469,342 Members | 6,942 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,342 developers. It's quick & easy.

Verdana font. Why not?

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 16214
me
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:3a*************@individual.net...
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.


No I did say, if not in this thread then in another, I said I and my clients
can read it.
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'm happy to hear your mother has lived to such a ripe old age. Perhaps if
you set her monitor to 800x600 instead of 1024x768 (or who knows what) she
wouldn't have a problem.
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!


OK, I'll ammend that, IMO I wouldn't set a 19" or smaller monitor higher
than 800x600.
And a large majority of 17's are at 1024x768.
And I consider that a mistake but YMMV.
Please tell us the size in inches and the resolution of your
development machine.
I did, see above.
Please include some details about your vision.
Why should I, If I tell you my vision is fine you'll likely refute what I
say or ridicule me so why should I bother?
This may be the answer as to why you think tiny fonts are ok.


We likely have different definitions for "tiny fonts". How do you define
tiny fonts?
Signed,
me
Jul 21 '05 #251
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote:
me wrote:
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.


Damn right. I can't remember the last time I saw 800x600 on any size
monitor. I'm sure they're still out there, and probably in quite large
numbers, but I'm also sure that (a smaller number of) 640x480 are out
there.

And of course let's not forget that window size and desktop size are
different things...

FWIW, my current laptop (15") and my old laptop (14") are both run at
1024x760 and my default font size is set smaller than factory setting
(14px vs 16px). But I also set a minimum font-size of 12px (I have
good eyesight and I want to keep it!) so I see the fixed size layouts
breaking because they assume that everyone will be using their 'fixed'
font size of 10px or whatever.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
Jul 21 '05 #252
me
"C A Upsdell" <""cupsdellXXX\"@-@-@XXXupsdell.com"> wrote in message
news:pt********************@rogers.com...
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.


Define high resolution monitors please.
Second, 800px can create readability problems for those who need larger
fonts.
Works for me and my clients YMMV.
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.


Thanks but no thanks. I choose fixed fonts and non-fluid layouts.
Signed,
me
Jul 21 '05 #253
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Alan J. Flavell wrote:
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.


But there has been some evidence that
a) People can use longer than their preferred line lenght quite
efficiently, as long as it is not overly long, and line-height is
suitable. And as this makes scrolling less needed, it might have good
effect on general readability.

b) some people do make use of wide browser window using very long line
legth.

http://dsv.su.se/jpalme/internet-cou...nt-report.html
This seems to have much better metodology than the ones posted earlier.
Also says that of subjectively similar sized Verdana and TNR latter is
faster to read. This is different stydy than the one I had read about
line lenght before, but I can't find the other.

BTW, the usability site where the most previous test were, use frames:
http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/Default.htm
And their navigation structure is so bad that I can't find even studies I
saw there earlier using it.
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.
Jul 21 '05 #254
me
"C A Upsdell" <""cupsdellXXX\"@-@-@XXXupsdell.com"> wrote in message
news:_N********************@rogers.com...
me wrote:
My experience is that my clients expect (demand) pixel perfect, in IE onWindows.

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?


I did, I said I could create pixel perfect sites in IE on Windows
There are people who use other
browsers which can easily override your font sizes.
Let them, I have no problem with this. IE is the most widely used browser so
this is not a problem.
And those who need
larger fonts would do so.
Let them, I have no problem with this.
Second, as has been pointed out to you, people can change the font size
in IE, albeit not as easily as one would like.
Then why are you going on so about how bad fixed font sizes are?
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.
Again, I and my clients are only concerned with IE in Windows.
But if you use standards mode,
I don't use or need standards mode.
you've lost pixel perfection
for IE5 users.
I use IE6 but I did nothing different when I used IE5.
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.)
Arial (Helvetica, sans-serif), my font of choice is installed by default
with Windows so that is not a problem.
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 have seen resizing in IE (other browsers are of no consequence to me) but
only if the image is displayed alone. Cite an example please.
I'm sure that there are many more examples.


Yes, for you I'm sure there is.
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.


Thank you for your advice, it is superfulous.

[snip]
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.


