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 way or the other, but I generally trust
graphic designers more than programmers and rules lawyers when it comes
to pure design.
It seems to me that the only argument against using Verdana is that a
large number of browsers do not support it and therefore it causes their
pages to render with a very small font.
Can anyone honestly say they do not have the Verdana font installed?
Jul 21 '05
300  18047 
Curt Balluff wrote: Verdana, Helvetica ,sans-serif; would be my chioce for font-family.
Really bad. Helvetica on Linux is commonly a little over half the size
of Verdana, and Verdana is infrequently installed on those Linux
systems, never by default.
Use em or px
don't use pt
Don't use px either. Without knowing display size, screen resolution,
and DPI you have no idea what it means.
--
"In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you."
Matthew 7:12 NIV
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Ståle Sæbøe <ot*****@tdz.no> wrote: I observe that many debatants claim that designers "tend" to use it
in a way that makes pages undreadable unless you view them with
default settings, but that is a discussion about implementation
pitfalls (which I will be more careful to observe in the future).
Which is, unfortunately, this is what it is really all about.
The problem is, most designers and the people making decisions about a
website don't understand the characteristic of the web. They apply
things from paper design that are not appropriate on the web.
The usual process goes this:
The designer is given some specifications like "total width of 510px,
navigation column=120px, right column=160px, the area in between for
the content, this here in full width, and below this here as two
columns".
Then the designer creates a mockup in Photoshop fiddling with the font
size so the content fits into the space. After that, the design is
recreated in HTML + CSS and here we go, it has to look like the
Photoshop thing to the pixel, so font sizes are set to make it so on
his screen.
Making the page flexible is never thought about, allowing the user to
view the page in his preferred font size is not in the mind. That is
the problem.
This is how web-sites are created.
Save the small, but hopefully growing bunch of people who can actually
create a flexible design.
Go, spread the word :-)
Bye,
Martin
P.S. Don't change the post's subject at will, the subject of the
discussion has not changed. You are cutting of threading for many. And
if you do change it, please choose a meaningful one.
Ståle Sæbøe wrote: Harlan Messinger wrote:
The problems with Verdana aren't a question of pure design, which is
why the graphic designers don't have the whole story. By way of
exaggerating the situation so as to illustrate the point: if a font
were configured so that, when "10pt" was specified, the letters were
two centimeters high (or, alternatively, one millimeter high), it
would be a problem, no matter how pleasing the font might be to the eye.
I have browsed the web since before graphic browsers. I have worked on
old and new lap tops and PCs, with huge monitors and tiny displays. I
have never experienced the phenomena you describe.
Since I said it was an exaggeration to illustrate the point, I didn't
expect you would ever have encountered it. Please read what I wrote again.
in comp.infosystems. www.authoring.stylesheets, Martin Bialasinski wrote: I observe that many debatants claim that designers "tend" to use it
in a way that makes pages undreadable unless you view them with
default settings, but that is a discussion about implementation
pitfalls (which I will be more careful to observe in the future).
No, they look unreadable also with default settings, if those default
settings are correct for user (surprisingly often), and he doesn't have
Verdana installed.
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.
Lauri Raittila wrote: Yes. For body text, that is. For other text, it doesn't really matter
what you use. (with body text I don't mean all text in body element, but
all text that makes core of content.)
For body text I maintain that serif fonts only, should be suggested.
This is for readability and that is the whole idea of the body text...
it is to be read!!!
About Verdana, well, I would not use it for anything. But for heading it
is OK for accessibility and usability viewpoints.
True headings could be sans-serif and Verdana lends itself nicely to
application.
No. I would only suggest that do not set body text background to white
(if you specify it, use suitable off-white light colour), and text color
should be very near to black. I have yet to see easily readable site with
inverse colors, but it might be possible as well, but it is more likely
conflict with userstylesheet.
This is all true and BTW correct also... ;-)
Links should blue if possible, while visited should be that purple. But
link colors are not that important
Links should be the same black. Links should be indicated by an
underline. Underlines have no typographic use so work VERY well as a
link indicator. The color of the text for links should be the same as
the text, again, for readability. Also... visited links of a different
color is a big waste... IMMHO...
And finally, DO NOT USE VERDANA FOR BODY... the critics will cry...
"It's too big... WAAAAH!!!" ;-)
Thank you...
Rich
> Lauri Raittila wrote: Seems like I change my browser default font every month looking for that
perfect screen font. Neither Verdana nor Arial is it, of that I'm sure.
I'm not convinced there is only one, anyway. Sometimes serif is better,
sometimes sans. It depends on the content and how fatigued my eyes are.
Tim wrote:
I spent quite some time fiddling with the supplied fonts trying to find one
that was easy to read on my web browser (that was my main criteria, even
more so than looking brilliant). I settled on Georgia, for Windows.
Unfortunately its weight does waste toner while printing, so I'll probably
configure that differently.
Georgia is an excedllent choice for the screen it is highly readable. My
body CSS is...
(font: medium Georgia, serif;)
The correct print font would be Times New Roman this is the font
optimazed over many many years for print media. My body print CSS is...
(font: 10.5pt normal "Times New Roman", serif;)
I have my own "sore eyes" CSS file to override some websites awful ideas
about what's readable, I apply it when I read a page that makes my eyes
hurt. It makes *all* text the same size (the size I find it easy to read
with), the exception being that headings are a bit bigger than the other
text. It also kills the background and foreground colours, and adjusts the
line spacing. What were web browser authors thinking of when they squashed
the lines closer together than normal? Apart from being harder to read, as
soon as you use characters with accents, etc., they either overlap the line
above, or shove those lines of text further apart than the rest of the
document.
But, in summary, ease of reading depends on a combination of factors:
Font design (it's style, if you like)
Font aspect ratio
Font size
Font weight
Inter-character spacing
Inter-line spacing
Colours
Get them all right, which only I can do for myself, and I find reading to
be a breeze. Get only one of them only a small bit out of kilter, and it
makes reading a lot harder. While that may not be very significant for a
small page, it is for long pages, or where you've spent a long time reading
many pages.
