perhaps accompanied by Mozilla
or Opera buttons that link to the download sites!
[color=blue]
> The alternative is to make things worse (perhaps much worse) for
> discerning web users.[/color]

What do your "discerning web users" do when they are looking at web sites
other than mine? (Remember - none of my web sites at the moment specify a main
text font or size or use anything other than % to specify an other cases). Do
they spend all of their time gnashing their teeth in fury but doing nothing
about it? Or do they actually take control? Might it not be the case that
discerning web users are not an issue, because they long ago overrode the
properties of web sites?

The problem I originally faced was actually another one. And that is that a
font suitable for main text may be different from one for button-links &
special purposes. Even on the web, some people prefer a serif font for main
text. (I am one of those people). I can accept a sans-serif font, though, and
I am used to this.

But for small special-purpose pieces of text, that isn't the case. I no longer
get advantage from the serifs, which help guide the eye. I just get the
disadvantages of the smaller size. Assuming other users are the same, I want
to specify a sans-serif font for the button-links. I would like to be able to
say "use a sans-serif font that is about the same size subjectively as the
default font". How can I do that?

On my system, to get "Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" about the same size as a
default of "Times New Roman", which is my current default, I need to specify
about 80%, or about13px. Obviously, to get "Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" to
be the same size as a default of Arial, I need to specify 100% or 16px, or
leave it unspecified. And to get it the same size as a default of Verdana, I
would probably need it to be about 120% or 19px. So, if I specify a sans-serif
family for button-links, what size should accompany it?

If you don't specify a font-family for the main text, it appears that you
shouldn't specify one elsewhere either. Because that is the only way that
using % actually means anything.

I'll also express some frustration here. I look at web sites or pages, where I
can find them, of people who respond to me. You, Alan, Jukka, etc. (Also, the
CSS Zen Garden & its authors, etc). I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and
assume that you have little or no control over the web site in your sig! But I
tend to feel that the attitude is "do as I say", not "do as I do". That
statement, by the way, does *not* apply to Stephen Poley.

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

Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote:[color=blue]
> "Barry Pearson" <news@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> I have come to a different conclusion. It is as follows.
>>
>> - My PC is configured to my satisfaction. System text is the right
>> size. I think this happened "out of the box".
>>
>> - When I view pages that don't specify font sizes & families, my set
>> of browsers, at their default settings, make them look OK to me.
>> This appears to mean that not only my *system*, but my *browsers*,
>> are configured, at their default settings, to my satisfaction. My
>> default font is "Times New Roman", so I am really saying "16px
>> "Times New Roman"" is the ideal setting for main web text for me.[/color]
>
> Stop right there! You just equivocated between "satisfactory" and
> "ideal" - I'm not reading any further.[/color]

Then you are simply ducking the issue. Change all those to "satisfactory", or
all to "ideal", and my point remains.

For my viewing convenience, based on my satisfaction with the system set-up
and my satisfaction with the way my browsers handle pages without a main text
specification, I want authors of web sites to specify main text according to
the following examples:

[no specification]
16px Times New Roman (etc)
100% or 1em Times New Roman (etc)
13px Arial (etc)
80% or 0.8em Arial (etc).

Or close variations on those.

For special purposes such as button-links, I want them to specify something
like:

13px Arial (etc)
80% or 0.8em Arial (etc).

Or close variations on those. (Excluding serif fonts).

I wouldn't be surprised if many, perhaps most, other users in the world would
agree with that. And I wouldn't be surprised if many, perhaps most, authors in
the world believe that most users agree with that.

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

On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 20:24:30 +0100, "Barry Pearson"
<news@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:[color=blue]
>[/color]
[snip!][color=blue]
>Anyone specifying "13px Arial" will get my approval. Or, in fact, "80%
>Arial", or "0.8em Arial", which appear the same on my system. (Obviously
>they should provide a full font-family, but in this case I don't need that).
>
>[/color]

Ideally, of course, the author wouldn't specify a font family for
*anything* and let the user's default be used.

As you noted, changing the font-family causes havok with percieved
text size, so the only sensible solution is to leave the body text
size and font family alone and assume the user is happy with their
browser preferences. That is, after all, why they are called
"preferences".