And if I refuse to do as they ask they will go elsewhere.
Signed,
me
Jul 21 '05 #255
me
"Ståle Sæbøe" <ot*****@tdz.no> wrote in message
news:42********@news.broadpark.no...
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.


In my contract it states that my sites are designed for IE on Windows.
Signed,
me
Jul 21 '05 #256
me wrote:
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote in
message news:3a*************@individual.net...
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.


No I did say, if not in this thread then in another, I said I and
my clients can read it.


Exactly. You and your clients. No consideration to your visitors. Let
me repeat that: No consideration to your visitors. Who cares if you
and the site owner can read it?
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'm happy to hear your mother has lived to such a ripe old age.
Perhaps if you set her monitor to 800x600 instead of 1024x768 (or
who knows what) she wouldn't have a problem.


She has a 17" already set to 800x600.
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!


OK, I'll ammend that, IMO I wouldn't set a 19" or smaller monitor
higher than 800x600.


Is your monitor in the next room? <g>
And a large majority of 17's are at 1024x768.


And I consider that a mistake but YMMV.
Please tell us the size in inches and the resolution of your
development machine.


I did, see above.


Not in this message. You allude to 22" .. 19" .. but you don't say
what *you* have sitting in front of you at the moment.
Please include some details about your vision.


Why should I, If I tell you my vision is fine you'll likely refute
what I say or ridicule me so why should I bother?


No, I'm wondering if you have perfect vision and because of that think
all of your visitors do as well.
This may be the answer as to why you think tiny fonts are ok.


We likely have different definitions for "tiny fonts". How do you
define tiny fonts?


10-11px is a common setting for you fixed-font guys.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
Jul 21 '05 #257
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Steve Pugh wrote:
Damn right. I can't remember the last time I saw 800x600 on any size
monitor.
I saw one last week! One of our users came by the office with their
fresh linux/gnome installation, whining that everything on the display
was too damned big and please could we make it better for them. Sure
enough, they'd got the default 800x600 on their display (14inch, I
think it was). We reconfigured it to 1024x768 - the native resolution
of the panel - and they went away happy.
And of course let's not forget that window size and desktop size are
different things...


Oh, quite. And our users typically have 6 logical desktops, to fit
all their windows on to.
Jul 21 '05 #258
me
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:3a*************@individual.net...
[snip]

Enough. I do what I'm paid to do.

Like it or not many of the most popular sites use fixed fonts and non-fluid
designs. It so happens I and my clients prefer fixed fonts and non-fluid
designs. You are entitled to your own preferences.
Signed,
me
Jul 21 '05 #259
me wrote:
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote in
message news:3a*************@individual.net... [snip]

Enough. I do what I'm paid to do.
That itself is fine. You do what earns you a living.
Like it or not many of the most popular sites use fixed fonts and
non-fluid designs. It so happens I and my clients prefer fixed
fonts and non-fluid designs. You are entitled to your own
preferences.


We all just wish you wouldn't pop in these groups and spread your
ill-conceived notions to others.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
Jul 21 '05 #260
me
"Jan Roland Eriksson" <jr****@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:f3********************************@4ax.com...
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 will not dane to answer that insulting remark. You are uncivilized.
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.
Many have created NG's. So what. If you wanted to control what gets posted
here (as you appear too) you should have made this a moderated NG.
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.
So what.
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.
Again I say, so what. So they didn't bow down to you, good for them.
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.


No sir, you refuted those stats therefore the onus is on you to cite proof
of your assertion. Look here for more stats that you can refute:
https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj....el/browser.php
TheCounter.com rates IE at 89%.
Signed,
me
Jul 21 '05 #261
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... [snip]

Enough. I do what I'm paid to do.


That itself is fine. You do what earns you a living.
Like it or not many of the most popular sites use fixed fonts and
non-fluid designs. It so happens I and my clients prefer fixed
fonts and non-fluid designs. You are entitled to your own
preferences.


We all just wish you wouldn't pop in these groups and spread your
ill-conceived notions to others.


