Verdana font. Why not?

[Ståle Sæbøe]

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?

[me]

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:3a*************@individual.net...

me wrote:

I infer from your comment that you disagree but you didn't specify
exactly how. IMO if those designers are wrong then their sites
should be shunned but since that's clearly not the case we must
assume their visitors like their sites and hence don't mind fixed
fonts sizes and non-fluid layouts.
No, we can't assume that they don't mind it or like it.

Then you refuse to belive that many of the most popular sites use fixed font
sizes and non-fluid layouts, in that case we must agree to disagree.
We may just as well assume that if they really want to buy that
[product] they will *endure* it.
Or override the font size *if* they require it.
Or, we may assume that they had their grandson with the good eyes
place the order for them.
Or override the font size *if* they require it.
Or, we might assume that they just hit the Back button to their search
engine, and selected a site they *could* read.
Or they like the choices the designer made and they stay as they often do at
www.weather.com.
And, we might also assume that the site may do a significantly higher
amount of business if it used flexible font sizing ...

A significant number of people use www.weather.com , we therefore *know*
they like the site. Even so people are not helpless, many (most?) know how
to override font size if they require it.
Signed,
me

[John C. Ring, Jr.]

In article <Mc********************@comcast.com>, SeaPlusPlus <Se*********@hotmail.com> wrote:

>SeaPlusPlus wrote:Truth is h1 through h6 is just a syntax handle to
>>designate font and font size (among other properties) larger and
>>smaller.Lauri Raittila wrote:No, actually that is not true. That is syntax to indicate different level
of headings, and make have no relevance at all on font size.

SeaPlusPlus wrote:

(2.)
<sacrasm>
Oh right, <h1> through <h6> doesn't allow me to adjust font and font
size, how ignorant of me.
</sarcasm>
John C. Ring, Jr. wrote:

It doesn't :) The browser decides to render it in whatever size it deems
appropriate, taking into consideration any stylesheets it's been told about,
and/or any user settings.

Hi John...

First of all this was my sarcastic answer so I don't really want to
defend it, but where this discussion had started was when I listed my
***PRINTER*** stylesheet CSS for h1 through h6 and Lauri didn't like
that h6 was smaller font size selection than body text. I didn't realize
there were people here who would miquote my text to enable them to make
some obscure tangential point which is to make it appear that what I
said was in some way wrong.

This thread is quite long; things do get missed. But, looking back at one of
your previous posts not long ago in this thread, you did say

"Truth is h1 through h6 is just a syntax handle to
designate font and font size (among other properties) larger and
smaller. The keyword 'header' is not to be taken TOOOOOOO literaly
because the logical extension is something is missing how can we have
<hn> for 'HEADER' without <fn> FOOTER ! ! ! ;-)"

"So, I'll defend using h6 at a smaller than body size"

That is in fact the point of view I was disagreeing with you on. And it is
pretty normal that only a portion of a post is responded, especially for long
postings. Happens to me all the time.

I know you said the original post was a print CSS. I was and am only refering
to your statement that it can be ok to markup something as Hx that is not
really a heading, such as a footer.
If you are marking up something as Hx *only* because
you wish it to be visually presented in some manner, then you have used the
wrong markup and your readers may not see something that ends up making much
sense.

I DIDN'T!!! What are you getting on my case for?

Respectfully, I am not getting on your case. I am pointing out my opinion
that the Hx elements should not be viewed mainly as a method to change the
font size, but a way to indicate logical portions of the document, and that
the fact that a typical visual browser changes the font and font size should
be viewed as a secondary effect, and not as a fact to be counted on occurring.
It has nothing to do with you personally.

A speaking browser, for example, may choose to increase the volume for all Hx
elements. Or a text-screen browser may bold all of them. And perhaps a small
mobile browser would not make the text smaller, as the text is already quite
small.

The point is I cannot predict how future browsing devices may choose to
"render" the Hx elements. Or even all current rendering devices on the market
today. But it does seem reasonable for me to assume that, if they are well
designed, if I use Hx elements as they are meant to be used, it will "render"
such markup in a usable fashion.

For example, from your previous, recent posts, I imagine you'd never use some
Hx element instead of, say, BLOCKQUOTE, just because you liked the size of
it.

Notice I point out that I did NOT think you'd make such a poor decision.

Is this the worst thing you can do? Certainly not. It is quite possible you
are an excellent web author. As I said, I think the issue is that a web
author less skilled then yourself might decide that Hx elements *mean* "change
the font and size" and, unlike yourself, use them in utterly inappropriate
ways.

I am not trying to judge your web authoring skills, nor am I interested in
doing so - I merely disagreed with you on this specific matter. I apologize
if you took any offense; none was or is intended.

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

me wrote:

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote in
message news:3a*************@individual.net...

me wrote:

I infer from your comment that you disagree but you didn't
specify exactly how. IMO if those designers are wrong then
their sites should be shunned but since that's clearly not the
case we must assume their visitors like their sites and hence
don't mind fixed fonts sizes and non-fluid layouts.

No, we can't assume that they don't mind it or like it.

Then you refuse to belive that many of the most popular sites use
fixed font sizes and non-fluid layouts, in that case we must agree
to disagree.

Please point to where I said that popular sites don't use fixed font
(and fluid layouts). That would be a dumb thing for me to try to
claim, because millions of them do.

We may just as well assume that if they really want to buy that
[product] they will *endure* it.

Or override the font size *if* they require it.

Or, we may assume that they had their grandson with the good eyes
place the order for them.

Or override the font size *if* they require it.

<sigh> You just said that. Is this a macro?

Or, we might assume that they just hit the Back button to their
search engine, and selected a site they *could* read.

Or they like the choices the designer made and they stay as they
often do at www.weather.com.

And, we might also assume that the site may do a significantly
higher amount of business if it used flexible font sizing ...

