473,545 Members | 1,899 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
+ Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

W3C advocates Verdana and font-size-adjust?

<URL:http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/font-size>

In the "recommnede d practices", I don't agree with their second bullet
point, but the last 2 bullets sound like really bad advice, at least in
a WWW context.

How can they, in good conscience, advocate using font-size-adjust when
it is virtually unsupported, besides probably being dropped from the
next spec update? If they just made some disclaimers about browser
support or font availability on the client side, it wouldn't be so bad,
but they make it sound like this will work nicely for everyone, everywhere.

In a case like this, is W3C doing more harm than good?

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Jul 20 '05 #1
8 2255
kchayka <us****@c-net.us> wrote:
W3C advocates Verdana <URL:http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/font-size>
No mention of Verdana I could find.
In the "recommnede d practices", I don't agree with their second bullet
point
Point 1 is nonsense (only applies to IEs broken implementation) .
but the last 2 bullets sound like really bad advice, at least in
a WWW context.
Point 4 refers to the css 2.0 spec for information, the css 2.0 spec
contains in depth info on fonts that is absent from the 2.1 candidate
recommendation.
How can they, in good conscience, advocate using font-size-adjust when
it is virtually unsupported, besides probably being dropped from the
next spec update? If they just made some disclaimers about browser
support or font availability on the client side, it wouldn't be so bad,
but they make it sound like this will work nicely for everyone, everywhere.

In a case like this, is W3C doing more harm than good?


It's not wise to look to w3c for practical guidance, they concern
themselves with the theory, not practice.

--
Spartanicus
Jul 20 '05 #2
kchayka <us****@c-net.us> wrote:
W3C advocates Verdana <URL:http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/font-size>
No mention of Verdana I could find.
In the "recommnede d practices", I don't agree with their second bullet
point
Point 1 is nonsense (only applies to IEs broken implementation) .
but the last 2 bullets sound like really bad advice, at least in
a WWW context.
Point 4 refers to the css 2.0 spec for information, the css 2.0 spec
contains in depth info on fonts that is absent from the 2.1 candidate
recommendation.
How can they, in good conscience, advocate using font-size-adjust when
it is virtually unsupported, besides probably being dropped from the
next spec update? If they just made some disclaimers about browser
support or font availability on the client side, it wouldn't be so bad,
but they make it sound like this will work nicely for everyone, everywhere.

In a case like this, is W3C doing more harm than good?


It's not wise to look to w3c for practical guidance, they concern
themselves with the theory, not practice.

--
Spartanicus
Jul 20 '05 #3
Spartanicus wrote:
kchayka <us****@c-net.us> wrote:
W3C advocates Verdana
<URL:http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/font-size>


No mention of Verdana I could find.


See point 4, mention of a font with a high aspect value. Read: Verdana
Point 1 is nonsense (only applies to IEs broken implementation) .
Other than the inferences that the resizing issue is global, and
cross-platform is the main problem, point 1 isn't complete nonsense. It
could have been worded better, but it does convey some general issues
with absolute font sizes.
It's not wise to look to w3c for practical guidance, they concern
themselves with the theory, not practice.


Then they shouldn't be offering practical guidance like this.

I bring the subject up because accessible font sizes came up in another
forum. A poster, who is a member of IWA-HWG, seems to think what W3C
says is some ultimate truth.

Reference: <URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-CSS-TECHS/#units>
This only mentions em units for font-size, thus the poster would not
accept that % is also OK, let alone preferred over other units. For
those of us who know better, we can shrug these things off, or at least
read between the lines. That isn't the case with everyone, though.

It concerns me that W3C has this kind of influence yet is doling out bad
or misleading advice. It's counterproducti ve. Am I making a mountain out
of a molehill, or not?

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Jul 20 '05 #4
Spartanicus wrote:
kchayka <us****@c-net.us> wrote:
W3C advocates Verdana
<URL:http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/font-size>


No mention of Verdana I could find.


See point 4, mention of a font with a high aspect value. Read: Verdana
Point 1 is nonsense (only applies to IEs broken implementation) .
Other than the inferences that the resizing issue is global, and
cross-platform is the main problem, point 1 isn't complete nonsense. It
could have been worded better, but it does convey some general issues
with absolute font sizes.
It's not wise to look to w3c for practical guidance, they concern
themselves with the theory, not practice.


Then they shouldn't be offering practical guidance like this.

I bring the subject up because accessible font sizes came up in another
forum. A poster, who is a member of IWA-HWG, seems to think what W3C
says is some ultimate truth.

Reference: <URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-CSS-TECHS/#units>
This only mentions em units for font-size, thus the poster would not
accept that % is also OK, let alone preferred over other units. For
those of us who know better, we can shrug these things off, or at least
read between the lines. That isn't the case with everyone, though.

It concerns me that W3C has this kind of influence yet is doling out bad
or misleading advice. It's counterproducti ve. Am I making a mountain out
of a molehill, or not?