You may continue to wish. If my ideas are so ill conceived you have nothing
to fear. The reality is that millions of successful sites that enjoy great
popularity use fixed font sizes and non-fluid layouts. Wake up and smell the
coffee.
Signed,
me
Jul 21 '05 #262
me wrote:
In my contract it states that my sites are designed for IE on Windows.
Signed,
me

Why did you not say so in the first place? Would have saved a lot of
bandwith!! :D
Jul 21 '05 #263
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 17:44:02 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
"Jan Roland Eriksson" <jr****@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:f3********************************@4ax.com.. .
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:17:30 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
>> 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 will not dane to answer that insulting remark. You are uncivilized.
Nope; you are, since you try to give "expert" advice from an empty
source. That is an uncivilized thing to do.
I was one of those who once voted _for_ the creation of this NG... Many have created NG's.
You still don't understand do you?

MS has spammed Usenet with newgroup control msgs to an extent that they
have been looked on as just plain childish.

OTOH, creating a new group within the Usenet Big-8 hierarchy is
something very different, but who would you be to know that?

Side note: I'm not to be blamed for the initiative of ciwas, I only
voted for its creation when the suggestion came around.
So what. If you wanted to control what gets posted here
(as you appear too) you should have made this a moderated NG.
As I said, you just don't understand where you are, right?
At some point in the now lost time span, w3schools pops up... ...So they didn't bow down to you, good for them.
Which concludes my line of reasoning; w3schools advocates MS centric
things in front of whatever other reasonable "standards" we have
available to work from.
I do not have to give you any "Cite proof" at all, it is your job to
examine the available archives...

No sir, you refuted those stats...
Look here for more stats that you can refute:
https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj....el/browser.php
TheCounter.com rates IE at 89%.


I have an even better one; I would like to see you refute this.

"Life is a sexually inherited sickness with 100% mortality".

Now, how about that for proof of concept?

Crawl back under that rock, or read up on history if you want to be
taken serious in the future.

--
Rex
Jul 21 '05 #264
me wrote:
The reality is that millions of successful sites that enjoy great
popularity use fixed font sizes and non-fluid layouts. Wake up and smell the
coffee.
Signed,
me

Mmmm coffee!

me has a point, but millions of flies like shit. I think what the guys
are trying to say to you, eh me eh whatever, :p is that even if
trillions of successful enterprises deliver crap, it does not mean one
should recommend, teach it, communicate it as good practice etc.

If you read the FAQ I think it has something to say about what kind of
advice you are expected to give her. If you want to cater to microsoft's
policy of domination and propriety you are politely asked to do it
somewhere else :)
Jul 21 '05 #265
me
"Jan Roland Eriksson" <jr****@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:us********************************@4ax.com...
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 17:44:02 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:
"Jan Roland Eriksson" <jr****@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:f3********************************@4ax.com.. .
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:17:30 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote:> 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 will not dane to answer that insulting remark. You are uncivilized.


Nope; you are, since you try to give "expert" advice from an empty
source. That is an uncivilized thing to do.
I was one of those who once voted _for_ the creation of this NG...
Many have created NG's.


You still don't understand do you?

MS has spammed Usenet with newgroup control msgs to an extent that they
have been looked on as just plain childish.

OTOH, creating a new group within the Usenet Big-8 hierarchy is
something very different, but who would you be to know that?

Side note: I'm not to be blamed for the initiative of ciwas, I only
voted for its creation when the suggestion came around.
So what. If you wanted to control what gets posted here
(as you appear too) you should have made this a moderated NG.


As I said, you just don't understand where you are, right?
At some point in the now lost time span, w3schools pops up...
...So they didn't bow down to you, good for them.


Which concludes my line of reasoning; w3schools advocates MS centric
things in front of whatever other reasonable "standards" we have
available to work from.
I do not have to give you any "Cite proof" at all, it is your job to
examine the available archives...
No sir, you refuted those stats...
Look here for more stats that you can refute:


https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj..../Sroehnel/brow

ser.phpTheCounter.com rates IE at 89%.


I have an even better one; I would like to see you refute this.

"Life is a sexually inherited sickness with 100% mortality".

Now, how about that for proof of concept?

Crawl back under that rock, or read up on history if you want to be
taken serious in the future.


