Different size for different font

[Jonas Smithson]

In his book "CSS: The Definitive Guide" 2nd edition (pgs. 116-117), Eric
Meyer has an interesting discussion about "font-size-adjust" that was
evidently dropped in CSS 2.1 due to browser non-support. I'm wondering
if there's some way I could still get a primitive version of this
functionality, because different fonts display at very different optical
sizes for the same nominal sizes.

For example, suppose I want type to display in 13px/1.5em Georgia. But
if the user doesn't have Georgia installed, and I've simply listed Times
New Roman as the alternate font in the usual way (or if "serif" gets
interpreted as Times on their system), then the type will display in
13px Times, which is optically much smaller than 13px Georgia (and has
optically different xheight/linespacing characteristics too). Even if I
used em instead of px, I'm guessing there'd be a substantial size
difference.

So what I'd really like, in the absence of "font-size-adjust", is
something like this:

p.someClass {font: 13px/1.5em Georgia, 15px/1.4em "Times New Roman",
14px/1.5em serif;}

....but I have a feeling that wouldn't actually do what I want. Er...
would it?

Any solution?

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Scripsit Kevin Scholl:

No, quoting the entire message in this case indicates that I
recognized that this was a fairly new thread

It was simply foolish, as is your continued massive quoting. Read a tutorial
on Usenet, or _read_ some constructive discussions, and you'll see that
massive quoting typically indicates stupidity or intentional misbehavior.

>The default setting of 12pt is good exactly _because_ it is somewhat
too large to most people when sans-serif fonts are used. Give some
thought to the variation of people and browsing conditions, and
you'll see this.

Again, I DO see this.

Yet you have decided to use text sizes like 70%. What you do does not match
what you claim to understand.

A dark gray on an extremely light gray fading to white is hardly
illegible. FWIW, I test in grayscale, and have had visually-impaired
people look at my work. None have expressed any trouble. It seems to
me you're grasping here to try to make your point.

What you claim to have heard is immaterial when I can see, and many other
people can see, that you actually have tiny text with insufficient color
contrast.

I guess I'll just say that I'll agree to disagree on this topic in
general.

That's not a surprise.

However, I am a put off by YOUR tone, which is very condescending.

When people have no rational arguments, they start talking about other
people's tones, motives, and things like that.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[Michael Stemper]

In article <11************ *********@x35g2 000prf.googlegr oups.com>, Kevin Scholl writes:

>On May 21, 9:33 am, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.m...@ex ample.invalidwr ote:

>Kevin Scholl wrote:

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

>The main page at ksscholl.com (once I enabled JavaScript to actually
find it - that's a bad idea) is unreadable with its current font sizing
and colors. Once I increased it to about 130%, I could then read it. So,
I read the little blurb about 'copying Vista', and click on the "read <"

>assumption that viewers are utilizing user style sheets, or to a
lesser degree, regularly resize the text in their browsers.

The only time that I resize the text in my browser is when I have the
misfortune of encountering a site where the author decided that s/he
know better than I what size I can easily read. As long as you don't
do something like set the body to 10pt or 70%, I'm fine. If you shrink
my text, then I need to resize it -- or not read your content.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Discl aimer>
Always remember that you are unique. Just like everyone else.

[Kevin Scholl]

On May 21, 1:20 pm, "Jukka K. Korpela" <[e-mail] t.fiwrote:

It was simply foolish, as is your continued massive quoting. Read a tutorial
on Usenet, or _read_ some constructive discussions, and you'll see that
massive quoting typically indicates stupidity or intentional misbehavior.

Nowhere am I retaining previous comments unrelated to my responses. I
am snipping appropriately, and don't need a tutorial to tell me that.

Yet you have decided to use text sizes like 70%. What you do does not match
what you claim to understand.

Of course it does. You're being too hard-headed to accept my words at
face value. Does a percentage-based font allow a vision-impaired user
to resize IF THEY NEED TO, while retaining an optimal visual
experience for the vast majority of users under default settings? Yes.
Simple as that.

However, I am a put off by YOUR tone, which is very condescending.