A significant number of people use www.weather.com , we therefore
*know* they like the site. Even so people are not helpless, many
(most?) know how to override font size if they require it.

Your reply and your arguments are ... grasping at straws. You have
nothing left. :-)

The majority of Web users do not know how to resize fonts. This has
been discussed many times in these groups.

And weather.com is popular because it is on all their cable tv
systems. Not because it has fixed fonts. (I don't use it.)

I notice you tactfully ignored my last point about significantly more
business.. <g>

One last point before I let you have your final word: I have looked
over the shoulder of many web users, and heard them say -
User: "Why are the letters so small?"
Me: "Why don't you make them bigger?"
User: "Can I do that?"
Me: "Not with this browser ..." <g>

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

[me]

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:3a*************@individual.net...

me wrote:

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote in
message news:3a*************@individual.net...

me wrote:

I infer from your comment that you disagree but you didn't
specify exactly how. IMO if those designers are wrong then
their sites should be shunned but since that's clearly not the
case we must assume their visitors like their sites and hence
don't mind fixed fonts sizes and non-fluid layouts.

No, we can't assume that they don't mind it or like it.

Then you refuse to belive that many of the most popular sites use
fixed font sizes and non-fluid layouts, in that case we must agree
to disagree.

Please point to where I said that popular sites don't use fixed font
(and fluid layouts). That would be a dumb thing for me to try to
claim, because millions of them do.

Thank you. We are in agreement that millions of successful sites that enjoy
great popularity use fixed font sizes and non-fluid layouts.
Signed,
me

[Jan Roland Eriksson]

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:37:15 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:

"Steve Pugh" <st***@pugh.net> wrote in message
news:nh********************************@4ax.com.. .

C A Upsdell <""cupsdellXXX\"@-@[e-mail]"> wrote:

>me wrote: >> Still a few people using IE??? >> According to the w3c 68% of their visitors use IE:
>> http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp >> IMO IE users are probally the least likely to visit
>> the w3c site (I hardly ever go there)

So we have noticed...
Along with the ability to tell one site from another...
The URL given is for the w3schools site which has nothing
at all to do with the W3C.

Fair enough ... So do you think their stats are wrong?

Probaly not since the w3schools site is IE centric in the first place
and has always been like that since its first day of appearance on the
www. Bad seeks bad usually.

_Real_ stats differs of course.

--
Rex

[kchayka]

me wrote:

I'm not copying anyone, but if fixed font sizes and non-fluid layouts are so
wrong then those sites wouldn't be popular.

Your logic is wrong. The sites are popular *in spite of* fixed font
sizes and non-fluid layouts, not because of them. They apparently have
content that's worth the struggle to view.

weather.com falls into that group, methinks. But since their latest bit
of redesign, I'm actively looking for another weather source.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

[Lauri Raittila]

in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, John C. Ring, Jr. wrote:

<sacrasm>
Oh right, <h1> through <h6> doesn't allow me to adjust font and font
size, how ignorant of me.
</sarcasm>

Of course they do. When you are user using website. When you are author,
they don't.
First of all this was my sarcastic answer so I don't really want to
defend it, but where this discussion had started was when I listed my
***PRINTER*** stylesheet CSS for h1 through h6 and Lauri didn't like
that h6 was smaller font size selection than body text.
No, I did not say anything about that, it was someone else. I commented
your reply:
| Having the headings h5 and h6 (and sometimes h4) smaller than the body
| text has been the norm since long before you ever coded any HTML.

Where you tried to not use context of your print style, and thus didn't
need answer the orginal question, which was if you had ever seen headings
with smaller print in professional print jobs.

I didn't realize

there were people here who would miquote my text to enable them to make
some obscure tangential point which is to make it appear that what I
said was in some way wrong.

It makes no difference, weather it was print stylesheet or not. It
doesn't make difference if it was your use print stylesheet or not.
I DIDN'T!!! What are you getting on my case for?

Respectfully, I am not getting on your case. I am pointing out my opinion
that the Hx elements should not be viewed mainly as a method to change the

He is trolling, or perhaps just takes everything personally, and can't be
wrong.

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.

[SeaPlusPlus]

> John C. Ring, Jr. wrote:

Respectfully, I am not getting on your case. I am pointing out my opinion
that the Hx elements should not be viewed mainly as a method to change the

Point taken, thanks...

Lauri Raittila wrote:
He is trolling, or perhaps just takes everything personally, and can't be
wrong.

No, Lauri, I'm not trolling... I'm in all honesty having trouble with
your condescending manner. But, maybe it's just me... I don't know.

Been a real waste of time on this...

Thank you...

Rich

[me]

"kchayka" <us****@c-net.us> wrote in message
news:3a*************@individual.net...

me wrote:

I'm not copying anyone, but if fixed font sizes and non-fluid layouts are so wrong then those sites wouldn't be popular.

Your logic is wrong. The sites are popular *in spite of* fixed font
sizes and non-fluid layouts, not because of them. They apparently have
content that's worth the struggle to view.

I'll turn it around then: If fluid design and proportional fonts were
superior then that's what we would see at most popular sites. Apparently
designers of those sites don't think it is superior.
Signed,
me

[me]

"Jan Roland Eriksson" <jr****@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:l0********************************@4ax.com...

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:37:15 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:

"Steve Pugh" <st***@pugh.net> wrote in message
news:nh********************************@4ax.com.. .

C A Upsdell <""cupsdellXXX\"@-@[e-mail]"> wrote:me wrote:> Still a few people using IE???> According to the w3c 68% of their visitors use IE:
>> http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp> IMO IE users are probally the least likely to visit
>> the w3c site (I hardly ever go there)
So we have noticed...
Along with the ability to tell one site from another...
The URL given is for the w3schools site which has nothing
at all to do with the W3C.

Fair enough ... So do you think their stats are wrong?

Probaly not since the w3schools site is IE centric in the first place
and has always been like that since its first day of appearance on the
www.