You are a troll. PLONK
Signed,
me
Jul 21 '05 #266
me
"Ståle Sæbøe" <ot*****@tdz.no> wrote in message
news:42********@news.broadpark.no...
me wrote:
The reality is that millions of successful sites that enjoy great
popularity use fixed font sizes and non-fluid layouts. Wake up and smell the coffee.
Signed,
me
Mmmm coffee!

me has a point, but millions of flies like shit. I think what the guys
are trying to say to you, eh me eh whatever, :p is that even if
trillions of successful enterprises deliver crap, it does not mean one
should recommend, teach it, communicate it as good practice etc.


I have already addressed this point multiple times.
If you read the FAQ I think it has something to say about what kind of
advice you are expected to give her.
I will give whatever advice I see fit.
If you want to cater to microsoft's
policy of domination and propriety you are politely asked to do it
somewhere else :)


I cater to nothing but my own muse. I will leave when I'm good and ready,
not before.
Signed,
me
Jul 21 '05 #267
me wrote:
"Ståle Sæbøe" <ot*****@tdz.no> wrote in message
news:42********@news.broadpark.no...
me wrote:
The reality is that millions of successful sites that enjoy
great popularity use fixed font sizes and non-fluid layouts.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
Mmmm coffee!

me has a point, but millions of flies like shit. I think what the
guys are trying to say to you, eh me eh whatever, :p is that even
if trillions of successful enterprises deliver crap, it does not
mean one should recommend, teach it, communicate it as good
practice etc.
me's only point is that millions of corporate webmasters have the same
amount of clue as he has. Well, that may be unfair. Those millions
haven't wandered in here to learn better ways.

What is lacking in that world is training. Awareness.
I have already addressed this point multiple times.
If you read the FAQ I think it has something to say about what
kind of advice you are expected to give her.


I will give whatever advice I see fit.


Even if everyone else disagrees with your advice? Logic would indicate
there is something wrong here.
If you want to cater to microsoft's policy of domination and
propriety you are politely asked to do it somewhere else :)


I cater to nothing but my own muse. I will leave when I'm good and
ready, not before.


Aha! Gauntlet hits floor!

So be prepared for someone to step in every time and tell those you
advise that you are wrong.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
Jul 21 '05 #268
me wrote:
I will give whatever advice I see fit. I cater to nothing but my own muse. I will leave when I'm good and ready,
not before.
Signed,
me

And your muse is yourself?

You have chosen a fitting signature then.

S.
Jul 21 '05 #269
me wrote:
"kaeli" <ti******@NOSPAM.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MP************************@nntp.lucent.com...

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.


FUBAR: Fouled/Fucked up beyond all recognition/reason/repair, like some
posters' understanding of web design or their language skills.

HTH HAND

--
Michael
m r o z a t u k g a t e w a y d o t n e t
Jul 21 '05 #270
me
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:3a*************@individual.net...
me wrote:
"Ståle Sæbøe" <ot*****@tdz.no> wrote in message
news:42********@news.broadpark.no...
me wrote:

The reality is that millions of successful sites that enjoy
great popularity use fixed font sizes and non-fluid layouts.
Wake up and smell the coffee.

Mmmm coffee!

me has a point, but millions of flies like shit. I think what the
guys are trying to say to you, eh me eh whatever, :p is that even
if trillions of successful enterprises deliver crap, it does not
mean one should recommend, teach it, communicate it as good
practice etc.
me's only point is that millions of corporate webmasters have the same
amount of clue as he has. Well, that may be unfair. Those millions
haven't wandered in here to learn better ways.
Maybe those web designers are happy with their current design methodology or
maybe they just don't feel like being attacked.

[snip]
I will give whatever advice I see fit.


Even if everyone else disagrees with your advice? Logic would indicate
there is something wrong here.


Let them disagree. I believe in freedom of expression. Unlike some here who
would try to deride or ridicule others into agreeing with them.

[snip]
I cater to nothing but my own muse. I will leave when I'm good and
ready, not before.


Aha! Gauntlet hits floor!


Yes, probably for the trolls and those not taking their meds.
So be prepared for someone to step in every time and tell those you
advise that you are wrong.