When people have no rational arguments, they start talking about other
people's tones, motives, and things like that.

Pot calling the kettle black. After all, you were the one that opted
to accuse me of impracticality, downplay my experience as foolish, and
generally question my professionalism . All while adding little to the
topic of discussion, nor providing any viable argument against any of
my points.

You know, I don't post all that often in Usenet for precisely this
reason. There's always someone with a holier-than-thou attitude who
thinks they're some kind of forum police, keeping people from posting
legitimate questions or alternatives that could generate useful
discussion. Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Jon, dorayme -- at least they
demonstrate some candor despite the difference of opinions. It's not
that you don't occasionally make some good points of consideration,
Jukka, but rather that they often get lost in the egotistical muck.

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Kevin Scholl wrote:

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

>Then why does it take you to the folllowing when JavaScript is
disabled?

[snip]

>..and there is no link on this page to get you to the rest of the
site that "doesn't require JavaScript". So why do that?

Sure there is. Did you miss the "Continue anyway" at the bottom of
the page?

No, I had found it. 'Tis about 450 words into the essay, and the link
says "clicking here". It is not an obvious link, well below the fold; if
it were mine, I would have something similar to this at or near the top
of the page:

Enter Main Site

>Screen resolution? Not important. Firefox default font size? Factory
stock. As a developer, I would have mentioned if I was using any
user-defined style sheet that would affect your site. I do not do
that, so I can test my own sites as others would see them.

But resolution IS important in this case. Higher resolutions will of
course make text appear smaller on screen. For example, someone
running 1600x1200 would certainly find 10 or 11px text unreadable; no
likely so at 800x600.

...and all of this changes between a 15" monitor and a 20", which is why
it is not important.

>Start Firefox. Look at your kssholl.com main page. Press
Control-Plus twice (which is what I did so I could read it). Click
the link to the CNET page about Vista.

Okay, did that, and it only supports what I mentioned, that the body
text appears to be set to roughly the same size as my own site. The

Roughly. I'll agree with "roughly." <lolThese screenshots were made
as I described. Press Ctrl+ twice with box-stock Firefox.
http://k75s.home.att.net/show/ksscholl01.jpg
http://k75s.home.att.net/show/ksscholl02.jpg

For the record, that is #666 on a background that is #EEE fading to
#FFF (white).

Yes, I read your style sheet.

Studies for years have shown that high contrast such a
black on white cause the eyes to tire quickly, so I softened the
contrast. Not the highest contrast, to be sure, but not flagged by
contrast analyzers, either.

I use black on an off-white, which works well. Pale grey on off-white
doesn't.

I think I will pass by the rest of your comments, as it's obvious we
have different opinions which will never meet. And, it's time to do some
lawn mowing.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Scripsit Kevin Scholl:

Does a percentage-based font allow a vision-impaired user
to resize IF THEY NEED TO, while retaining an optimal visual
experience for the vast majority of users under default settings? Yes.

No, because when you have set the font size to 70%, many people won't be
able to reach a sufficiently large size - unless they do something
complicated like override page settings or even use a user style sheet, and
you claim they can't do such things.

And it's not optimal. It's only what you have personally chosen, declaring
your taste as optimal.

You know, I don't post all that often in Usenet

Promises, promises.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[Ben C]

On 2007-05-21, Kevin Scholl <ks*****@comcas t.netwrote:

>
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

[...]

>"From the box to the code, Redmond is clamping down, ..." is
grey-on-grey. Wait until you are 65 years old and tell me if you can
read it.

For the record, that is #666 on a background that is #EEE fading to
#FFF (white). Studies for years have shown that high contrast such a
black on white cause the eyes to tire quickly, so I softened the
contrast. Not the highest contrast, to be sure, but not flagged by
contrast analyzers, either.

I'm with on you on that one, the grey on white on your page is
comfortable to read.

Black on white is OK. White on black and I start up Lynx. If that fails
and I still want to read the page, I read the source in a text editor.

[Bergamot]

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

Kevin Scholl wrote:

>>
But resolution IS important in this case. Higher resolutions will
[snip]

..and all of this changes between a 15" monitor and a 20", which is why
it is not important.