Cite proof please.
Bad seeks bad usually.
_Real_ stats differs of course.

Cite proof please.
Signed,
me

[Stan Brown]

"kchayka" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:

weather.com falls into that group, methinks. But since their latest bit
of redesign, I'm actively looking for another weather source.

wunderground.com

--

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/

[Tim]

SeaPlusPlus <Se*********@hotmail.com> posted:

Truth is h1 through h6 is just a syntax handle to designate font and
font size (among other properties) larger and smaller.

The *truth* is that h tags are *not* font tags, they're *heading*
elements--they're "headings" for some adjacent content. As such, it's
complete nonsense for them to be smaller, by default (or otherwise) than
the adjacent text. The bad examples demonstrated by various browsers are
not any justifiable support for any notion that it's a good idea for
headings to be smaller than body text.

--
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary). But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

me wrote:

Thank you. We are in agreement that millions of successful sites
that enjoy great popularity use fixed font sizes and non-fluid
layouts.

Yep, I knew you'd try and figure out a way to turn that around...

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

[me]

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:3a*************@individual.net...

me wrote:

Thank you. We are in agreement that millions of successful sites
that enjoy great popularity use fixed font sizes and non-fluid
layouts.

Yep, I knew you'd try and figure out a way to turn that around...

I concluded that we agreed on this point, am I wrong? My original point was
only an acknowledgement of the wide spread use of those methods of site
design.
Signed,
me

[kaeli]

In article <11************@corp.supernews.com>, anonymous@_.com enlightened
us with...

When all the popular kids did drugs (got drunk, got laid, whatever) in
school, did you do it, too?
There are a lot of valid reasons to do things.
"Because other people do it" isn't one of them.

I infer from your comment that you disagree but you didn't specify exactly
how.

I don't necessarily disagree with your statement that a lot of sites do
certain things. I disagree only with the notion that just because they do
things, you should do them or it is acceptable to do them. Whatever that
"them" might be.

If all the "popular" sites started using Flash navigation, that wouldn't make
it okay in general for any one site to use Flash navigation. You have to
individually look at what a site is meant to do, who it is geared for, and so
on. Same goes for javascript. A lot of sites use javascript, but if they use
it to do base functionality (that is, if you disable script, their site
breaks), there are serious cons to that. Whether those cons are enough to
change the design to not rely on script is highly application dependent. That
goes for anything, be it script, flash, applets, or hard-coded fonts. If you
get a lot of visually impaired visitors, they'll get pretty pissed about
hard-coded fonts. If you don't, I bet no one will even notice.

My 2 cents.
I'm not as purist as most people in this NG, but I don't see a reason to use
something simply because it *can* be used. And I am highly into doing the
most you can do to ensure your stuff doesn't kill people's browsers, even if
the browsers are old. May not WORK in them, but it shouldn't crash them,
either. If I can make a site do all I want it to do (or, more importantly,
all my client wants it to do) AND validate AND work in the most browsers, I
do that.

--
--
~kaeli~
Support your local medical examiner: die strangely!
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

me wrote:

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote in
message news:3a*************@individual.net...

me wrote:

Thank you. We are in agreement that millions of successful
sites that enjoy great popularity use fixed font sizes and
non-fluid layouts.

Yep, I knew you'd try and figure out a way to turn that around...

I concluded that we agreed on this point, am I wrong? My original
point was only an acknowledgement of the wide spread use of those
methods of site design.

The only thing we agree upon is that millions of sites use fixed font
sizes (and non-fluid layouts, which is another subject). We do not
agree that this is the reason for their popularity.

Popularity can only be gained by the content itself, by the reputation
of the company, and by the lack of such content and reputation elsewhere.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

[kaeli]

In article <11*************@corp.supernews.com>, anonymous@_.com enlightened
us with...

We may just as well assume that if they really want to buy that
[product] they will *endure* it.

Or override the font size *if* they require it.

They can't (at least in MSIE, still the most used browser out there).
That's the problem with fixed font sizes. If they could just change it, it
wouldn't be an issue.

All they can do is use their own style sheet altogether, which would totally
break those types of layouts to the point of unusability.

--
--
~kaeli~
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable
from magic.
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, kaeli wrote:

Or override the font size *if* they require it.

They can't (at least in MSIE, still the most used browser out there).

Overriding fixed font sizing is in the accessibility menu. There are
also 3rd-party add-ons to make it easier (sorry, don't have a URL
handy, 'cause I rarely use IE, other than for applying security fixes
to Windoze).

[me]

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:3a*************@individual.net...

me wrote:

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote in
message news:3a*************@individual.net...

me wrote:

Thank you. We are in agreement that millions of successful
sites that enjoy great popularity use fixed font sizes and
non-fluid layouts.

Yep, I knew you'd try and figure out a way to turn that around...
I concluded that we agreed on this point, am I wrong? My original
point was only an acknowledgement of the wide spread use of those
methods of site design.

The only thing we agree upon is that millions of sites use fixed font
sizes (and non-fluid layouts, which is another subject). We do not
agree that this is the reason for their popularity.

I never said that was the *reason* for their popularity. If fluid design and
propotional fonts are superior then that would be the preominate design
method at popular sites (or all sites), but it's not is it?
Popularity can only be gained by the content itself, by the reputation
of the company, and by the lack of such content and reputation elsewhere.

Agreed. If visitors feel sufficiently motivated they may go elsewhere. IMO
if there were sufficient evidence that the use of fixed font sizes and
non-fluid site design were hurting their sites then designers of popular
sites may well abandon those methods. If that happens I will too.
Signed,
me

[me]

"kaeli" <ti******@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MP************************@nntp.lucent.com...

In article <11*************@corp.supernews.com>, anonymous@_.com enlightened us with...

We may just as well assume that if they really want to buy that
[product] they will *endure* it.
Or override the font size *if* they require it.