I have no problem with that, you have the same right as I to express your
opinion right or wrong, it is a reality of Usenet. The difference between us
is that I have never said that my preferance for fixed font sizes and
non-fluid layout is the only "right" way or that other design methods are
"wrong". Are you done now?
Signed,
me
Jul 21 '05 #271
me wrote:
Are you done now?


Probably not ... <har!>

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
Jul 21 '05 #272
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
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.


Yeah, I did some research into this a few months back and was surprised
to find that people could readily handle quite a wide range of line
lengths. I can't cite URLs -- I did not bother to record them -- but it
would not be hard for someone to confirm what I found.
Jul 21 '05 #273
In article <11*************@corp.supernews.com>, anonymous@_.com enlightened
us with...

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


Yes.

I can see now why you use the handle "me". Fitting.

--
--
~kaeli~
If the funeral procession is at night, do folks drive with
their lights off?
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

Jul 21 '05 #274
me wrote:

IMO I wouldn't set a 19" or smaller monitor higher
than 800x600.


Gawd, you must sit 10 feet away from it to keep from going blind. Or are
you already so vision-impaired that you need everything zoomed by default?

BTW, 19" monitors often come factory set at screen size 1280x1024. I
doubt the manufacturer would use this default if it were bad for the
majority of users.
And a large majority of 17's are at 1024x768.


And I consider that a mistake but YMMV.


Your opinion on this matter doesn't change the facts, matey. People are
going to use whatever screen size on whatever size monitor they like.
And a well-designed web page will adjust gracefully to all the
variations in hardware and user prefs.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Jul 21 '05 #275
me wrote:
"Ståle Sæbøe" <ot*****@tdz.no> wrote in message
news:42********@news.broadpark.no...

trillions of successful enterprises deliver crap, it does not mean one
should recommend, teach it, communicate it as good practice etc.


I have already addressed this point multiple times.


And your only comment on this boils down to you don't give a rat's arse
about the visitors to your sites. Not very considerate of you, is it?

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Jul 21 '05 #276
Steve Pugh wrote:

I can't remember the last time I saw 800x600 on any size monitor.


My sister keeps her 17" monitor at 800x600, then she has all her apps
set to zoom out so text is a more tolerable size. I once suggested she
bump up the screen size, but she wouldn't hear of it. Go figure. :-\

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Jul 21 '05 #277
me
"kchayka" <us****@c-net.us> wrote in message
news:3a*************@individual.net...
me wrote:

IMO I wouldn't set a 19" or smaller monitor higher
than 800x600.


BTW, 19" monitors often come factory set at screen size 1280x1024. I
doubt the manufacturer would use this default if it were bad for the
majority of users.


From the factory you say, no shit!
What knob, control, etc on the monitor chassis do you use to set the
resolution? I set resolution in Widows in the Properties dialog. :-0
And a large majority of 17's are at 1024x768.


And I consider that a mistake but YMMV.


Your opinion on this matter doesn't change the facts, matey. People are
going to use whatever screen size on whatever size monitor they like.
And a well-designed web page will adjust gracefully to all the
variations in hardware and user prefs.


Then what are you whining about?
Signed,
me
Jul 21 '05 #278
me
"kchayka" <us****@c-net.us> wrote in message
news:3a*************@individual.net...
me wrote:
"Ståle Sæbøe" <ot*****@tdz.no> wrote in message
news:42********@news.broadpark.no...

trillions of successful enterprises deliver crap, it does not mean one
should recommend, teach it, communicate it as good practice etc.


I have already addressed this point multiple times.


And your only comment on this boils down to you don't give a rat's arse
about the visitors to your sites. Not very considerate of you, is it?


In a free market system the most successful paradigm will become dominate.
The reality is that millions of successful sites that enjoy great popularity
use fixed font sizes and non-fluid layouts. Obviously those sites don't feel
their doing their popularity or their visitors any harm.

I will allow you your preference for fluid designs if you will allow me my
preference for non-fluid designs and fixed fonts otherwise we must agree to
disagree. Are you done now?
Signed,
me
Jul 21 '05 #279


Ståle Sæbøe wrote:
Steve Pugh wrote:


Ah but who do you trust on matters of accessibility and usability?


