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?

[Bergamot]

Ben C wrote:

>
if you make the actual words easy to see it's too obvious they're just
BS.

LOL

--
Berg

[dorayme]

In article <sl************ *********@bowse r.marioworld>,
Ben C <sp******@spam. eggswrote:

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.

!

--
dorayme

[Felix Miata]

On 2007/05/21 11:36 (GMT-0700) Kevin Scholl apparently typed:

Does a percentage-based font allow a vision-impaired user
to resize IF THEY NEED TO,

When you as web designer choose to make an arbitrary reduction from their
choice, whether that choice is affirmative or passive, it's an eminently
reasonable presumption that they will need to. This is the reason why modern
browsers feature a zoom function, in order to defend against web authors who
affirmatively choose not to respect site visitors.

while retaining an optimal visual
experience for the vast majority of users under default settings? Yes.
Simple as that.

Not simple. You:
1-are not using my eyes
2-are not sitting in my chair
3-are not seeing my display

Therefore you have no concept of optimal visual experience from any
perspective nor for any environment except your own.

You OTOH probably:
1-have above average eyesight (few people with poor eyes in web design business)
2-have larger than average display (working at it most of day, well deserved)
3-don't need to actually use (read) your page (intimate familiarity)

This distorts your perspective as compared to average web users.

http://css.nu/articles/font-analogy.html
http://www.informationarchitects.jp/100e2r?v=4
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html
--
"The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining
ever brighter till the full light of day." Proverbs 4:18 NIV

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/

[Felix Miata]

On 2007/05/21 18:08 (GMT+0100) Jon Fairbairn apparently typed:

Kevin Scholl wrote:

>Given my years of work in this field, and the number and
nature of the sites on which I've worked, I wouldn't count
my sample as small. It's almost certainly in the top echelon
of people here.

Even the very topmost person here (whatever that means) is
likely to have encountered only a small sample of the people
out there looking at websites.

The only thing that matters is that that quantity is nonzero. It's about
respect and doing the right thing, something few web designers choose to
practice.
--
"The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining
ever brighter till the full light of day." Proverbs 4:18 NIV

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/

[Felix Miata]

On 2007/05/21 09:48 (GMT-0700) Kevin Scholl apparently typed:

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.

#666 on #EEE is flagged as insufficient color difference by the one I use:
http://juicystudio.com/services/colourcontrast.php

One notch off the extremes is quite sufficient softening. I can get by with
#333 on #FFF if the text is fully my default size, but #222 and #111 are
very much better. Your contrast lowering is excessive, and coupled with your
tiny text, makes reading your content painful in the absence of disabling
your styles.
--
"The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining
ever brighter till the full light of day." Proverbs 4:18 NIV

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/

[Felix Miata]

On 2007/05/23 02:18 (GMT-0500) Ben C apparently typed:

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.

Until you're sitting in the chair of your visitor, you know neither how big
is big nor how small is small.

What is known is that if you think the 12pt default is too big, your
perspective does not match that of average web users:
http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/u...ws/2S/font.htm
--
"The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining
ever brighter till the full light of day." Proverbs 4:18 NIV

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/

[Jon Fairbairn]

Felix Miata <Ug************ ********@dev.nu lwrites:

On 2007/05/21 18:08 (GMT+0100) Jon Fairbairn apparently typed:

Kevin Scholl wrote:

Given my years of work in this field, and the number and
nature of the sites on which I've worked, I wouldn't count
my sample as small. It's almost certainly in the top echelon
of people here.

Even the very topmost person here (whatever that means) is
likely to have encountered only a small sample of the people
out there looking at websites.

The only thing that matters is that that quantity

[of people who are adversely affected by smaller fonts]

is nonzero.

As far as whether to do the right thing is concerned, I
quite agree. But my point was that his claim to have sampled
a large proportion of people strikes me as unlikely, so his
impression of the number of people who would be affected as
small (effectively zero is what his argument implied) is
invalid.

It's about respect and doing the right thing, something
few web designers choose to practice.

Alas so.

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

[Bergamot]

Felix Miata wrote:

>
http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/u...ws/2S/font.htm

That study was done back in 2000. It would be interesting to see what
has changed since then, considering the improvements in display devices
over the past few years.

--
Berg

[dorayme]

In article <c1************ ***@p-t18.ij.net>,
Felix Miata <Ug************ ********@dev.nu lwrote:

On 2007/05/21 09:48 (GMT-0700) Kevin Scholl apparently typed:

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.

#666 on #EEE is flagged as insufficient color difference by the one I use:
http://juicystudio.com/services/colourcontrast.php

One notch off the extremes is quite sufficient softening. I can get by with
#333 on #FFF if the text is fully my default size, but #222 and #111 are
very much better.

My thought too, I was much happier with #333 when I looked at
Kevin's site the other day. But as for $111 or #222 being much
better, that is an interesting idea... except that at least with
#111 it is not very much better than #000. Curiously enough
though, there seems to be an argument here for #222. Thanks
Felix.

--
dorayme

[Chris Morris]

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

Felix Miata wrote:

http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/u...ws/2S/font.htm

That study was done back in 2000. It would be interesting to see what
has changed since then, considering the improvements in display devices
over the past few years.

Well, they give enough information to be able to repeat the experiment.

--
Chris