They can't (at least in MSIE, still the most used browser out there).
That's the problem with fixed font sizes. If they could just change it, it
wouldn't be an issue.

I can do it in IE: Tools, Options, Accesibility, Ignore font sizes.
All they can do is use their own style sheet altogether, which would totally break those types of layouts to the point of unusability.

Please give example URL of a popular site broken to the point of being
unusable by overriding font size.
Signed,
me

[kaeli]

In article <Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph.gla. ac.uk>,
fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk enlightened us with...

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, kaeli wrote:

Or override the font size *if* they require it.

They can't (at least in MSIE, still the most used browser out there).

Overriding fixed font sizing is in the accessibility menu.

But a simple view -> text size -> larger doesn't work unless you set the
browser to ignore font sizes in ALL pages (I just tested this with MSIE 6).
Which, IMNSHO, is way less than desirable. I should not have to change my
browser options that apply to all sites because one site has an inconsiderate
designer. Especially since I like to have several windows open at once.

--
--
~kaeli~
If that phone was up your a$$, maybe you could drive a
little better!
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

[me]

"kaeli" <ti******@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MP************************@nntp.lucent.com...

In article <11************@corp.supernews.com>, anonymous@_.com enlightened us with...

When all the popular kids did drugs (got drunk, got laid, whatever) in
school, did you do it, too?
There are a lot of valid reasons to do things.
"Because other people do it" isn't one of them.
I infer from your comment that you disagree but you didn't specify exactly how.

I don't necessarily disagree with your statement that a lot of sites do
certain things. I disagree only with the notion that just because they do
things, you should do them or it is acceptable to do them. Whatever that
"them" might be.

If all the "popular" sites started using Flash navigation, that wouldn't

make it okay in general for any one site to use Flash navigation. You have to
individually look at what a site is meant to do, who it is geared for, and so on. Same goes for javascript. A lot of sites use javascript, but if they use it to do base functionality (that is, if you disable script, their site
breaks), there are serious cons to that. Whether those cons are enough to
change the design to not rely on script is highly application dependent. That goes for anything, be it script, flash, applets, or hard-coded fonts. If you get a lot of visually impaired visitors, they'll get pretty pissed about
hard-coded fonts. If you don't, I bet no one will even notice.

My 2 cents.
I'm not as purist as most people in this NG, but I don't see a reason to use something simply because it *can* be used. And I am highly into doing the
most you can do to ensure your stuff doesn't kill people's browsers, even if the browsers are old. May not WORK in them, but it shouldn't crash them,
either. If I can make a site do all I want it to do (or, more importantly,
all my client wants it to do) AND validate AND work in the most browsers, I do that.

My point is this: If fluid design and propotional fonts are superior then
that would be the preominate design method at popular sites (or all sites?),
but it's not is it? IMO if there were sufficient evidence that the use of
fixed font sizes and non-fluid site design were hurting their sites then
designers of popular sites may well abandon those methods. If that happens I
will too.

Please don't ridicule me again by saying: "When all the popular kids did
drugs (got drunk, got laid, whatever) in school, did you do it, too? There
are a lot of valid reasons to do things. "Because other people do it" isn't
one of them."
Signed,
me

[me]

"kaeli" <ti******@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MP************************@nntp.lucent.com...

In article <Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph.gla. ac.uk>,
fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk enlightened us with...

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, kaeli wrote:

> Or override the font size *if* they require it.

They can't (at least in MSIE, still the most used browser out there).
Overriding fixed font sizing is in the accessibility menu.

But a simple view -> text size -> larger doesn't work unless you set the
browser to ignore font sizes in ALL pages (I just tested this with MSIE

6). Which, IMNSHO, is way less than desirable. I should not have to change my
browser options that apply to all sites because one site has an inconsiderate designer. Especially since I like to have several windows open at once.

Each to his own, it's not a problem for me.
Signed,
me

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, kaeli wrote:

fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk enlightened us with...

Overriding fixed font sizing is in the accessibility menu.
But a simple view -> text size -> larger doesn't work unless you set the
browser to ignore font sizes in ALL pages

Correct. You'd have to turn it on and off.
Which, IMNSHO, is way less than desirable.

No arguments there.

That's where third-party addons help.

Google suggests
http://simon.incutio.com/archive/200...izeBookmarklet

[kaeli]

In article <11*************@corp.supernews.com>, anonymous@_.com enlightened
us with...

Or override the font size *if* they require it.
They can't (at least in MSIE, still the most used browser out there).
That's the problem with fixed font sizes. If they could just change it, it
wouldn't be an issue.

I can do it in IE: Tools, Options, Accesibility, Ignore font sizes.

That overrides ALL fonts on ALL pages while set.
Rather irritating to have to change that for one site, especially if you
have multiple windows spawning and such.
I checked - it carries over into a new window.

All they can do is use their own style sheet altogether, which would

totally

break those types of layouts to the point of unusability.

Please give example URL of a popular site broken to the point of being
unusable by overriding font size.

In IE, I set it to ignore fonts and set the font at largest.

If this had form fields in it, they'd be unusable.
http://glish.com/css/7.asp

The side form is illegible.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/

This one is totally FUBAR for the navigation.
http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/

Amazon's top nav bar is completely illegible.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/su...615696-5763219

Google news cuts off the left bar.
http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&gl=us
Google Group threads are completely and utterly illegible. Text overwrites
itself. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...ce01ed7f20a36e

Want more?
I could find more.

--
--
~kaeli~
Found God? If nobody claims Him in 30 days, He's yours to
keep.
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

[kaeli]

In article <11*************@corp.supernews.com>, anonymous@_.com enlightened
us with...