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Jul 20 '05 #5
kchayka <us****@c-net.us> wrote:
No mention of Verdana I could find.
See point 4, mention of a font with a high aspect value. Read: Verdana


Nonsense.
Point 1 is nonsense (only applies to IEs broken implementation) .


Other than the inferences that the resizing issue is global, and
cross-platform is the main problem, point 1 isn't complete nonsense. It
could have been worded better, but it does convey some general issues
with absolute font sizes.


What's "general" about complete nonsense except for a few broken UAs?
It's not wise to look to w3c for practical guidance, they concern
themselves with the theory, not practice.


Then they shouldn't be offering practical guidance like this.


True.
I bring the subject up because accessible font sizes came up in another
forum. A poster, who is a member of IWA-HWG, seems to think what W3C
says is some ultimate truth.
From the site:

The tips are supposed to be helpful bits of information, not
authoritative, dry specifications. The tips should therefore suggest and
justify, not slam "must"s at the reader.
Reference: <URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-CSS-TECHS/#units>
This only mentions em units for font-size, thus the poster would not
accept that % is also OK, let alone preferred over other units. For
those of us who know better, we can shrug these things off, or at least
read between the lines. That isn't the case with everyone, though.


Not w3's fault.

--
Spartanicus
Jul 20 '05 #6
kchayka <us****@c-net.us> wrote:
No mention of Verdana I could find.
See point 4, mention of a font with a high aspect value. Read: Verdana


Nonsense.
Point 1 is nonsense (only applies to IEs broken implementation) .


Other than the inferences that the resizing issue is global, and
cross-platform is the main problem, point 1 isn't complete nonsense. It
could have been worded better, but it does convey some general issues
with absolute font sizes.


What's "general" about complete nonsense except for a few broken UAs?
It's not wise to look to w3c for practical guidance, they concern
themselves with the theory, not practice.


Then they shouldn't be offering practical guidance like this.


True.
I bring the subject up because accessible font sizes came up in another
forum. A poster, who is a member of IWA-HWG, seems to think what W3C
says is some ultimate truth.
From the site:

The tips are supposed to be helpful bits of information, not
authoritative, dry specifications. The tips should therefore suggest and
justify, not slam "must"s at the reader.
Reference: <URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-CSS-TECHS/#units>
This only mentions em units for font-size, thus the poster would not
accept that % is also OK, let alone preferred over other units. For
those of us who know better, we can shrug these things off, or at least
read between the lines. That isn't the case with everyone, though.


Not w3's fault.

--
Spartanicus
Jul 20 '05 #7
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, kchayka wrote:
Spartanicus wrote:
kchayka <us****@c-net.us> wrote:
W3C advocates Verdana
html, body, h2, h3, h4, div, p, ul, li, input {
font-family: "Gill Sans MT", "Gill sans", "Trebuchet ms", sans-serif;

No Verdana there (except perhaps as a generic choice)
<URL:http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/font-size>


No mention of Verdana I could find.


See point 4, mention of a font with a high aspect value. Read: Verdana


Seems to be some confusion. Verdana's aspect value is indeed rather
large compared with -some- fonts, but it's actually not so very
different from other popular sans fonts, such as Arial, Trebuchet...
- nevertheless, Verdana does look significantly larger at a given
nominal font size, which seems to demonstrate that the objective
x-height/em size is by no means the whole story. Which, incidentally,
means that even if implementations of font-size-adjust (as originally
defined) were to appear, they wouldn't be a complete answer to this
issue.
Point 1 is nonsense (only applies to IEs broken implementation) .


Untrue. pt units specify 1/72 of an inch: that's a physical
measurement, objectively referenced to an international standard
length. It can be objectively tested whether the display is correctly
conforming to that specification or not. If the display gets resized
then it is no longer working to specification (except in the sense
that CSS is optional anyway).

(What's the use of a character 1/6th of an inch high on a ten-foot
projection screen, riddle me that?).

Even if the pt unit were supported on browsers (most of which in fact
have no idea of the physical dpi settings of the display, and
therefore have no way of assuring the correct size in pt units), it
wouldn't be what users want or need!!

So: what's the point of specifying something in the wrong units in the
hope that those units won't work as designed? Illogical, Mr. Spock.

CSS px units *might* be a more logical choice, if any browser made any
attempt to implement them as defined (i.e scaled by reference to the
screen dpi and/or expected browsing distance); but again, we're stuck
with the fact that most displays take no account of the screen dpi,
and there's no provision for telling browsers the information which
they would need in order to implement the CS px unit per the
requirements of (let's use the draft 2.1 for example)
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#length-units

So, in reality they display px units as physical pixels, which isn't
so funny when you compare a display of <70dpi with another of >130dpi,
both of which would display 1.0em (or 100%) text at just the size
their users had chosen.

best
Jul 20 '05 #8
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004, kchayka wrote:
Spartanicus wrote:
kchayka <us****@c-net.us> wrote:
W3C advocates Verdana
html, body, h2, h3, h4, div, p, ul, li, input {
font-family: "Gill Sans MT", "Gill sans", "Trebuchet ms", sans-serif;

No Verdana there (except perhaps as a generic choice)
<URL:http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/font-size>


No mention of Verdana I could find.