Not to mention other factors like the workspace lighting, the user's
eyesight, quality of the graphics card, etc. which are different for
each user, and beyond anyone's control.

>Studies for years have shown that high contrast such a
black on white cause the eyes to tire quickly, so I softened the
contrast.

I use black on an off-white, which works well.

Agreed. Black (or near black) text on a very pale background is much
easier on the eye than any color on a white background. Too much white
can be quite glaring.

Pale grey on off-white doesn't.

My monitor has 3 preset brightness settings (for text vs game playing)
and none of them made the #fff/#666 combination more readable for me.
Forget #eee/#666.

Maybe I just need to sit in the dark, too. :(

--
Berg

[Bergamot]

Kevin Scholl wrote:

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

>..and there is no link on this page to get you to the rest of the site
that "doesn't require JavaScript".

Sure there is. Did you miss the "Continue anyway" at the bottom of the
page?

You really expect people to read that whole page? I didn't bother
reading past the first paragraph. It told me everything I really needed
to know. I was not amused, enlightened, or impressed - quite the opposite.

But the site does not require Javascript, nor states that it
does. Recommended, yes (like so many sites nowadays), but not
required.

If JS truly isn't required, then sending people to that "error" page off
the bat is just plain rude. If you have parts where JS is necessary,
then note it on the related page, not in a splash page to your site.

For the record, that is #666 on a background that is #EEE fading to
#FFF (white). Studies for years have shown that high contrast such a
black on white cause the eyes to tire quickly, so I softened the
contrast.

Low contrast is a readability problem for a lot of people. Small type is
a readability problem for a lot of people. The 2 combined is the worst
of both worlds. :(

--
Berg

[dorayme]

In article <wf************ @calligramme.ch armers>,
Jon Fairbairn <jo***********@ cl.cam.ac.ukwro te:

Bergamot <be******@visi. comwrites:

BTW, I've never gotten a single complaint from a client or client user
about font-size:100% being too big, so your lack of complaints doesn't
mean there aren't any, just they don't tell you about it.

Unfortuntaly I've had such a complaint from a client (and
for this particular client I'm too far down the hierarchy to
have much say in the matter). It seems to me that the root
cause of this is that the font default sizes on Windows (IE
at any rate)

Well, this depends on how you view the strength of the
alternative explanation I gave. I too have had complaints about
100% being too big from clients but where it is perfectly clear
that they are not using IE (but Mac and other browsers). I would
think this business of X height that you mention is marginal to
the real explanation, namely that quite a few people have become
used to seeing sites with less than 100% for body text, their
browsers are set for this to be comfortable (this includes
_these- people being comfortable with the default). It comes as
out of the ordinary to their eye. The truth is that 100% does
often involve more scrolling on sites where someone is saying
something that might actually be worth reading!

But with sufficient patience and persuasion with clients, and
layout to accomodate information, the war can be advanced towards
100%

--
dorayme

[dorayme]

In article
<11************ *********@n15g2 000prd.googlegr oups.com>,
Kevin Scholl <ks*****@comcas t.netwrote:

I wasn't referring to the authors, but users. The visually impaired
(whatever the reason, be it age, injury, birth defect, whatever)
generally will know how to adjust their font sizes. The average,
typical user does not, because they do not NEED to.

Fine, but you need to be fully aware that complaints will not
surface if the irritations are not very serious. Better to be
safe than sorry and use 100% if for body text if you can to avoid
that below the level where 'most will start complaining loudly.
Less people will be disadvantaged this way.

Consider this as well, just to play devil's advocate. If text less
than 100% is so problematic, why do the various operating systems and
their applications all employ default text that is roughly equivalent
to 11px for their chrome elements (e.g., menus)? Isn't this too small
for someone such as yourself? How do you deal with that?

Actually, yes! Quite often I have complained about the chrome,
especially on my 20" LCD when I am viewing older OS (via Classic
on my Mac). The point here is that there is little that can be
done about this without serious downsides. But God, in his
wisdom, has given us browsers where the websites themselves can
be made to be easy to use if the authors make sensible decisions.

--
dorayme