Emulate the look and feel of a book and you'll not be far from the 'ideal'.
Thank you...
Rich
Lauri Raittila wrote: That depends greatly on what you do with size. If user goes to site that
says 100% Verdana, he gets better font, if he doesn't have Verdana. But
if you say 80% Verdana, then user is very likely getting bad size. With
fonts that won't differ from normal subjective size, you get good results
even if the font is not available
That says what I believe... there is nothing 'wrong' with Verdana...
What's wrong is when it is misused. 80% is a misuse...
And, more importantly, body text should NOT be sans-serif no matter
which font you choose. EVER! ! !
There's is two different issues here.
Thank you...
Rich
Martin Bialasinski <ag********@uni-koeln.de> writes: The problem is, most designers and the people making decisions about a
website don't understand the characteristic of the web. They apply
things from paper design that are not appropriate on the web.
The usual process goes this:
The designer is given some specifications like "total width of 510px,
navigation column=120px, right column=160px, the area in between for
the content, this here in full width, and below this here as two
columns".
Then the designer creates a mockup in Photoshop
Not necessarily bad. I've worked with two very good designers who
started their design work that way. In both cases we got a flexible
and usable design out at the end.
fiddling with the font size so the content fits into the space.
This, however, is where it usually all goes wrong; when you get a
designer who doesn't take into account that you might change your
content or even use different content to their sample content.
...snip rest of accurate tale of typical woe...
Very often the result of this is a design that not only falls apart
when someone tries to view it in a way that "wasn't intended" but
*also* falls apart the first time a news item isn't exactly 374
characters long, or someone decides that it needs an extra link in
addition to the five specified in the original design, etc. Or would
fall apart, if it wasn't for the fact that to prevent it one
introduces arbitary rules about the length of news items, etc.
So flexible design has a direct benefit to the client even if the
client *is* willing to say that they don't care about customers with
disabilities/browsers and they'd rather it looked exactly like the
Photoshop version on their browser.
--
Chris
in comp.infosystems. www.authoring.stylesheets, SeaPlusPlus wrote: Lauri Raittila wrote:
Yes. For body text, that is. For other text, it doesn't really matter
what you use. (with body text I don't mean all text in body element, but
all text that makes core of content.)
For body text I maintain that serif fonts only, should be suggested.
This is for readability and that is the whole idea of the body text...
it is to be read!!!
But on low res, serifs are quite hard to read. So that is not good
advice. On resolution about 120ppi I find serif easier. For 96ppi, I
don't really know. For 72ppi, sans-serif is better. For me. (And I use
96ppi... I keep changing font when reading something...)
People usually prefer sans-serif, but I think I have read about study,
that proved that serifs were as good on normal size. But tiny serif fonts
are killer. So if you ever change font size to smaller, make it as sure
as possible that user won't get serif font.
Links should blue if possible, while visited should be that purple. But
link colors are not that important
Links should be the same black.
No, links should not be black. Black is least likely link color, so even
underlining might not make it apparent.
The color of the text for links should be the same as
the text, again, for readability.
No, it should be different, to make it clear it is link. If it is too
hard to read, problem might be too long link text. Or unsuitable link
color. Links are very important, and should stand out.
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20040510.html
Also... visited links of a different
color is a big waste... IMMHO...
Visited links must be in different color. Visited link is higly useful
indicator. You might use black here, but it might confuse. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20040503.html
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.
in comp.infosystems. www.authoring.stylesheets, SeaPlusPlus wrote: Lauri Raittila wrote:Seems like I change my browser default font every month looking for that
perfect screen font. Neither Verdana nor Arial is it, of that I'm sure.
I'm not convinced there is only one, anyway. Sometimes serif is better,
sometimes sans. It depends on the content and how fatigued my eyes are.
Tim wrote:
I spent quite some time fiddling with the supplied fonts trying to find one
that was easy to read on my web browser (that was my main criteria, even
more so than looking brilliant). I settled on Georgia, for Windows.
Unfortunately its weight does waste toner while printing, so I'll probably
configure that differently.
Georgia is an excedllent choice for the screen it is highly readable.
Have you measured it? I find it harder to read than similar size TNR.
The correct print font would be Times New Roman this is the font
optimazed over many many years for print media. My body print CSS is...
(font: 10.5pt normal "Times New Roman", serif;)
I would use 11pt, or maybe even bigger, depending on content, and bigger
line height. 1.2 is quite little with typical A4 print width.
I have my own "sore eyes" CSS file to override some websites awful ideas
about what's readable, I apply it when I read a page that makes my eyes
hurt. It makes *all* text the same size (the size I find it easy to read
with), the exception being that headings are a bit bigger than the other
text.
I have similar stylesheet. Well, actually I have 3 different ones, big
with TNR, normal with Arial, Small with Arial.
It also kills the background and foreground colours, and adjusts the
line spacing.
I do background stuff in different stylesheet.
What were web browser authors thinking of when they squashed
the lines closer together than normal? Apart from being harder to read, as
soon as you use characters with accents, etc., they either overlap the line
above, or shove those lines of text further apart than the rest of the
document.
You usually see that when you override font size, and site has specified
1 for line-height...
But, in summary, ease of reading depends on a combination of factors:
Font design (it's style, if you like)
Font aspect ratio
Font size
Font weight
Inter-character spacing
(Kerning) Inter-line spacing
Colours
Width of column (this is closely related to line-height)
Good sized paragraphs
Get them all right, which only I can do for myself, and I find reading to
be a breeze. Get only one of them only a small bit out of kilter, and it
makes reading a lot harder. While that may not be very significant for a
small page, it is for long pages, or where you've spent a long time reading
many pages.
Yes.
Emulate the look and feel of a book and you'll not be far from the 'ideal'.
Exept, that in WWW, you can overcome biggest problem of book - the
unability to have different properties people that need them. And other
users get tested default. And you don't have to do anything.