That is a matter of requirement specifications, but I do advocate a
general attitude towards making web pages accessible. In some cases it
comes down to compromise.
According to http://www.visibone.com/font/FontResults.html 98% of
users have Verdana installed.


Interresting statistics, thx! :)

I am still not convinced Verdana is a bad font.


pls compare:
http://www.francesdelrio.com/fonts.html

to me personally at least, verdana is a much more readable font, esp at
the small sizes (pls note 11px and 10px... arial at 10px doesn't even
show the bold..)

Frances

Jul 21 '05 #280
me wrote:
I cater to nothing but my own muse. I will leave when I'm good and ready,
not before.


Folks, the bottom line on this is that (a) 'me' is impossibly rigid in
his (her?) thinking, and (b) 'me' expects that he (she?) will be the
'winner' of this thread if everyone else gives up in disgust and leaves
him (her) with the last word.

People, let's just drop this thread: it has ceased to be useful to
anyone except to let 'me' rant on.
Jul 21 '05 #281
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Frances Del Rio wrote:
pls compare:
http://www.francesdelrio.com/fonts.html

to me personally at least, verdana is a much more readable font, esp at
the small sizes
Of course it is, if you compare it to nominally same size other fonts.
That is the core of the problem.

If you compare fonts that take similar space, the the difference is not
at all clear, and there is even some evidence that even TNR is better:
http://dsv.su.se/jpalme/internet-cou...nt-report.html
(pls note 11px and 10px... arial at 10px doesn't even
show the bold..)


That is because that size is not allowed in Arial Bold.. most likely
because it would cause unreadable text.

I remade your test using 1px bigger values for Arial:
http://www.student.oulu.fi/~laurirai...est/fonts.html

Notice that now all texts take about same space in screen, unlike in your
orginal test. Which you think are easier to read now? I think I can read
Arial better

Lets add some line height, say 1.5
http://www.student.oulu.fi/~laurirai...onts.html#lh15

This makes both easier to read. Difference is bigger as well, this time
Arial seems to be far more readable

This test doesn't prove anything, as there is too much subjectivity, but
maybe it illustrates why comparing nominally same sized fonts is not good
idea.

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.
Jul 21 '05 #282
Frances Del Rio <fd***@yahoo.com> wrote:
pls compare:
http://www.francesdelrio.com/fonts.html


*lol* I was confused first, because I did not see any change in font
size. Until I realised this was due to me having Opera configured to
enforce a minimum font size of 14 px :-)

Jul 21 '05 #283
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Martin Bialasinski wrote:
Frances Del Rio <fd***@yahoo.com> wrote:
pls compare:
http://www.francesdelrio.com/fonts.html


*lol* I was confused first, because I did not see any change in font
size. Until I realised this was due to me having Opera configured to
enforce a minimum font size of 14 px :-)


I was confused at first as well, as but it was because my stylesheet made
both columns Arial....

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.
Jul 21 '05 #284
C A Upsdell > wrote:
People, let's just drop this thread: it has ceased to be useful to
anyone except to let 'me' rant on.

Do I get credit for starting the longest thread this month? :)
Jul 21 '05 #285
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Frances Del Rio wrote:
Ståle Sæbøe wrote:
I am still not convinced Verdana is a bad font.

You've not been paying proper attention. *For its stated purpose*,
Verdana is a rather good font: but it's a very poor mixer in company.
And that's why we're counselling against including it in the fonts
selection for a web page.

See http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html
pls compare:
http://www.francesdelrio.com/fonts.html
I don't think you've understood the problem either.
to me personally at least, verdana is a much more readable font, esp
at the small sizes (pls note 11px and 10px...
Yes, that's exactly the problem. You're going to specify it too
small, just like all the other deezyners.
arial at 10px doesn't even show the bold..)


And what were you going to use as your fallback font for users who
hadn't got Verdana, eh?

"Hence or otherwise deduce..."
Jul 21 '05 #286
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
You've not been paying proper attention. *For its stated purpose*,
Verdana is a rather good font: but it's a very poor mixer in company.
And that's why we're counselling against including it in the fonts
selection for a web page.

Actually, the reason behind the counselling has been based on Verdana
with font-size property set to 85% or lower for body text. A point to
which I have agreed several times now.