-Claire

On Sat, 5 Jun 2004, Barry Pearson wrote:
[color=blue]
> Darin McGrew wrote:[color=green]
> >
> > If users complain that their own browsers' font is too small, then
> > your best bet may be to refer them to a page like this one:
> > http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/main/adjust.html[/color]
>
> The complaint *wasn't* that their own browser's font was too small.[/color]

Not in so many words, no: but that was the gist of it, nevertheless.
[color=blue]
> It was that *my* main text size was too small.[/color]

And since you know that you didn't size that text, you have to
conclude that it was displayed at the user's configured preference
size, right?
[color=blue]
> I don't want users looking at the site and believing that there is
> something wrong with it.[/color]

There will always be someone to find fault with it. Any web author
has got to live with that.

Now that you've got some body text to work with, I feel more confident
to offer a report, and my view is that on my Mozilla the body text is
fine, while on IE6 by default it's too large. But that's OK because I
normally have IE6 cranked-down at least one notch (to "smaller") if
not two ("smallest") to compensate for its unnecessarily large default
text size. Of course when idiot web authors come along and crank it
down for me, assuming that I would be too dim to be able to do that
for myself, then we get microfonts. But you didn't do that.
[color=blue]
> I don't want to start off by making excuses and telling them they
> should adjust their system. I would prefer that they simply didn't
> see anything out of the ordinary,[/color]

I would hope to see something "out of the ordinary", since the present
"ordinary" web situation in my experience so often produces
microfonts. You may say that's my fault for refusing to choose a font
that's two notches bigger than the size that I really wanted, but I'm
going to be stubborn about that - I'm going to use the font size that
I wanted - and use Mozilla's min font size as a safety-net to protect
me from mad deezyners. Random example that I recently needed to use:
http://www.3com.com/selectsite.html
[color=blue]
> There are potentially 2 different things to adjust. Font & size.[/color]

You have identified a genuine problem (we need an improved version of
the font-size-adjust property, one that's adapted for *perceived* font
size rather than the objective sizing that was the basis of the
abandoned CSS2 property).

But in my view you've allowed that problem to sway you into arguing
the whole principle of flexible design out of the window.
Fortunately, your actual web designs are far from being so rigid and
fragile as your arguments might lead one to believe.
[color=blue]
> Consider my own PC.[/color]

No need - I'm happy to do the argument in the abstract, and I don't
deny that you have identified a genuine problem.

But it's not solved by changing to units which (a) don't scale in the
way that you need and (b) aren't implemented to specification and (c)
if they were implemented to specification they still wouldn't be what
users in general need. Those units might (thanks to a combination of
bugs) seem to produce the end result you wanted, on the displays you
use, and with your particular eyesight capability, but they still
aren't the right choice for WWW use, and it's not just me that's
saying so.

Sure, those with special needs can override them, but to my mind
there's something comfortable about choosing units which are *meant*
to cascade with the users own needs, rather than forcing users into a
position where they have to fight back by overruling the author
completely. I apply that verdict not only to pt units, but also, for
the most part, to px units, when we're in the context of WWW display.

I'm talking about text size here: so don't start quibbling that I'm
trying to stop you using px or even pt units amongst the
specifications that you use for margins, borders etc. - I'm not. But
the text should be "user sized", and the boxes should be flexible
(which means, where they are specified numerically at all, generally
using percentage or em units - pixel-sized objects being a possible
exception).

Barry Pearson <news@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:[color=blue]
> I'll also express some frustration here. I look at web sites or pages, where I
> can find them, of people who respond to me. You, Alan, Jukka, etc. (Also, the
> CSS Zen Garden & its authors, etc). I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and
> assume that you have little or no control over the web site in your sig! But I
> tend to feel that the attitude is "do as I say", not "do as I do". That
> statement, by the way, does *not* apply to Stephen Poley.[/color]

My sig is random. The one on the previous message referred to
http://www.TheRallyeClub.org/ (which I do not control). Basically, the
person who is willing to do the work uses MS Frontpage (ptui!), and anyone
who wants anything better would have to take over the site from him.

The sites that I do control do not try to specify fonts for normal text at
all. They specify font sizes for headings and similar brief phrases. And
sometimes they specify font faces for such things, since the short text and
the larger-than-default font size make it less likely for the differences
between fonts to cause legibility problems.
--
Darin McGrew, mcgrew@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, darin@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"The handwriting on the wall may mean you need a notepad by the phone."