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.
in comp.infosystems. www.authoring.stylesheets, SeaPlusPlus wrote: Lauri Raittila wrote:
That depends greatly on what you do with size. If user goes to site that
says 100% Verdana, he gets better font, if he doesn't have Verdana. But
if you say 80% Verdana, then user is very likely getting bad size. With
fonts that won't differ from normal subjective size, you get good results
even if the font is not available
That says what I believe... there is nothing 'wrong' with Verdana...
What's wrong is when it is misused. 80% is a misuse...
As is Verdana with 100% size for body text. That is way too big,
especially too vide, and I get short lines. And it is especially bad if
there is no big enaugh linespacing.
And, more importantly, body text should NOT be sans-serif no matter
which font you choose. EVER! ! !
That is bullshit, as anyone that has ever used 640*480 14" screen (and
most with 15" + 800*600) with proportional fonts knows (monospace are
usually much easier). But that is of course not problem with serifs, but
with inablilty to show serifs in reasonable size.
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.
Felix Miata <Ug********************@dev.nul> wrote: Your screen resolution causes you to see things differently than most
people, approx 90PPI is a more typical resolution. If you had a 90PPI
screen you'd have a problem with Verdana @ 100%.
How can such a statement be valid without knowing display size, screen
resolution, and visual acuity?
Display size is irrelevant, screen resolution is specified and visual
acuity of the user is a constant for both situations.
It's reasonable to assume that a user to whom Verdana sized @ 100% looks
good at a display resolution of 120PPI will find it to large when it's
33% bigger.
--
Spartanicus
SeaPlusPlus wrote: Lauri Raittila wrote:
Yes. For body text, that is. For other text, it doesn't really matter
what you use. (with body text I don't mean all text in body element,
but all text that makes core of content.)
For body text I maintain that serif fonts only, should be suggested.
This is for readability and that is the whole idea of the body text...
it is to be read!!!
<snip>
I know that's true for print, but I was under the impression that sans
serif was easier to read on the screen. Is this correct?
--RC
Martin Bialasinski wrote: P.S. Don't change the post's subject at will, the subject of the
discussion has not changed. You are cutting of threading for many. And
if you do change it, please choose a meaningful one.
I was unaware of that and apologize.
The thread as a whole was becoming difficult to follow and some
arguments were repeated across the board, being beaten to death with a
stick. I wanted to wake up the participants to the fact that I differ
between "bad font" and "bad implementation of font", the latter which I
have conceded as a point already and noone seems to disagree with it so
to repeat it to the point of being rude is counterproductive.
Harlan Messinger wrote: Ståle Sæbøe wrote:
Harlan Messinger wrote:
The problems with Verdana aren't a question of pure design, which is
why the graphic designers don't have the whole story. By way of
exaggerating the situation so as to illustrate the point: if a font
were configured so that, when "10pt" was specified, the letters were
two centimeters high (or, alternatively, one millimeter high), it
would be a problem, no matter how pleasing the font might be to the eye.
I have browsed the web since before graphic browsers. I have worked on
old and new lap tops and PCs, with huge monitors and tiny displays. I
have never experienced the phenomena you describe.
Since I said it was an exaggeration to illustrate the point, I didn't
expect you would ever have encountered it. Please read what I wrote again.
Well then the point was poorly illustrated, which was my point ;)
Much better to use a real life example.
Ståle Sæbøe wrote: Steve Pugh wrote:
Ståle Sæbøe <ot*****@tdz.no> wrote:
Not completely, the design of the font itself is said to promote
readability.
Yes. Verdana was designed to be readable at small font sizes. Do you
see how this leads to a catch 22?
It leads to a discussuion of wether the user or the designer should
control which font should be used. This is nowhere near a catch 22
unless the best font is the one that noone can use.
The only statistics I have seen is that 2% of users do not have it
installed. Give or take 2% it does not make a huge difference unless you
have a very specific target group, which in turn would be the exception
to the rule ...
Still not convinced :)
me neither... verdana is always my font of choice, I have used it for
years in many different settings/sizes and test everything on many diff
browsers, I've never seen my stuff to be unreadable in any size..
occasionally I come across fonts that are too small to read in any font
face, but that's b/c designer didn't know what they were doing, not b/c
of verdana's fault.. ;)... arial totally SUCKS as a font.. it's ugly
and much less readable... at small sizes it doesn't even show the bold..
my two cents.........
Martin! wrote: That's why using pt or px is a bad idea.
idealistic and thus unrealistic
I've used % for font sizing on dozens of commercial and public sector
web sites including some used by millions of visitors. Please tell me
how it is unrealistic?
in the sense that not everybody is willing to spend time and money to
tweak their code into a completely sizeable site.
What time and money? It is easier to do a fluid design, because you
don't have to worry about absolute dimensions.
not in the sense that it is impossible, which i am sure it often is.
I have never found it impossible. I have never found it hard.
>>Lauri Raittila wrote: Yes. For body text, that is. For other text, it doesn't really matter
what you use. (with body text I don't mean all text in body element, but
all text that makes core of content.)
SeaPlusPlus wrote:
For body text I maintain that serif fonts only, should be suggested.
This is for readability and that is the whole idea of the body text...
it is to be read!!!
Lauri Raittila wrote:
But on low res, serifs are quite hard to read. So that is not good
advice. On resolution about 120ppi I find serif easier. For 96ppi, I
don't really know. For 72ppi, sans-serif is better. For me. (And I use
96ppi... I keep changing font when reading something...)
On low resolution, the resolution is low... no kidding... so if things
are that difficult on those screens then the user should be over-riding
with the user's own choices. Web pages should NOT be written for the
lowest common denominator. Web pages should be accomodative to change
such as font resizing. Web pages shouldn't have to look and read as a
school child finds in her first grade reader. sans-serif is the correct
choice for a miriad of reasons and they mostly have to do with
readability. Now if you are talking about reading "Times New Roman" at
low res yes that font sucks for display and you can see that in the
erradic letter spacing when viewed on the screen but if you print with
"Times New Roman" it looks and reads supurbly. That's why Georgia should
be used for screen and "Times New Roman" for the printer.