I have so far received positive feedback on my pages where I use Verdana
for body text at 100% size.

A lot of people do not override the fonts served. Many of them will see
TNR if I do not specify another font, and the feedback on TNR is that it
sucks ...

My pages also render nicely with overridden fonts on the users part due
to me not touching the font size.

All in all I still think Verdana is the best choice.
Jul 21 '05 #287
me
"C A Upsdell" <""cupsdellXXX\"@-@-@XXXupsdell.com"> wrote in message
news:1J********************@rogers.com...
me wrote:
I cater to nothing but my own muse. I will leave when I'm good and ready, not before.
Folks, the bottom line on this is that (a) 'me' is impossibly rigid in
his thinking,


No more rigid than than those who condem (harry, flame, etc) me for using
fixed fonts and non-fluid designs. I have stated my reasons for my
preferance and (like you) I see no reason to capitulate. I have stated
repeatedly that I acknowledge the preferance of others and I take no issue
with their preferances, I ask only the same in return.
and (b) 'me' expects that he will be the
'winner' of this thread if everyone else gives up in disgust and leaves
him with the last word.
Not at all, there have been several posts that I've declined to comment on,
some were no doubt intended to be very provacative too.
People, let's just drop this thread: it has ceased to be useful to
anyone except to let 'me' rant on.


I stated my observations/opinions about the current dominance of fixed fonts
and non-fluid web design, I also stated my preferance for it too, nothing
more.
Signed,
me
Jul 21 '05 #288
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, =?ISO-8859-
1?Q?St=E5le_S=E6b=F8e?= wrote:
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
You've not been paying proper attention. *For its stated purpose*,
Verdana is a rather good font: but it's a very poor mixer in company.
And that's why we're counselling against including it in the fonts
selection for a web page.
Actually, the reason behind the counselling has been based on Verdana
with font-size property set to 85% or lower for body text. A point to
which I have agreed several times now.
No, there is opposite problem of when specifying Verdana at 100%. Will be
too big. Of course, that is not as harmful, but it is not good either.

Of course, this was not first time it mentioned this thread... bye.
I have so far received positive feedback on my pages where I use Verdana
for body text at 100% size.
You can get positive feedback from big fonts or small fonts, as someone
is bound to have his browser incorrectly configured, and is so happy when
he finally finds a website that uses suitable font for him...
A lot of people do not override the fonts served. Many of them will see
TNR if I do not specify another font, and the feedback on TNR is that it
sucks ...
But it is not hard to read. Arial is not as cool as Verdana, but it is
more compact, comparable sized to TNR, and at least as easy to read...
My pages also render nicely with overridden fonts on the users part due
to me not touching the font size.
Sure. But hardly anyone overrides fonts, and thus overly big font. No
problem, unless you are also using small screen, where there just is no
space to waste.
All in all I still think Verdana is the best choice.


You can think whatever you want, but unless you actually have some proof,
you should stop parroting it again and again. And again. It wont change
the situation.
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.
Jul 21 '05 #289
You can think whatever you want, but unless you actually have some proof,
you should stop parroting it again and again. And again. It wont change
the situation.

I was answering a direct reply. Begone troll.
Jul 21 '05 #290
"Steve Pugh" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
Damn right. I can't remember the last time I saw 800x600 on any size
monitor. I'm sure they're still out there, and probably in quite large
numbers, but I'm also sure that (a smaller number of) 640x480 are out
there.


Think libraries and public schools. It's a rare such institution
that can afford to keep equipment up to date.

My local library has screens set at 800x600, IIRC. Of course the
catalog dee-zighn-er's(*) screen was 1024x768 or maybe bigger, so
we have to scroll to see everything. (Certain functions like
reservinga book require Javascript, for no very clear reason.) And
also of course, my suggestions e-mailed to the "Comments" address
never got a reply.

http://www.flls.org -- The Finger Lakes Library System is a
consortium of the medium-sized Ithaca, New York, library and a
couple of dozen small libraries, such as mine in Dryden. All dee-
zign is done centrally, and local head librarians don't have much
effective input. On the other hand, the system works reasonably
well at letting patrons in Library A get a book that may be in
Library B a hundred miles away.