My point is this: If fluid design and propotional fonts are superior then
that would be the preominate design method at popular sites (or all sites?),
but it's not is it?
That's not really what you said in the beginning, now is it? You said it
later to clarify what you meant. And I don't disagree with you overmuch when
you put it this way.
The part I took exception to was this, and only this. The OP I replied to,
which said:

"It seems to me that many of
the most popular sites use fixed font sizes, usually in pixels, whatever
font they please and non-fluid layouts. With few exceptions the only people
I see not doing this are militant IE haters and fundamentalist designers
whose posts I read in NG's. As proof I offer www.weather.com. I don't say
this is a great site but everybody needs to know what the weather will be
like sometime."

Summarized: 'They do it, so why shouldn't I?'

And that's never a good justification. Ever. The "because other people do
it" defense is not worthy of a mature adult. So I'm glad you clarified your
thoughts.

If you want to say that, for example, 5% of your visitors would have problems
and 95% would not, and you're not wasting time on 5% of people, that's
another thing entirely. And quite valid, especially if you're talking paying
people money to putz with a design that is only broken for 1-5% of users.

Please don't ridicule me again by saying: "When all the popular kids did
drugs (got drunk, got laid, whatever) in school, did you do it, too? There
are a lot of valid reasons to do things. "Because other people do it" isn't
one of them."

Don't post ridiculous things and you won't get ridiculed. Easy, isn't it?
The notion that just because other people do things makes those things
acceptable (without providing any reasoning whatsoever) IS ridiculous. There
is a difference between agreeing on a business model's effectiveness and
simply copying one because it's "popular".

--
--
~kaeli~
Bakers trade bread recipes on a knead-to-know basis.
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

[me]

"kaeli" <ti******@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MP************************@nntp.lucent.com...

In article <11*************@corp.supernews.com>, anonymous@_.com enlightened us with...

>
> Or override the font size *if* they require it.

They can't (at least in MSIE, still the most used browser out there).
That's the problem with fixed font sizes. If they could just change it, it wouldn't be an issue.
I can do it in IE: Tools, Options, Accesibility, Ignore font sizes.

That overrides ALL fonts on ALL pages while set.
Rather irritating to have to change that for one site, especially if you
have multiple windows spawning and such.
I checked - it carries over into a new window.

All they can do is use their own style sheet altogether, which would

totally

break those types of layouts to the point of unusability.

Please give example URL of a popular site broken to the point of being
unusable by overriding font size.

In IE, I set it to ignore fonts and set the font at largest.

It is your option to do so.
If this had form fields in it, they'd be unusable.
http://glish.com/css/7.asp
If pigs had wings they could fly.
The side form is illegible.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/
Looks OK to me with font sizes ignored via accessibility.
This one is totally FUBAR for the navigation.
http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/
By FUBAR I suppose you mean it isn't as pretty, but it still works doesn't
it? Interesting a site as popular as ZDNet uses fixed font sizes, they must
not be too worried about it hurting their popularity.
Amazon's top nav bar is completely illegible.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/su...615696-5763219
Not if you adjust the font size to smaller of smallest.
Google news cuts off the left bar.
http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&gl=us
Not if you adjust the font size to smaller of smallest.
Google Group threads are completely and utterly illegible. Text overwrites
itself.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...ce01ed7f20a36e

Not if you adjust the font size to smaller of smallest.
Want more?
I could find more.

The sites still work for me so I cannot agree with your assertion that they
are unusable. What you have proven is that some of the most popular sites on
the web use fixed font sizes.
Signed,
me

[kaeli]

In article <11*************@corp.supernews.com>, anonymous@_.com enlightened
us with...

"kaeli" <ti******@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MP************************@nntp.lucent.com...

In article <Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph.gla. ac.uk>,
fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk enlightened us with...

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, kaeli wrote:

> > Or override the font size *if* they require it.
>
> They can't (at least in MSIE, still the most used browser out there).

Overriding fixed font sizing is in the accessibility menu.

But a simple view -> text size -> larger doesn't work unless you set the
browser to ignore font sizes in ALL pages (I just tested this with MSIE

6).

Which, IMNSHO, is way less than desirable. I should not have to change my
browser options that apply to all sites because one site has an

inconsiderate

designer. Especially since I like to have several windows open at once.

Each to his own, it's not a problem for me.

It's not a problem for me that my condo doesn't have elevators or ramps,
either. Oh, wait, I'm not in a wheelchair and I can walk up stairs! Of course
it doesn't bother me. Silly me. What WAS I thinking?

--
--
~kaeli~
Is it true that cannibals don't eat clowns because they
taste funny?
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

[C A Upsdell]

me wrote:

My point is this: If fluid design and propotional fonts are superior then
that would be the predominate design method at popular sites (or all sites?),
but it's not is it? IMO if there were sufficient evidence that the use of
fixed font sizes and non-fluid site design were hurting their sites then
designers of popular sites may well abandon those methods. If that happens I
will too.

My gut feeling is that the failure to use fluid design ultimately comes
from experience with print media, where total control over presentation
is not only possible, but unavoidable. People with experience in print
media -- and most people have such experience, if only with word
processors -- have yet to cast aside some things which experience has
taught them, and learn the possibilities and contraints of the new
medium that is the web.

[me]

"kaeli" <ti******@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MP************************@nntp.lucent.com...

In article <11*************@corp.supernews.com>, anonymous@_.com enlightened us with...

My point is this: If fluid design and propotional fonts are superior then that would be the preominate design method at popular sites (or all sites?), but it's not is it?
That's not really what you said in the beginning, now is it? You said it
later to clarify what you meant. And I don't disagree with you overmuch

when you put it this way.
The part I took exception to was this, and only this. The OP I replied to,
which said:

"It seems to me that many of
the most popular sites use fixed font sizes, usually in pixels, whatever
font they please and non-fluid layouts. With few exceptions the only people I see not doing this are militant IE haters and fundamentalist designers
whose posts I read in NG's. As proof I offer www.weather.com. I don't say
this is a great site but everybody needs to know what the weather will be
like sometime."