People usually prefer sans-serif, but I think I have read about study,
that proved that serifs were as good on normal size. But tiny serif fonts
are killer. So if you ever change font size to smaller, make it as sure
as possible that user won't get serif font.
Take a look around your public library. Open a slew of books and see
whether the prose in those books are serif or sans-serif. You'll find
that serif is the overwelming choice and has been for centuries. The
shape of the words is what we 'read'. The serifs are there to tie the
letters into words and to give the page a clean balanced look (no
splotches of gray). Again, if you have a feeling the font will not be
good enough specify Georgia... NOT "Times New Roman".
Links should blue if possible, while visited should be that purple. But
link colors are not that important
Links should be the same black.
No, links should not be black. Black is least likely link color, so even
underlining might not make it apparent.
I said black meaning the color of the surrounding text. Remember these
words are words that have to flow in the sentences/paragraphs as well as
the non-link words. the underline is NOT used anywhere in prose and has
no other use so this fact makes it the ideal choice to indicate a link.
Personally I hover with the backgound going from the off-white to a
'slightly darker' gray. This gives the user a clear indication of what
the links are and whether they are live.
The color of the text for links should be the same as
the text, again, for readability.
No, it should be different, to make it clear it is link. If it is too
hard to read, problem might be too long link text. Or unsuitable link
color. Links are very important, and should stand out.
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20040510.html
The underline makes it perfectly clear. Are you trying to say if you
were on a web site where underlines indicate links you wouldn't be able
to navagate?
Also... visited links of a different
color is a big waste... IMMHO...
Visited links must be in different color. Visited link is higly useful
indicator. You might use black here, but it might confuse.
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20040503.html
No they MUST be nothing of the sort. Indicating visited links is just a
gimmick and on a well constructed site are totally unneccesary.
If you have a convoluted web site that makes it a web and no hierarchy
then you have a need for design the flow better.
Thank you...
Rich
>> Lauri Raittila wrote: Yes. For body text, that is. For other text, it doesn't really matter
what you use. (with body text I don't mean all text in body element,
but all text that makes core of content.) SeaPlusPlus wrote:
For body text I maintain that serif fonts only, should be suggested.
This is for readability and that is the whole idea of the body text...
it is to be read!!!
Rick Cook wrote:
I know that's true for print, but I was under the impression that sans
serif was easier to read on the screen. Is this correct?
Of course, what is good for reading in print (serif) would be good for
reading on a display screen (serif). This is because the serifs, the
little things at the ends of stokes and such, is what gives the letters
balance. When the letters are formed into words the words take on shapes
of their own. This makes reading (recognizing words) flow and you get
into a zone. When you read a paragraph that is done in sans-serif it is
more tedious, when all else is equal.
The problem that exists here in this discussion, is the font choices
people use/specify.
Times is a GREAT font for the printed word. This has been true a long
long time. Times is a TERRIBLE font for the displayed word. you can see
it very plain by looking for huge errors (for no apparent reason) in the
letter-spacing of certain words. if you print the same page those errors
magically disappear.
Georgia, on the other hand, was designed to be a display font and it
succeeds in being an excellent display font. this has to do with
creating a font while being mindful of the vertical strokes (lines)
which make up a display screen.
Thank you...
Rich
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, Rick Cook wrote: I know that's true for print, but I was under the impression that
sans serif was easier to read on the screen. Is this correct?
That depends on the screen. Since you don't know what the screen is
(I correspond with a web designer who considers 65dpi to be normal - I
personally use about 135dpi on my desktop - and about 105 dpi on my
usual laptop - and I know at least one user who uses about 150dpi),
have you considered the possibility that the reader knows better
what's readable on their own display than the average web author could
ever do?
The principle seems to be:
* given arbitrarily high resolution, serif fonts are better
(printing!)
* given low-dpi screens, sans fonts have been proven in actual tests
to be better, even if that wasn't patently obvious to some of you...
* quite why MS decided to set their defaults to TNR, at a size that
I'd rate to be on the far side of too big, is somewhat beyond my
comprehension, but they sure as Hell didn't do it to pander to the
demands of "web deezyners" - maybe they knew a bit more about their
user base than we do, hmmm?
In short, my conclusion is that one or other of the following applies:
1. the user knows best what appeals to them. I stand no chance of
outguessing them (for body text). (Of course, decorative parts of the
page are a different matter).
2. if the user doesn't know best, then at least they have consented to
the defaults set by their vendor - whichever one it might be.
So, what do *I* gain by trying to insist on a body text presentation
that happens to appeal to me, in the browsing situation that I happen
to use? Can I leave that as an exercise for the student?
And then there are the vagaries of i18n....
in comp.infosystems. www.authoring.stylesheets, John C. Ring, Jr. wrote: In article <3a*************@individual.net>, Frances Del Rio <fd***@yahoo.com> wrote:arial totally SUCKS as a font.. it's ugly
and much less readable... at small sizes it doesn't even show the bold..
Does anyone have links to various actual tests of the different fonts, rather
then the perpetual "I like this font, and hate this one" that's now occuring?
A quick Google search finds the interesting and IMO more information such as:
http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/u...onlinetext.htm
- doesn't make comparison between subjectively similar sized sans and
serif. Since difference is quite big, and you can actually use
difference as serifs don't need as big line-height, it would make sence
to compare 100% times to 80% verdana and 85% Arial.
http://psychology.wichita.edu/optimalweb/text.htm
- similar, about same problems...
http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/u...ws/3S/font.htm
These are actually almost same test 3 times. All having very limited use
in WWW terms, as they don't really tell us much. All repeatable in lab,
but what about hoe/office?
It says
A Pentium II based PC computer, with a 60 Hz, 96dpi 17" monitor with a
resolution setting of 1024 x 768 pixels
- why 60Hz, it is too low - might skew the thing.