Barry Pearson wrote:
[color=blue]
> The complaint *wasn't* that their own browser's font was too small. It was
> that *my* main text size was too small.
>
> I don't want users looking at the site and believing that there is
> something wrong with it. I don't want to start off by making excuses and
> telling them they should adjust their system. I would prefer that they
> simply didn't see anything out of the ordinary, and just on with using it.[/color]

They *should* have adjusted their system already by the time they got to
your site. Unfortunately, it seems way too few people know that the font
size is even a user-configurable item.
[color=blue]
> There are potentially 2 different things to adjust. Font & size. Consider
> my own PC. Suppose I change the default font to Arial. Then, to make the
> size of this site OK, I need to reduce the browser's text size, because
> Arial is bigger, both subjectively & objectively, the Times New Roman I am
> used to. In fact, I need to reduce the size to about half-way between IE's
> "medium", which I normally use, and IE's "smaller". Suppose I change IE to
> "smaller". Now look at the problem. If I now view a site that says "80%
> Arial (etc)", or "0.8em Arial (etc)", which appears to be quite typical of
> the "surrounding" sites, I see text that is too small! I have to change IE
> back to "medium" to view them satisfactorily.[/color]

This is the fault of both IE, which only gives you five choices instead of
the full spectrum of point sizes, and the idiot that decided to resize
normal text to smaller than the size the user selected.

80% or 0.8em means one-fifth smaller than the (inherited) value of
font-size. Of course it's going to be too small if it's 20% smaller than
what you have configured for a correctly designed site.
[color=blue]
> If that is what would happen to me, how can I be confident that it
> wouldn't happen to a majority of users? Most of them don't have the degree
> of control that Mozilla or Opera provide. And I'm not going to put "best
> viewed with Mozilla or Opera" on the front of the web site. Perhaps
> accompanied by Mozilla or Opera buttons that link to the download sites![/color]

I agree here, but only because "best viewed with" banners or buttons look
silly.

--
Shawn K. Quinn

On Fri, 4 Jun 2004, Barry Pearson wrote:
[color=blue]
> Alan J. Flavell wrote:[color=green]
> > What's this "not yet" crap? Specifying px units in CSS is a request
> > to the display to display CSS px units, not to display user-resizable
> > text. So the author is telling us he's yearning to use something
> > which he presumably knows doesn't do what it's specified to do, but he
> > won't use it "yet" because it hasn't been broken enough "yet" by the
> > browser designers. Implying that he wants to make browser conformance
> > with the CSS specification even *worse* than it is now.[/color]
>
> Not true.[/color]

Specifying px units in CSS is a request to the display to display CSS
px units. Honestly: it is.
[color=blue]
> Any browser, (that I am aware of), *including* IE, can be made to
> override text sizes specified in pixels.[/color]

Of course. In the final analysis, CSS is designed to be optional.

Nevertheless, specifying px units in CSS is a request to the display
to display CSS px units. That request can be implemented in
accordance with the specification, or it can be ignored. Any other
option represents non-conformance with the CSS spec.
[color=blue]
> So why isn't it possible to assume that an author who specifies text
> sizes in pixels is simply expressing a starting position, knowing
> that any user can override it?[/color]

"override it". Exactly my point.
[color=blue]
> You have recently checked a site of mine, (thank you), in which, for
> example, I had borders of 1px,[/color]

I said nothing about measurement units for borders; I was addressing
the size of text.
[color=blue]
> I don't believe that either authors or users really want full
> compliance all the time with CSS.[/color]

That's the core of the problem, then. <troll>Which HTTP header do
they send to the server to indicate their non-acceptance of the
interworking specification?</>
[color=blue]
> Does someone using Opera really want it to precisely obey
> px values when zooming? (And how could it zoom if it did?)[/color]

Exactly. So why ask for something that - objectively, in terms of the
interworking specification - does not represent what you really hope
will happen?
[color=blue][color=green]
> > Meantime, as we know here, em units and percentages already do
> > pretty-much what it says on the tin, and are the closest thing we have
> > to responding to each and every user's individual need. But not when
> > you take their normal text size and reduce it to fly-droppings first.
> > Bleagh.[/color]
>
> You should know, from the discussion in the thread I started for my
> site check, that there are *massive* problems with % and em for text
> sizes.[/color]

I don't agree. There -are- problems, as I've never tried to deny or
conceal; but they are of secondary scale compared with the problems
that you would be confronted with if browsers took your sizing
proposals seriously. There's no argument over the fact that you get
the results you intended, in the mainstream browsing situation with
the mainstream users; but you're relying on browser non-conformance
(in clear-text: bugs), or users overriding your specifications, to get
results which are acceptable to some proportion of your readers.
[color=blue]
> The principle appears to be a bit like the idea that you should
> always set the foreground & background colour together, in case they
> are overridden.[/color]

That's a good principle, but I don't see the analogy to the present
issue.
[color=blue]
> Not only should %s and font-families be set together, but whenever
> text rules change, the new % and the new font-family should have a
> known relationship with the original. (Otherwise, what does %
> actually mean?)[/color]

Which is why we need some enhanced version of font-size-adjust.
Meantime, we need to make the best use of what we have.

