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?

[dorayme]

In article
<XN************ ******@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldn et.att.net>,
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@ex ample.invalidwr ote:

And, it's time to do some
lawn mowing.

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

So... what about ride-on mowers? They surely don't suck?

--
dorayme

[Kevin Scholl]

dorayme wrote:

In article
<XN************ ******@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldn et.att.net>,
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@ex ample.invalidwr ote:

>And, it's time to do some
lawn mowing.

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

So... what about ride-on mowers? They surely don't suck?

Actually, they do, for a partial rotation. Then they blow ... the grass
out the side (or into the bag). :)
--

*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***

=============== =============== =============== =========
Kevin Scholl http://www.ksscholl.com/
ks*****@comcast .DELETE.net
------------------------------------------------------
Information Architecture, Web Design and Development
------------------------------------------------------
We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of
the dreams...
=============== =============== =============== =========

[dorayme]

In article <Kc************ *************** ***@comcast.com >,
Kevin Scholl <ks*****@comcas t.DELETE.netwro te:

dorayme wrote:

In article
<XN************ ******@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldn et.att.net>,
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@ex ample.invalidwr ote:

And, it's time to do some
lawn mowing.

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

So... what about ride-on mowers? They surely don't suck?

Actually, they do, for a partial rotation. Then they blow ... the grass
out the side (or into the bag). :)

Indeed. But seriously, to get back to the more relevant topic,
the beauty of a motorbike as distinct from a car is that it is
often not that much more than is needed to get a person about
with dash and verve. A ride-on mower can also share in this
aesthetic but is in great danger of being developed by wrong
headed commercial interests to include facilities (seats for the
kids, enclosure, air-conditioning, ...) that tend to suckiness.

--
dorayme

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

dorayme wrote:

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@ex ample.invalidwr ote:

>And, it's time to do some lawn mowing.

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

So... what about ride-on mowers? They surely don't suck?

I sometimes wish I had one. We have two houses with lawns to mow - one
a bit over an acre, the other about a third-acre, and all we have is
this 21-inch self-propelled hand mower...

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

[dorayme]

In article
<OV************ *******@bgtnsc0 5-news.ops.worldn et.att.net>,
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@ex ample.invalidwr ote:

dorayme wrote:

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@ex ample.invalidwr ote:

And, it's time to do some lawn mowing.

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

So... what about ride-on mowers? They surely don't suck?

I sometimes wish I had one. We have two houses with lawns to mow - one
a bit over an acre, the other about a third-acre, and all we have is
this 21-inch self-propelled hand mower...

Sounds like you need what they use in the park behind me, a
tractor pulling a cylinder mower, many feet wide along.

--
dorayme

[Jon Fairbairn]

dorayme <do************ @optusnet.com.a uwrites:

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

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,

Sure, but I was arguing that one of the reasons that sites
started having <100% body text was this x-height issue
(namely the designer selects a sans font, sees it looks
bigger than intended and shrinks it without thinking of the
reasons why). Once more than a few sites have been designed
like that, users have to respond, and lo and behold 80% is
the new 100% :-(

--
Jón Fairbairn Jo***********@c l.cam.ac.uk

[dorayme]

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

dorayme <do************ @optusnet.com.a uwrites:

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

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,

Sure, but I was arguing that one of the reasons that sites
started having <100% body text was this x-height issue
(namely the designer selects a sans font, sees it looks
bigger than intended and shrinks it without thinking of the
reasons why). Once more than a few sites have been designed
like that, users have to respond, and lo and behold 80% is
the new 100% :-(

Ah well, perhaps you are on to something on the history of the
'arms race' here. Methinks there are less subtle forces at work.
Young earthlings with superb eyesight, a huge amount of rubbish
that is thought needed to be seen on home pages especially and so
on. Call me cynical.

--
dorayme

[Jonathan N. Little]

dorayme wrote:

Ah well, perhaps you are on to something on the history of the
'arms race' here. Methinks there are less subtle forces at work.
Young earthlings with superb eyesight, a huge amount of rubbish
that is thought needed to be seen on home pages especially and so
on. Call me cynical.

BODY { font-size: 1px; }

There! Make'em break out their magnifying glasses, even with their
20-something eyes!

This whole argument is just as asinine, the base font size should be
100% of the users default. and if properly designed will work regardless
of the user settings. You can help yourself as a designer be avoiding
using fonts that are "artificial ly oversize" or mixing optional fonts of
divergent characteristics . I don't have Verdanda on my Linux box. Until
some truly working system for font embedding|deliv ery happens you must
design with flexibility that you do not precisely what fonts will be
available for your web design.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[dorayme]

In article <dd************ **************@ NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@centra lva.netwrote:

dorayme wrote:

Ah well, perhaps you are on to something on the history of the
'arms race' here. Methinks there are less subtle forces at work.
Young earthlings with superb eyesight, a huge amount of rubbish
that is thought needed to be seen on home pages especially and so
on. Call me cynical.

BODY { font-size: 1px; }

There! Make'em break out their magnifying glasses, even with their
20-something eyes!

This whole argument is just as asinine,

What whole argument are you talking about? Fairbairn and I were
just discussing a particular historical development and
speculating on the causes. We were moderate, careful, articulate,
low-profile, humble, meaning no harm to anyone and you come in
waving 1px font sizes, magnifying glasses and making like Christ
in the temple with the money lenders?

--
dorayme

[Ben C]

On 2007-05-22, dorayme <do************ @optusnet.com.a uwrote:

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

[...]

>Sure, but I was arguing that one of the reasons that sites
started having <100% body text was this x-height issue
(namely the designer selects a sans font, sees it looks
bigger than intended and shrinks it without thinking of the
reasons why). Once more than a few sites have been designed
like that, users have to respond, and lo and behold 80% is
the new 100% :-(

Ah well, perhaps you are on to something on the history of the
'arms race' here. Methinks there are less subtle forces at work.
Young earthlings with superb eyesight, a huge amount of rubbish
that is thought needed to be seen on home pages especially and so
on. Call me cynical.

A tiny font gives a superficial impression of importance and "high
tech", which is why it's used on corporate websites, which are often
content-free anyway. Big fonts look too much like children's books. Also
if you make the actual words easy to see it's too obvious they're just
BS.