Summarized: 'They do it, so why shouldn't I?'
And that's never a good justification. Ever.
Nothing of the sort but you've convinced yourself anyway.
The "because other people do
it" defense is not worthy of a mature adult.
I defended nothing, I did acknowledge how often that design method is used
and I drew the conclusion that the designers who use those methods must not
feel that it's a problem.
As for your implication that my expression of my opinion was not worthy of a
"mature adult" I can say that your approval is of no consequence.
So I'm glad you clarified your
thoughts.
Whatever.
If you want to say that, for example, 5% of your visitors would have problems and 95% would not, and you're not wasting time on 5% of people, that's
another thing entirely. And quite valid, especially if you're talking paying people money to putz with a design that is only broken for 1-5% of users.
We can agree on that if nothing else.

Please don't ridicule me again by saying: "When all the popular kids did
drugs (got drunk, got laid, whatever) in school, did you do it, too? There are a lot of valid reasons to do things. "Because other people do it" isn't one of them."

Don't post ridiculous things and you won't get ridiculed. Easy, isn't it?

Mature adults don't need to resort to ridicule when expressing themselves. I
treated you with courtesy, it's unfortunate that you are unwilling to do the
same for me.
The notion that just because other people do things makes those things
acceptable (without providing any reasoning whatsoever) IS ridiculous.
I never said that, you assumed I did. You failed to prove that I have said
anything ridiculous.
There
is a difference between agreeing on a business model's effectiveness and
simply copying one because it's "popular".

Where did I say copy?
Signed,
me

[me]

"kaeli" <ti******@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MP************************@nntp.lucent.com...

In article <11*************@corp.supernews.com>, anonymous@_.com enlightened us with...

"kaeli" <ti******@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MP************************@nntp.lucent.com...

In article <Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph.gla. ac.uk>,
fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk enlightened us with...
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, kaeli wrote:
>
> > > Or override the font size *if* they require it.
> >
> > They can't (at least in MSIE, still the most used browser out there). >
> Overriding fixed font sizing is in the accessibility menu.

But a simple view -> text size -> larger doesn't work unless you set the browser to ignore font sizes in ALL pages (I just tested this with MSIE

6).

Which, IMNSHO, is way less than desirable. I should not have to change

my browser options that apply to all sites because one site has an inconsiderate

designer. Especially since I like to have several windows open at

once.
Each to his own, it's not a problem for me.

It's not a problem for me that my condo doesn't have elevators or ramps,
either. Oh, wait, I'm not in a wheelchair and I can walk up stairs! Of

course it doesn't bother me. Silly me. What WAS I thinking?

You indicated a preference and so did I. My point is that you can change the
font size.
Signed,
me

[me]

"C A Upsdell" <""cupsdellXXX\"@-@[e-mail]"> wrote in message
news:ia********************@rogers.com...

me wrote:

My point is this: If fluid design and propotional fonts are superior then that would be the predominate design method at popular sites (or all sites?), but it's not is it? IMO if there were sufficient evidence that the use of fixed font sizes and non-fluid site design were hurting their sites then
designers of popular sites may well abandon those methods. If that happens I will too.
My gut feeling is that the failure

Choice?
to use fluid design ultimately comes
from experience with print media, where total control over presentation
is not only possible, but unavoidable. People with experience in print
media -- and most people have such experience, if only with word
processors -- have yet to cast aside some things which experience has
taught them, and learn the possibilities and contraints of the new
medium that is the web.

My experience is that fluid design with CSS is very limiting and there are
some things that can't be accomplished with it.
Signed,
me

[kchayka]

Stan Brown wrote:

"kchayka" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:

weather.com falls into that group, methinks. But since their latest bit
of redesign, I'm actively looking for another weather source.

wunderground.com

thanks :)

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

[C A Upsdell]

me wrote:

My gut feeling is that the failure to use fluid design ultimately comes
from experience with print media, where total control over presentation
is not only possible, but unavoidable. People with experience in print
media -- and most people have such experience, if only with word
processors -- have yet to cast aside some things which experience has
taught them, and learn the possibilities and contraints of the new
medium that is the web.

My experience is that fluid design with CSS is very limiting and there are
some things that can't be accomplished with it.

Fluid design certainly results in one limitation: it becomes impossible
to delude yourself into thinking that you can make pixel-perfect sites.
But failing to use fluid design imposes limitations on users. And it
is the users you should be designing for, not yourself.

[kchayka]

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

I have looked
over the shoulder of many web users, and heard them say -
User: "Why are the letters so small?"
Me: "Why don't you make them bigger?"
User: "Can I do that?"
Me: "Not with this browser ..." <g>

And I believe that, as higher screen resolutions become more the norm,
you'll hear a lot more "why are the letters so small?"

I recently had an experience with a middle-aged woman who was using a
higher resolution set up by her husband. After I taught her how to
increase her browser's default text size, she said she was glad she
didn't have to squint to read her own web pages any more. :)

She was disappointed, however, when most other sites she visited still
had too-small text. Eventually, the big commercial sites may come
around, but it will probably be a long wait.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

[me]

"C A Upsdell" <""cupsdellXXX\"@-@[e-mail]"> wrote in message
news:gd********************@rogers.com...

me wrote:

My gut feeling is that the failure to use fluid design ultimately comes
from experience with print media, where total control over presentation
is not only possible, but unavoidable. People with experience in print
media -- and most people have such experience, if only with word
processors -- have yet to cast aside some things which experience has
taught them, and learn the possibilities and contraints of the new
medium that is the web.
My experience is that fluid design with CSS is very limiting and there are some things that can't be accomplished with it.

Fluid design certainly results in one limitation: it becomes impossible
to delude yourself into thinking that you can make pixel-perfect sites.

My experience is that my clients expect (demand) pixel perfect, in IE on
Windows.
But failing to use fluid design imposes limitations on users. And it
is the users you should be designing for, not yourself.

See above.
Signed,
me

[kchayka]

me wrote:

"kaeli" <ti******@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MP************************@nntp.lucent.com...