- 96ppi + 17" + 1024 * 768 don't add up. So actual ppi is smaller, which
propably has effect.
IIRC, I had read all these.
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.
>>Lauri Raittila wrote: That depends greatly on what you do with size. If user goes to site that
says 100% Verdana, he gets better font, if he doesn't have Verdana. But
if you say 80% Verdana, then user is very likely getting bad size. With
fonts that won't differ from normal subjective size, you get good results
even if the font is not available SeaPlusPlus wrote:
That says what I believe... there is nothing 'wrong' with Verdana...
What's wrong is when it is misused. 80% is a misuse...
Lauri Raittila wrote:
As is Verdana with 100% size for body text. That is way too big,
especially too vide, and I get short lines. And it is especially bad if
there is no big enaugh linespacing.
Lauri...
Verdana is NOT the problem... the problem is this misuse. So the font is
NOT way too big. It is still the same point size is it not? It has a
bigger x-height and it is certainly wider (which provides for more
readability). So why do you insist on casting aspersions on the font?
the problem is the misuses.
And, more importantly, body text should NOT be sans-serif no matter
which font you choose. EVER! ! !
That is bullshit, as anyone that has ever used 640*480 14" screen (and
most with 15" + 800*600) with proportional fonts knows (monospace are
usually much easier). But that is of course not problem with serifs, but
with inablilty to show serifs in reasonable size.
Well, you keep harping on the fact that low resolution screens make it
difficult to 'resolve' delicate character subtleties. No shit,
Sherlock... so what the user needs to do is to accomodate their lousy
screen with a forgiving font. That, madam, is not my job to provide
crumby fonts to the rest of the world because the user has a lousy
screen resolution.
Again, this has do to with the vertical line spacing of the fonts.
Georgia was designed with those restrictions in mind and therefore is a
good, no not just good, it a great choice for body text (or as I like to
call it... prose).
In the seventies all we had were poor resolution screens with monospace
fonts; I be **& &^^%^&* if I'm going to saddle my readers with that crap
on the odd chance that someone would like to view my site on museum
quality equipment. ;-)
As an aside... I remember how we thought we were in heaven when we
upgraded so our display screens actually could display LOWER CASE! ;-)
Thank you...
Rich
SeaPlusPlus wrote:
Emulate the look and feel of a book and you'll not be far from the 'ideal'.
Reading a book and reading on screen are two totally different things.
--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
in comp.infosystems. www.authoring.stylesheets, SeaPlusPlus wrote: Lauri Raittila wrote:Yes. For body text, that is. For other text, it doesn't really matter
what you use. (with body text I don't mean all text in body element, but
all text that makes core of content.) SeaPlusPlus wrote:For body text I maintain that serif fonts only, should be suggested.
This is for readability and that is the whole idea of the body text...
it is to be read!!!
Lauri Raittila wrote:
But on low res, serifs are quite hard to read. So that is not good
advice. On resolution about 120ppi I find serif easier. For 96ppi, I
don't really know. For 72ppi, sans-serif is better. For me. (And I use
96ppi... I keep changing font when reading something...)
On low resolution, the resolution is low... no kidding... so if things
are that difficult on those screens then the user should be over-riding
with the user's own choices. Web pages should NOT be written for the
lowest common denominator.
Why? For who it should be written? There is only one other option, as
that is clueful person, that has set his font settings well...
There is absolutely no reason to set font, and by not setting it you
usually get serif font anyway. But if you set serif font, you override
users setting of sans-serif. If you think you don't, tell me one browser
where it is simple to tell browser always use serif font...
Web pages should be accomodative to change
such as font resizing.
Of course.
People usually prefer sans-serif, but I think I have read about study,
that proved that serifs were as good on normal size. But tiny serif fonts
are killer. So if you ever change font size to smaller, make it as sure
as possible that user won't get serif font.
Take a look around your public library. Open a slew of books and see
whether the prose in those books are serif or sans-serif.
Exactly where I told to use sans font? See other part of this thread
where I try to convince people that serifs are often preferred, instead
of sans...
You'll find
that serif is the overwelming choice and has been for centuries. The
shape of the words is what we 'read'. The serifs are there to tie the
letters into words and to give the page a clean balanced look (no
splotches of gray). Again, if you have a feeling the font will not be
good enough specify Georgia... NOT "Times New Roman".
I repeat. Don't set the font for body text. You will go wrong, every
time. Even if your choise of font is not bad for most, it usually won't
make situation any better either.
Links should blue if possible, while visited should be that purple. But
link colors are not that importantLinks should be the same black. No, links should not be black. Black is least likely link color, so even
underlining might not make it apparent.
I said black meaning the color of the surrounding text.
That is even worse. It will look like it was same, and some clueless
person used underlining.
No, it should be different, to make it clear it is link. If it is too
hard to read, problem might be too long link text. Or unsuitable link
color. Links are very important, and should stand out.
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20040510.html
The underline makes it perfectly clear. Are you trying to say if you
were on a web site where underlines indicate links you wouldn't be able
to navagate?
No. I would be suspecious. Try to look naround in net, and report all
underlined text that is similar color to surrounding text. Unfortunate
surprise is that they are not links as likely as other stuff.
Do you have any reference to back up your idea that link colour should
not be distinctive?
Visited links must be in different color. Visited link is higly useful
indicator. You might use black here, but it might confuse.
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20040503.html
No they MUST be nothing of the sort. Indicating visited links is just a
gimmick and on a well constructed site are totally unneccesary.
Obviously you didn't read the article? Obviously you have never thought
that I might leave your site for 10 days and then continue, and my memory
is not that good I would remember where I was, especially if I chose to
read your content randomly.
If you have a convoluted web site that makes it a web and no hierarchy
then you have a need for design the flow better.