Andrew Thompson wrote:
[color=blue]
> On 5 Jun 2004 01:20:34 -0700, Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote:
> ...[color=green]
> > And I do not even read books,
> > let alone Australian history.
> >
> > Which is why I only found out yesterday
> > who Andrew Thompson was, you old rogue.[/color]
>
> ehhh? Went searching..
> <http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22andrew+thompson%22+history>
> found (about) 11,900 pages and discovered
> that (lemme see..) 1,2,3.. 'None', were about me. :-(
>
> Though I did quite like the chap described here..
> <http://www.scotlandisland.org.au/history.htm>[/color]

That's the one I was reading about. Sharp practices when settling his
IOUs apparently - led to one of our early legal precedents. And since
that was your first choice of 11900 possibilities, I'd say I was right
that it was he you had in mind when you chose that "Andrew Thompson"
nick.

On 5 Jun 2004 22:59:47 -0700, Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote:
[color=blue]
> I'd say I was right
> that it was he you had in mind when you chose ...[/color]

'chose'?
[color=blue]
>..that "Andrew Thompson"[/color]

I think my mom chose the 'Andrew' bit..
and the son of one of my ancestors named,
well 'Thomp' apparently chose the other. ;-)
[color=blue]
> nick.[/color]

[ ..and it was mention of the illicit still
made me choose him*. My kinda' reprobate.
Besides the fact that page was 2nd or 3rd hit. ]

* <http://www.scotlandisland.org.au/history.htm>

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology

Andrew Thompson <SeeMySites@www.invalid> wrote:
[color=blue]
> On 5 Jun 2004 22:59:47 -0700, Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote:
>[color=green]
> > I'd say I was right
> > that it was he you had in mind when you chose ...[/color]
>
> 'chose'?
>[color=green]
> >..that "Andrew Thompson"[/color]
>
> I think my mom chose the 'Andrew' bit..
> and the son of one of my ancestors named,
> well 'Thomp' apparently chose the other. ;-)
>[color=green]
> > nick.[/color][/color]

Well, I won't post to Usenet using my real name anymore, since I read
about a Microsoft project to profile people by their Usenet posting
habits. As in: profile everyone to decide whether they are of
interest, not profile particular people pre-determined to be of
interest. Ya know it won't stop there, they'll pass it on to the
CIA/MI5/ASIO/... I think that's outrageous.[1]

I think a lot of what people[2] do with Usenet is outrageous,
actually. Ever notice that you can post a message of your own original
composition to Usenet then go and look at that same message at
http://groups.google.com/ and you will see it displayed with
"Copyright (C) Google" written at the bottom of the page?
Out-bloody-rageous.

So I retaliate[3] with this handy user stylesheet:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain


[1] I'm actually far more chagrined at being profiled by Microsoft
computers, than the possibility of being monitored by the government.
Just who do these people think they are?
[2] "People" being nearly always corporate bodies, not natural
persons.
[3] In a completely non-aggressive sense of "retaliate", Mr Echelon
Profile-bot, Sir.

On 6 Jun 2004 09:38:35 -0700, Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote:
[color=blue]
> Well, I won't post to Usenet using my real name anymore, since I read
> about a Microsoft project to profile people by their Usenet posting
> habits.[/color]

Given the percentage of hits on my
sites from 'US military', makes me
wonder if MS just sub-contracts to
an entity that is more proficient
at such IT related matters.. ;-)
[color=blue]
>...Ya know it won't stop there, they'll pass it on to the
> CIA/MI5/ASIO/... I think that's outrageous.[1][/color]

My intention is to give 'em so much data to
chew over, it chokes their damn computer(s).

Let's start with this one, which
has a ..couple of related links.
<http://www.physci.org/codes/char.jsp?char=63>
Must be lot's of hidden messages in there, eh?