Google news cuts off the left bar.
http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&gl=us

Not if you adjust the font size to smaller of smallest.

You are really proving yourself to be a troll now.

Yeah, designs that break at enlarged text sizes often don't break with
small fonts. But why on earth would anyone make their browser text
smaller if they can't read it at that size? Quit being stupid.

You apparently think that maintaining the design look is more important
than being able to read the content. IMO, google's new design team is of
the same opinion. I don't think very highly of them, either. IMNSHO, the
new google groups is definitely better off with both JavaScript and
stylesheets disabled. It's the *only* site I ever go to where I *need* a
user stylesheet. That's pretty bad.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

[kaeli]

In article <11*************@corp.supernews.com>, anonymous@_.com enlightened
us with...

In IE, I set it to ignore fonts and set the font at largest.
It is your option to do so.

No one's going to bother to make font sizes smaller. They change them to
larger because they can't read the small fonts. Stop being obtuse.
You disputed the point that sites can break when font sizes are changed. You
did NOT specify what size font.
I changed the font.
The sites broke.

The side form is illegible.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/
Looks OK to me with font sizes ignored via accessibility.

Sure. Until you set them to larger like someone with a vision problem would.

This one is totally FUBAR for the navigation.
http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/
By FUBAR I suppose you mean it isn't as pretty, but it still works doesn't
it?

No, by FUBAR I mean it's not usable.

Not if you adjust the font size to smaller of smallest.
And who would do that if they were visually impaired, which was the entire
point of using relative fonts?

The sites still work for me
You're not increasing the font sizes, which was the entire point of using
relative fonts -- to allow the visually impaired to see the text. Hence
"accessibility".
Whether a site works for YOU isn't the point at all. You're either being
obtuse, egocentric, or just plain argumentative.
What you have proven is that some of the most popular sites on
the web use fixed font sizes.

I didn't say they didn't.
I said when they do, and people use large fonts, they break. Which is true.

--
--
~kaeli~
Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than
standing in a garage makes you a car.
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

[C A Upsdell]

me wrote:

Fluid design certainly results in one limitation: it becomes impossible
to delude yourself into thinking that you can make pixel-perfect sites.

My experience is that my clients expect (demand) pixel perfect, in IE on
Windows.

One of your jobs is teaching your client that this is unnecessary,
impossible, and undesireable. Point out to them that they will lose
potential visitors if they insist on pixel-perfect design.

(Of course some clients are unteachable. So you make your point, and
record it on paper or in an email so that if they come back to you later
you can say "I told you so", and justify the cost of fixing their mistake.)

[me]

"kchayka" <us****@c-net.us> wrote in message
news:3a*************@individual.net...

me wrote:

"kaeli" <ti******@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MP************************@nntp.lucent.com...

Google news cuts off the left bar.
http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&gl=us
Not if you adjust the font size to smaller of smallest.

You are really proving yourself to be a troll now.

Yawn.
Yeah, designs that break at enlarged text sizes often don't break with
small fonts. But why on earth would anyone make their browser text
smaller if they can't read it at that size? Quit being stupid.
Please get your facts straight. I said the site is still usable in IE on Win
with font sizes overridden in acessibility and the font size set to smaller
or below by the user. I didn't say anything about who could or could not
read it.
You apparently think that maintaining the design look is more important
than being able to read the content.
I and my clients can read the content of the sites I build. I should point
out that I build sites to fit a resolution of 800x600. IMO setting a 17'
(22"?) monitor to any resolution larger than 800x600 is bound to cause
readibility problems. YMMV
IMO, google's new design team is of
the same opinion. I don't think very highly of them, either. IMNSHO, the
new google groups is definitely better off with both JavaScript and
stylesheets disabled. It's the *only* site I ever go to where I *need* a
user stylesheet. That's pretty bad.

Your personal preference is noted, too bad Google doesn't agree.
Signed,
me

[me]

"kaeli" <ti******@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MP************************@nntp.lucent.com...

In article <11*************@corp.supernews.com>, anonymous@_.com enlightened us with...

In IE, I set it to ignore fonts and set the font at largest.
It is your option to do so.

No one's going to bother to make font sizes smaller. They change them to
larger because they can't read the small fonts. Stop being obtuse.

??? You set the conditions not me.
You disputed the point that sites can break when font sizes are changed. You did NOT specify what size font.
Why should I? You gave links to sites and said they were unusable with fonts
overidden in acssibility with IE. I visited them under the conditions you
set and then adjusted them so I could use them, end of story. Maybe you
should distinguish between broken and ugly, they were ugly like that I grant
you. To be clear, I have a 17' monitor set at 800x600.
I changed the font.
The sites broke.

In your browser on your monitor at your resolution etc etc etc. Are you done
now?
Signed,
me

[me]

"C A Upsdell" <""cupsdellXXX\"@-@[e-mail]"> wrote in message
news:0L********************@rogers.com...

me wrote:

Fluid design certainly results in one limitation: it becomes impossible
to delude yourself into thinking that you can make pixel-perfect sites.
My experience is that my clients expect (demand) pixel perfect, in IE on
Windows.

One of your jobs is teaching your client that this is unnecessary,
impossible, and undesireable.

What part of "pixel perfect in IE on Windows" did you not understand?
Point out to them that they will lose
potential visitors if they insist on pixel-perfect design.
They don't see it that way and if I don't give them what they want you can
be sure someone else will.
(Of course some clients are unteachable. So you make your point, and
record it on paper or in an email so that if they come back to you later
you can say "I told you so", and justify the cost of fixing their

mistake.)