There is large sites (where even best structure is not going to safe
you), and hierarchy only helps if your material is something like
reference material. If you have site with short stories, people won't
read it hierarchically, but somewhat random, lookin what might be
interesting. (unless you fail to provide information about content of
links)
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.
kchayka wrote: John C. Ring, Jr. wrote:
A quick Google search finds the interesting and IMO more information such as:
http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/u...onlinetext.htm
http://psychology.wichita.edu/optimalweb/text.htm
http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/u...ws/3S/font.htm
Hmmm.
Given a choice of only 3 serif and 3 sans-serif fonts (Comic Sans isn't
even a consideration, IMO), the results aren't that surprising.
If your only sans-serif choices are Verdana, Arial and Tahoma, which do
you prefer? But, if you had your choice of any font at all, what would
it be?
I seem to detect something of a general consensus that striving for
accessability is a priority among the debatants. If that is the case one
must strive to produce a website that looks good with the most common
fonts installed on systems, namely the ones used in the test.
Therefore I am of the opinion that these test results are very
applicable in homes and offices all around the latin-letters-using
world. If leaving font choice to the user is not an option one would be
wise to take these conclusions under serious consideration.
Lauri Raittila wrote: These are actually almost same test 3 times. All having very limited use
in WWW terms, as they don't really tell us much. All repeatable in lab,
but what about hoe/office?
It says
A Pentium II based PC computer, with a 60 Hz, 96dpi 17" monitor with a
resolution setting of 1024 x 768 pixels
- why 60Hz, it is too low - might skew the thing.
I agree totally, this choice is terrible. Doesn't specify interlaced or
non-interlaced, does it???
- 96ppi + 17" + 1024 * 768 don't add up. So actual ppi is smaller, which
If your do any testing it should NOT be on an analog display.
propably has effect.
Right, more than probably I expect.
IIRC, I had read all these.
This whole area, surely, must have been investigated more thoroughly. I
think it may have been done many times and the companies have kept their
findings for internal use only... ;-)
Thank you...
Rich
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, SeaPlusPlus wrote: Verdana is NOT the problem...
Not in itself, no - the problem is the complete lack of any meaningful
font-size-adjust facility in CSS. Without that, Verdana is so very
atypical that you would do better to avoid it in a WWW context, no
matter what its attractions might be in a controlled situation.
the problem is this misuse.
Petitio principii. If we can't agree what the problem is, how are we
ever going to agree what constitutes "misuse", riddle me that?
So the font is NOT way too big.
Oh yes it is, at a given nominal pt size. That's the whole point of
the problem. If you can't appreciate that, I'm not sure how we're
ever going to make progress.
kchayka wrote: Given a choice of only 3 serif and 3 sans-serif fonts (Comic Sans isn't
even a consideration, IMO), the results aren't that surprising.
If your only sans-serif choices are Verdana, Arial and Tahoma, which do
you prefer? But, if you had your choice of any font at all, what would
it be?
Verdana IS the best font hands down. But it is not a good choice when it
is time-sharing (;-0) with others you aren't sure of...
I my opinion this is the best compromize for the best typography
attainable on the web at this time...
Serif font styled as
(font: medium Georgia, serif;) for display
(font: 10.5pt normal "Times New Roman", serif;) for print
Monospace font styled as
(font: medium "Courier New", monospace;) for display
(font: 10.5pt "Courier New", monospace;) for print
Sans-serif font styled as
(font: medium "Lucida Sans Unicode", sans-serif;) for display
(font: 10.5pt "Lucida Sans Unicode", sans-serif;) for print
Thank you...
Rich
in comp.infosystems. www.authoring.stylesheets, =?ISO-8859-
1?Q?St=E5le_S=E6b=F8e?= wrote: kchayka wrote: John C. Ring, Jr. wrote:
I seem to detect something of a general consensus that striving for
accessability is a priority among the debatants. If that is the case one
must strive to produce a website that looks good with the most common
fonts installed on systems, namely the ones used in the test.
I agree that limited number of fonts is not problem. The last one with
couple obscure fonts wont have any meaning. To get idea what kind of wont
is best, much bigger sample should be used, and since that would make
results unablicable to WWW...
Therefore I am of the opinion that these test results are very
applicable in homes and offices all around the latin-letters-using
world. If leaving font choice to the user is not an option
That is not possible. Font choise is always in users hand, so ignoring it
just creates additional problems.
one would be wise to take these conclusions under serious consideration.
Conclusions are? That bigger font is easier to read? And that there is
dislike towards TNR, which is not based on readability?
The results might be totally different, if using normal monitor, with
85Hz and 96ppi.
The results might be totally different, if actually comparing similarly
sized fonts. (in terms of how much nicely laid out text takes, instead
nominal font size)
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, SeaPlusPlus wrote: If your do any testing it should NOT be on an analog display.
It you're to do any meaningful testing, it needs to be across the
spectrum of displays that your readers are using.
> SeaPlusPlus wrote: Emulate the look and feel of a book and you'll not be far from the 'ideal'.
kchayka wrote:
Reading a book and reading on screen are two totally different things.
True enough, but it shouldn't be... should it???
If you have a good desplay and you enable clear type and have paid
attention to all the nuances of what takes place when reading a book,
you should be able to duplicate the 'book' experience during the
'display' experience.
Thank you...
Rich
"Alan J. Flavell" wrote in
comp.infosystems. www.authoring.stylesheets:have you considered the possibility that the reader knows better
what's readable on their own display than the average web author could
ever do?
Ssssss! Infidel!
:-)
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com/
"SeaPlusPlus" wrote in comp.infosystems. www.authoring.stylesheets:Verdana is NOT the problem... the problem is this misuse.
But it is not posible to specify it in a style sheet in a way that
is proof against problems, becausae its x height is so much larger
than that of other fonts.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com/
"Ståle Sæbøe" wrote in comp.infosystems. www.authoring.stylesheets:The thread as a whole was becoming difficult to follow and some
arguments were repeated across the board, being beaten to death with a
stick.
In the hope (apparently vain) of finding the formulation of words
to help you understand the issue.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com/
in comp.infosystems. www.authoring.stylesheets, SeaPlusPlus wrote: Lauri Raittila wrote:
That says what I believe... there is nothing 'wrong' with Verdana...