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology

Barry Pearson wrote:[color=blue]
>
> For my viewing convenience, based on my satisfaction with the system set-up
> and my satisfaction with the way my browsers handle pages without a main text
> specification, I want authors of web sites to specify main text according to
> the following examples:[/color]
[snip][color=blue]
> I wouldn't be surprised if many, perhaps most, other users in the world would
> agree with that.[/color]

Well, I don't. Your browser defaults and mine are not the same. Setting
Arial to 80% and assuming it will be just as readable as the browser
default font at 100% is a very bad assumption.
[color=blue]
> And I wouldn't be surprised if many, perhaps most, authors in
> the world believe that most users agree with that.[/color]

What authors believe isn't relevant. And you cannot know what users
believe unless you ask them - all of them. How many users in this ng
have already disagreed with you, eh? Consider me one.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

Claire Tucker wrote:[color=blue]
> On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 20:24:30 +0100, "Barry Pearson"
> <news@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:[color=green]
>>[/color]
> [snip!][color=green]
>>Anyone specifying "13px Arial" will get my approval. Or, in fact, "80%
>>Arial", or "0.8em Arial", which appear the same on my system.
>>(Obviously they should provide a full font-family, but in this case I
>>don't need that).[/color]
>
> Ideally, of course, the author wouldn't specify a font family for
> *anything* and let the user's default be used.[/color]

If users could override the author's spcification easily, then there is
nothing wrong with an author specifying a font family. Ditto for all CSS
properties. The author's specification is then seen where the user doesn't
object enough to override it. Win-win.

Much of the discussion on this topic is influenced by the *relative*
difficulty of overiding px values in IE. (But even there it can be done). If
IE had made it easier, I think some of the objections to setting main text
properties wouldn't have been voiced.
[color=blue]
> As you noted, changing the font-family causes havok with percieved
> text size, so the only sensible solution is to leave the body text
> size and font family alone and assume the user is happy with their
> browser preferences. That is, after all, why they are called
> "preferences".[/color]

There is a problem with that, although I agree that it is a coherent position,
and one adopted by Stephen Poley to good effect.

The problem is that perhaps there really needs to be at least 2 preferences,
one for main text areas where there are potentially long lines, and one for
short text lengths where immediate clarity is the key. I use Times New Roman
as my preference because I think it looks good for bulk text. I don't like it
in button-links, etc. (This is similar to use off the web as well).

Consider: Opera 7.23 has font options for various cases, such as "menu text"
and "toolbar text", (default Tahoma). But those are for the browser, not for
the equivalent in a web page. What about menu text in the page? And it would
probably not solve this problem to extend its options to a separate choice for
link-text, because that would hit in-line links as well, and I think they look
best in the font of the surrounding text.

How can an author say "render the main text according to the user's
preferences, and render these button-links in sans-serif at the same practical
size"? (I use the word "practical" because 16px Arial is not just subjectively
bigger than 16px Times New Roman, but also the words are longer, and things
other than ascenders & descenders are larger too. It is only the total height
that is the same).

Note that even Stephen Poley runs a small risk here. For example, one of his
headers is { font-family: "Monotype Corsiva", cursive; font-size: 200% }. How
big is that relative to the user's main text size? It depends on whether the
user has a small font such as Times New Roman, or a big one like Verdana.

So, authors appear to work on the principle that they can't suceed with only a
partial specification, they have to do all or nothing. So they do all.

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

Darin McGrew wrote:[color=blue]
> Barry Pearson <news@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:[color=green]
>> I'll also express some frustration here. I look at web sites or
>> pages, where I can find them, of people who respond to me. You,
>> Alan, Jukka, etc. (Also, the CSS Zen Garden & its authors, etc).
>> I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you have
>> little or no control over the web site in your sig! But I tend to
>> feel that the attitude is "do as I say", not "do as I do". That
>> statement, by the way, does *not* apply to Stephen Poley.[/color]
>
> My sig is random. The one on the previous message referred to
> http://www.TheRallyeClub.org/ (which I do not control). Basically, the
> person who is willing to do the work uses MS Frontpage (ptui!), and
> anyone who wants anything better would have to take over the site
> from him.[/color]

No need to explain! I guessed it was something like that, and I wasn't going
to hold it as an example against you.
[color=blue]
> The sites that I do control do not try to specify fonts for normal
> text at all. They specify font sizes for headings and similar brief
> phrases. And sometimes they specify font faces for such things, since
> the short text and the larger-than-default font size make it less
> likely for the differences between fonts to cause legibility problems.[/color]

I understand. Mine do pretty much the same - no specification of font or
family or size for main text. Specifications for headings, button-links, admin
text, (and sometimes lists-of-links).

Unfortunately, my best judgement is that these pages then look odd, on many
other systems, compared with the sites that link to them, and the sites that
they link to. Being "right", according to some theory, but looking odd,
probably isn't a good thing.

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