The customer is always right.
Signed,
me

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

me wrote:

Please get your facts straight. I said the site is still usable in
IE on Win with font sizes overridden in acessibility and the font
size set to smaller or below by the user. I didn't say anything
about who could or could not read it.
We know why you didn't say anything about who could/could not read it.
It's because you don't care about the visitor.
I and my clients can read the content of the sites I build.
Ah. You and your clients. But not my mother. She's 85 now, and has
vision problems. Obviously, she is not on your accepted visitor list.
I should point out that I build sites to fit a resolution of
800x600. IMO setting a 17' (22"?) monitor to any resolution larger
than 800x600 is bound to cause readibility problems. YMMV

<ROF,L> I don't know a single person with a 20+" monitor set at
800x600! And a large majority of 17's are at 1024x768.

Please tell us the size in inches and the resolution of your
development machine. Please include some details about your vision.
This may be the answer as to why you think tiny fonts are ok.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

[C A Upsdell]

me wrote:

I and my clients can read the content of the sites I build. I should point
out that I build sites to fit a resolution of 800x600. IMO setting a 17'
(22"?) monitor to any resolution larger than 800x600 is bound to cause
readibility problems. YMMV

First, 800px can create readability problems with small, high resolution
monitors.

Second, 800px can create readability problems for those who need larger
fonts.

If you really want good readability, you should IMO make the font size a
function of the user's preference, and also set the line width to a
(max)value in ems, not pixels. This will ensure not only that fonts
shrink or grow as needed, but also that line lengths shrink or grow as
needed. But note that there is a lot of variability in what is
considered a good line length: it can be 30-70 ems or so, so you have
quite a bit of leeway.

[Ståle Sæbøe]

C A Upsdell > wrote:

me wrote:

Fluid design certainly results in one limitation: it becomes impossible
to delude yourself into thinking that you can make pixel-perfect sites.

My experience is that my clients expect (demand) pixel perfect, in IE on
Windows.

One of your jobs is teaching your client that this is unnecessary,
impossible, and undesireable. Point out to them that they will lose
potential visitors if they insist on pixel-perfect design.

(Of course some clients are unteachable. So you make your point, and
record it on paper or in an email so that if they come back to you later
you can say "I told you so", and justify the cost of fixing their mistake.)

I agree. A "I told you so" clause can be very handy to have in writing,
maybe even add a point about it in the SLA.

[Ståle Sæbøe]

me wrote:

The customer is always right.
Signed,
me

Point that out to your clients ;)

[C A Upsdell]

me wrote:

My experience is that my clients expect (demand) pixel perfect, in IE on
Windows.

One of your jobs is teaching your client that this is unnecessary,
impossible, and undesireable.

What part of "pixel perfect in IE on Windows" did you not understand?

First, who said anything about IE? There are people who use other
browsers which can easily override your font sizes. And those who need
larger fonts would do so.

Second, as has been pointed out to you, people can change the font size
in IE, albeit not as easily as one would like.

Third, IE5 has a different box model than IE6 in standards mode. If you
don't use standards mode, you seriously risk problems with other
browsers. But if you use standards mode, you've lost pixel perfection
for IE5 users.

Fourth, if a user does not have a font you expect, their browser (even
IE) will pick another font, and this one will have different metrics,
which can result in (for example) text not fitting in one of your
pixel-perfect blocks, which can result in text being clipped. (This is
not made up, I have actually seen this in some sites, and I've had to
adjust the font size to read all the text.)

Fifth, IE and some other browsers allow the visitor to have images
automatically shrunk to fit the browser window, and this too breaks your
pixel perfection.

I'm sure that there are many more examples.

Point out to them that they will lose
potential visitors if they insist on pixel-perfect design.

They don't see it that way and if I don't give them what they want you can
be sure someone else will.

If they won't see it that way, that's fine: you're off the hook, and as
I pointed out in my previous post, as long as you maintain a record of
this, they can't blame you.

(Of course some clients are unteachable. So you make your point, and
record it on paper or in an email so that if they come back to you later
you can say "I told you so", and justify the cost of fixing their

mistake.)

The customer is always right.

Only when they pay you and come back to your for more work. If you give
them an inadequate site, then the customer will be right when they walk
away from you and go elsewhere.

[Ståle Sæbøe]

kchayka wrote:

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

I have looked
over the shoulder of many web users, and heard them say -
User: "Why are the letters so small?"
Me: "Why don't you make them bigger?"
User: "Can I do that?"
Me: "Not with this browser ..." <g>

<g>
She was disappointed, however, when most other sites she visited still
had too-small text. Eventually, the big commercial sites may come
around, but it will probably be a long wait.

There are other options. If the OS developers provides the accessability
in a decent way (Fast and easy to use zoom options for instance), the
web designers may not have to ...

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, C A Upsdell and MISSINGcupsdellXXX"TERMINATOR wrote:

But note that there is a lot of variability in what is considered a
good line length: it can be 30-70 ems or so,

Really? I'd have suggested body text lines to be around 35em for
proportional fonts. A 70em line in a proportional font would have way
too much on it, IMHO.

[Jan Roland Eriksson]

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:17:30 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:

"Jan Roland Eriksson" <jr****@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:l0********************************@4ax.com.. .

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:37:15 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote: [...]

>Fair enough ... So do you think their stats are wrong?

Probaly not since the w3schools site is IE centric in the first place
and has always been like that since its first day of appearance on the
www.

Cite proof please.

I claim that you are one damned big idiot since you seem to lack all
parts of historical insight of what has passed by in this NG before you
decided to stick your nose in here.

I was one of those who once voted _for_ the creation of this NG many
years back. Later I and a very good friend of mine started to post
pointers to CSS resources on the www, an activity that later lead us to
create some "officially" recognized FAQ info to be posted here.

At some point in the now lost time span, w3schools pops up out of
nowhere. Some investigations gave at hand that we had a Norwegian based
IT oriented company sitting behind that "w3schools" logo.

I tried my best, and I'm sure that quite a few others tried their best
too, to make the w3schools publishers get a grip on reality.
Suffice to say that they never responded, but kept on going MS style.

I do not have to give you any "Cite proof" at all, it is your job to
examine the available archives; do that and "proof" will be all revealed
to you.

--
Rex