What's wrong is when it is misused. 80% is a misuse...
Lauri Raittila wrote:
As is Verdana with 100% size for body text. That is way too big,
especially too vide, and I get short lines. And it is especially bad if
there is no big enaugh linespacing.
Lauri...
Verdana is NOT the problem... the problem is this misuse. So the font is
NOT way too big. It is still the same point size is it not?
Yes, but to actually make anything readable, you need to use bigger line
height, and you end up getting heigher lines...
It has a
bigger x-height and it is certainly wider (which provides for more
readability). So why do you insist on casting aspersions on the font?
the problem is the misuses.
Because there is no way to use it well in WWW, while it was designed for
WWW, I see failure. They should have scaled it down, so that it would
look like TNR when set to similar size.
Well, you keep harping on the fact that low resolution screens make it
difficult to 'resolve' delicate character subtleties. No shit,
Sherlock... so what the user needs to do is to accomodate their lousy
screen with a forgiving font. That, madam, is not my job to provide
crumby fonts to the rest of the world because the user has a lousy
screen resolution.
Well, you keep forgetting, that users can't do that, unless you help
them, or else they have to forgot all fonts you specify.
Again, this has do to with the vertical line spacing of the fonts.
Georgia was designed with those restrictions in mind and therefore is a
good, no not just good, it a great choice for body text (or as I like to
call it... prose).
Well, I don't use it myself, I prefer TNR with bigger size. Why? Because
it is faster and easier to read.
In the seventies all we had were poor resolution screens with monospace
fonts; I be **& &^^%^&* if I'm going to saddle my readers with that crap
on the odd chance that someone would like to view my site on museum
quality equipment. ;-)
So, you assume everyone has big resolution?
As an aside... I remember how we thought we were in heaven when we
upgraded so our display screens actually could display LOWER CASE! ;-)
The problem you donät seem to see is that there is about 30% of people
still using 800*600, and most likely on 15". (w3schools)
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.
"Martin!" wrote in comp.infosystems. www.authoring.stylesheets:Steve Pugh wrote: "Martin!" <ma**********@home.nl.knip.knip.knip> wrote:
That's why using pt or px is a bad idea.
idealistic and thus unrealistic
I've used % for font sizing on dozens of commercial and public sector
web sites including some used by millions of visitors. Please tell me
how it is unrealistic?
Steve
in the sense that not everybody is willing to spend time and money to
tweak their code into a completely sizeable site.
You are looking at it backwards.
Making what you call a "sizeable" site is easier, and therefore
cheaper, than doing things in points and pixels, which seemigly
endless tinkering and still ends up looking different on different
browsers, screens, or OSes.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com/
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, SeaPlusPlus wrote: Verdana is NOT the problem...
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
Not in itself, no - the problem is the complete lack of any meaningful
font-size-adjust facility in CSS. Without that, Verdana is so very
atypical that you would do better to avoid it in a WWW context, no
matter what its attractions might be in a controlled situation.
Agreed, the problem is it can't exist in a world when it must compare
favorably with woefully inadaquate fonts. ;-)
the problem is this misuse.
Petitio principii. If we can't agree what the problem is, how are we
ever going to agree what constitutes "misuse", riddle me that?
Sorry, know it's not the best argument... My font just doesn't suck
enough to exist in the WWW. ;-)
So the font is NOT way too big.
Oh yes it is, at a given nominal pt size. That's the whole point of
the problem. If you can't appreciate that, I'm not sure how we're
ever going to make progress.
Alan...
I agree totally with you... I'm just trying to make the point that
everyone here is casting aspersions on the font because it is too readable.
Is Verdana's line height the same as an equivalent point size
alternative font. I know x-height and width are larger... but... I'm of
the impression that line to line it's the same.
Thank you...
Rich
Alan J. Flavell wrote: On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, SeaPlusPlus wrote:
If your do any testing it should NOT be on an analog display.
It you're to do any meaningful testing, it needs to be across the
spectrum of displays that your readers are using.
I should have said... when the results are available for digital display
tests then the analog tests can begin. In effect you will then be in a
poisition to investigate the effect of the analog skewing has on
electronic readers. But NO WAY you should set out in the fudged analog
world first... (unless you're a glutton for punishment).
Thank you...
Rich
>>>>Lauri Raittila wrote: That says what I believe... there is nothing 'wrong' with Verdana...
What's wrong is when it is misused. 80% is a misuse...
Lauri Raittila wrote:
As is Verdana with 100% size for body text. That is way too big,
especially too vide, and I get short lines. And it is especially bad if
there is no big enaugh linespacing.
Lauri...
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, SeaPlusPlus wrote:
Verdana is NOT the problem... the problem is this misuse. So the font is
NOT way too big. It is still the same point size is it not?
Lauri Raittila wrote:
Yes, but to actually make anything readable, you need to use bigger line
height, and you end up getting heigher lines...
It has a
bigger x-height and it is certainly wider (which provides for more
readability). So why do you insist on casting aspersions on the font?
the problem is the misuses.
Because there is no way to use it well in WWW, while it was designed for
WWW, I see failure. They should have scaled it down, so that it would
look like TNR when set to similar size.
Yes, true WWW is not the place for it... I don't use it on my sites. But
there are places where it could be used menus or headings...
No, you should not have expected them to look to TNR forcomparison...
that's comparing sans-serif to serif. They did that with Georgia
development. Verdana, they should have looked to other sans-serif fonts
for comparison.
Well, you keep harping on the fact that low resolution screens make it
difficult to 'resolve' delicate character subtleties. No shit,
Sherlock... so what the user needs to do is to accomodate their lousy
screen with a forgiving font. That, madam, is not my job to provide
crumby fonts to the rest of the world because the user has a lousy
screen resolution.
Well, you keep forgetting, that users can't do that, unless you help
them, or else they have to forgot all fonts you specify.