See point 4, mention of a font with a high aspect value. Read: Verdana


Seems to be some confusion. Verdana's aspect value is indeed rather
large compared with -some- fonts, but it's actually not so very
different from other popular sans fonts, such as Arial, Trebuchet...
- nevertheless, Verdana does look significantly larger at a given
nominal font size, which seems to demonstrate that the objective
x-height/em size is by no means the whole story. Which, incidentally,
means that even if implementations of font-size-adjust (as originally
defined) were to appear, they wouldn't be a complete answer to this
issue.
Point 1 is nonsense (only applies to IEs broken implementation) .


Untrue. pt units specify 1/72 of an inch: that's a physical
measurement, objectively referenced to an international standard
length. It can be objectively tested whether the display is correctly
conforming to that specification or not. If the display gets resized
then it is no longer working to specification (except in the sense
that CSS is optional anyway).

(What's the use of a character 1/6th of an inch high on a ten-foot
projection screen, riddle me that?).

Even if the pt unit were supported on browsers (most of which in fact
have no idea of the physical dpi settings of the display, and
therefore have no way of assuring the correct size in pt units), it
wouldn't be what users want or need!!

So: what's the point of specifying something in the wrong units in the
hope that those units won't work as designed? Illogical, Mr. Spock.

CSS px units *might* be a more logical choice, if any browser made any
attempt to implement them as defined (i.e scaled by reference to the
screen dpi and/or expected browsing distance); but again, we're stuck
with the fact that most displays take no account of the screen dpi,
and there's no provision for telling browsers the information which
they would need in order to implement the CS px unit per the
requirements of (let's use the draft 2.1 for example)
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#length-units

So, in reality they display px units as physical pixels, which isn't
so funny when you compare a display of <70dpi with another of >130dpi,
both of which would display 1.0em (or 100%) text at just the size
their users had chosen.

best
Jul 20 '05 #9

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

13
3130
by: Mary Ellen Curtin | last post by:
I love Verdana and Georgia, because I can read them. I've read back postings here on why the usual font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif spec is less than ideal, because (as I understand it) e.g. "a" in 12pt Verdana is actually a different real size than it is in 12-pt Arial. That, of course, is one reason I find...
75
3670
by: Karl Smith | last post by:
Anyone who has read c.i.w.a.* for more than a few weeks knows that one of the pet hates of the CIWAHians is Verdana (it's a typeface, BTW). Future archeologists stumbling across these messages out of context could be forgiven for thinking "Verdana" must be some kind of dangerous animal. We must get rid of it, before it gets us! Oddly, they...
49
2354
by: lime | last post by:
I have addressed most of the issues listed in the responses to my last post "Critique CSS layout (1st go - fingers crossed)". I'm rapt with the progress I have made, thanks to all for your past critiques. http://www.limelightstudio.com.au/iss/8/ The issues addressed: - Nav uses <li> now - No horizontal scroll in IE6 at 850-900 pixels
300
18074
by: Ståle Sæbøe | last post by:
I am a bit curious about this. The graphic design people I work with say it is their preferred font for web pages. The reason being that it is "kinder" to the eye both in terms of shape and size. The HTML "hardcore elititst" profess that it is a useless font because it is too big compared to other fonts. Personally I do not care one...
0
7479
marktang
by: marktang | last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However, people are often confused as to whether an ONU can Work As a Router. In this blog post, we’ll explore What is ONU, What Is Router, ONU & Router’s main...
0
7411
by: Hystou | last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can effortlessly switch the default language on Windows 10 without reinstalling. I'll walk you through it. First, let's disable language...
0
7669
Oralloy
by: Oralloy | last post by:
Hello folks, I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>". The problem is that using the GNU compilers, it seems that the internal comparison operator "<=>" tries to promote arguments from unsigned to signed. This is as boiled down as I can make it. ...
0
7926
jinu1996
by: jinu1996 | last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven tapestry of website design and digital marketing. It's not merely about having a website; it's about crafting an immersive digital experience that...
1
7439
by: Hystou | last post by:
Overview: Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows Update option using the Control Panel or Settings app; it automatically checks for updates and installs any it finds, whether you like it or not. For...
0
4962
by: conductexam | last post by:
I have .net C# application in which I am extracting data from word file and save it in database particularly. To store word all data as it is I am converting the whole word file firstly in HTML and then checking html paragraph one by one. At the time of converting from word file to html my equations which are in the word document file was convert...
0
3468
by: TSSRALBI | last post by:
Hello I'm a network technician in training and I need your help. I am currently learning how to create and manage the different types of VPNs and I have a question about LAN-to-LAN VPNs. The last exercise I practiced was to create a LAN-to-LAN VPN between two Pfsense firewalls, by using IPSEC protocols. I succeeded, with both firewalls in...
0
3450
by: adsilva | last post by:
A Windows Forms form does not have the event Unload, like VB6. What one acts like?
1
1028
muto222
by: muto222 | last post by:
How can i add a mobile payment intergratation into php mysql website.

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.