Then that's what they'll need to do... If their display is that bad...
Again, this has do to with the vertical line spacing of the fonts.
Georgia was designed with those restrictions in mind and therefore is a
good, no not just good, it a great choice for body text (or as I like to
call it... prose).
Well, I don't use it myself, I prefer TNR with bigger size. Why? Because
it is faster and easier to read.
In the seventies all we had were poor resolution screens with monospace
fonts; I be **& &^^%^&* if I'm going to saddle my readers with that crap
on the odd chance that someone would like to view my site on museum
quality equipment. ;-)
So, you assume everyone has big resolution?
No I assume if their equipment is poor then they have over-ridden with
some reasonable choices.
As an aside... I remember how we thought we were in heaven when we
upgraded so our display screens actually could display LOWER CASE! ;-)
The problem you donät seem to see is that there is about 30% of people
still using 800*600, and most likely on 15". (w3schools)
My web sites will be fine for them...
Thank you...
Rich
Stan Brown wrote: "Alan J. Flavell" wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
have you considered the possibility that the reader knows better
what's readable on their own display than the average web author could
ever do?
Ssssss! Infidel!
:-)
lol! :)
Stan Brown wrote: "Ståle Sæbøe" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
The thread as a whole was becoming difficult to follow and some
arguments were repeated across the board, being beaten to death with a
stick.
In the hope (apparently vain) of finding the formulation of words
to help you understand the issue.
Well, being the one who actually set the issue, you should ask me for an
explaination instead of trying to tell me what I meant :)
SeaPlusPlus <Se*********@hotmail.com> wrote: Times is a GREAT font for the printed word.
If you constrain printed words to newspaper column widths, you are
right. This is what the font was designed for.
Bye,
Martin
SeaPlusPlus <Se*********@hotmail.com> wrote: No they MUST be nothing of the sort. Indicating visited links is
just a gimmick and on a well constructed site are totally
unneccesary.
If I have a list of 20 article headlines, linked to the respective
articles, I consider it a very useful feature to be able to recognise
at a glimse the articles I have take a look at already.
If you have a convoluted web site that makes it a web and no
hierarchy[...]
Blaming to web to be web-like is, let's say, interesting.
Bye,
Martin
In article <wa********************@comcast.com>, SeaPlusPlus <Se*********@hotmail.com> wrote: Lauri Raittila wrote:
These are actually almost same test 3 times. All having very limited use
in WWW terms, as they don't really tell us much. All repeatable in lab,
but what about hoe/office?
[...]
This whole area, surely, must have been investigated more thoroughly. I
think it may have been done many times and the companies have kept their
findings for internal use only... ;-)
Hence my hope that perhaps someone out there had references to other such
studies they could share :) I agree that the ones I posted aren't perfect.
For example, their sample is hardly representative of the general population,
or even the current web population.
However, as that may be, they are about the only ones I have found online
which used test subjects to see what effects some different font selections
have.
But at least a number of posters in this thread have given their reasons for
some of there viewpoints, which is better then the folks who state what
fonts are good selections, and which are bad selections, but with no rational
as to why they believe that is so.
> SeaPlusPlus <Se*********@hotmail.com> wrote: Times is a GREAT font for the printed word.
Martin Bialasinski wrote:
If you constrain printed words to newspaper column widths, you are
right. This is what the font was designed for.
That's right, I mostly wanted to draw attention to the fact that on
disply screens it is not good at all... (that was NOT what it was
designed for). So, when people talk about what looks good on display and
mention TNR they are not making fair comparisons.
Thank you...
Rich
> SeaPlusPlus <Se*********@hotmail.com> wrote: No they MUST be nothing of the sort. Indicating visited links is
just a gimmick and on a well constructed site are totally
unneccesary.
Martin Bialasinski wrote:
If I have a list of 20 article headlines, linked to the respective
articles, I consider it a very useful feature to be able to recognise
at a glimse the articles I have take a look at already.
Okay, you are right, in this case it is helpful... but still not
neccesary. ;-)
If you have a convoluted web site that makes it a web and no
hierarchy[...]
Blaming to web to be web-like is, let's say, interesting.
Heh heh, nope I wasn't saying the web was 'web like' I was saying when
a web site design be 'web like' (cross-linked all over the place) that
you need to reconsider... This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: Anand |
last post by:
Hello,
I'm using the following style and am having a problem that Arial get's
rendered with fuzzy edges in the browser IE6:
..headline {
font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:16px;...
|
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...
|
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...
|
by: kchayka |
last post by:
<URL:http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/font-size>
In the "recommneded 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...
|
by: Randall Parker |
last post by:
Using IE 6.x (whatever is the latest) on Windows 2000.
For these two CSS definitions if I remove the 2 lines that have the
"mso-" font family definitions (mso-fareast-font-family, and...
|
by: Charles Arthur |
last post by:
How do i turn on java script on a villaon, callus and itel keypad mobile phone
|
by: aa123db |
last post by:
Variable and constants
Use var or let for variables and const fror constants.
Var foo ='bar';
Let foo ='bar';const baz ='bar';
Functions
function $name$ ($parameters$) {
}
...
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
If we have dozens or hundreds of excel to import into the database, if we use the excel import function provided by database editors such as navicat, it will be extremely tedious and time-consuming...
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
In our work, we often receive Excel tables with data in the same format. If we want to analyze these data, it can be difficult to analyze them because the data is spread across multiple Excel files...
|
by: emmanuelkatto |
last post by:
Hi All, I am Emmanuel katto from Uganda. I want to ask what challenges you've faced while migrating a website to cloud.
Please let me know.
Thanks!
Emmanuel
|
by: nemocccc |
last post by:
hello, everyone, I want to develop a software for my android phone for daily needs, any suggestions?
|
by: Sonnysonu |
last post by:
This is the data of csv file
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
1 2 3
2 3
2 3
3
the lengths should be different i have to store the data by column-wise with in the specific length.
suppose the i have to...
|
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,...
|
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...
| |