--

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
Jul 21 '05 #291
"Lauri Raittila" wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Alan J. Flavell wrote:
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.


But there has been some evidence that
a) People can use longer than their preferred line lenght quite
efficiently, as long as it is not overly long, and line-height is
suitable. And as this makes scrolling less needed, it might have good
effect on general readability.


THE ELEMENTS OF TYPOGRAPHIC STYLE by Robert Bringhurst is about
print, but says a 67-character line seems to be about ideal. The
number of ems or inches depends on the point size and the
characteristics of the font.

He suggests (as you did) that suitable leading can make longer
lines work adequately, but I don't think he got into numbers.

And as I say, he's talking about print. We should remember that
findings for print may or may not translate to screen.

--

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
Jul 21 '05 #292
"C A Upsdell" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:

me wrote:
I cater to nothing but my own muse. I will leave when I'm good and ready,
not before.


Folks, the bottom line on this is that (a) 'me' is impossibly rigid in
his (her?) thinking, and (b) 'me' expects that he (she?) will be the
'winner' of this thread if everyone else gives up in disgust and leaves
him (her) with the last word.

People, let's just drop this thread: it has ceased to be useful to
anyone except to let 'me' rant on.


Might I suggest hat "me" is trolling us rather successfully, not
just in this thread but in others?

It's clear that attenpting rational discourse with it is futile.

--

Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
Jul 21 '05 #293
Stan Brown <th************@fastmail.fm> wrote:
THE ELEMENTS OF TYPOGRAPHIC STYLE by Robert Bringhurst is about
print, but says a 67-character line seems to be about ideal. The
number of ems or inches depends on the point size and the
characteristics of the font.


"Typografian käsikirja" by Markus Itkonen (widely respected where I
live) says (about print, too):
- minimum 35 - 40 characters
- optimum 55 - 60 characters
- maximum 90 characters
On the other hand, some legibility studies suggest much smaller line
lengths. The issue is very complicated, and the type of material that
we are _used_ to read surely affects what we find as suitable and what
is actually easiest to read (which aren't identical things).

There are further complications on the Web:
- You cannot be sure of the characteristics of the font. Your width
suggestion might get applied, your font face suggestion might get
ignored.
- You have no CSS unit corresponding to an average width of a character
(which is itself a vague concept). I have used a rough rule of thumb
1em = 2.5 characters for normal text, but this cannot be anything
but a reasonable guess, at best. This means that 22em would be
my attempt at getting about 55 characters per line.
- Your document might get presented in quite different environments.
You should normally avoid setting a _fixed_ column width (even in
em unit) and set a _maximum_ width instead. But IE does not support
the simple and nice way of doing so. Various techniques and hacks
exist to overcome this.
- In print media, users normally hate to waste much paper especially
if they pay for it personally. They probably accept longer lines,
maybe even lines that extend across the page, just with margins as
defined in printer settings. This means that in a print style sheet,
or in a style sheet's @media print { ... } section, it would not be
unreasonable to set the width to 100%.
- Browsers generally don't do word division. This matters a lot when
the documents language frequently has long words, as in German or
Finnish. This calls for a larger width.

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Jul 21 '05 #294
me
"Steve Pugh" <st***@pugh.net> wrote in message
news:0i********************************@4ax.com...
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote:
me wrote:
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.


Damn right. I can't remember the last time I saw 800x600 on any size
monitor. I'm sure they're still out there, and probably in quite large
numbers, but I'm also sure that (a smaller number of) 640x480 are out
there.

And of course let's not forget that window size and desktop size are
different things...

FWIW, my current laptop (15") and my old laptop (14") are both run at
1024x760 and my default font size is set smaller than factory setting
(14px vs 16px). But I also set a minimum font-size of 12px (I have
good eyesight and I want to keep it!) so I see the fixed size layouts
breaking because they assume that everyone will be using their 'fixed'
font size of 10px or whatever.

Steve


Consider this: Millions of successful sites that enjoy great popularity use
fixed font sizes, non-fluid layouts *and* fit in IE on Windows at 800x600
without incurring a horizontal scroll bar on a 17" monitor. As proof I offer
www.barnesandnoble.com. I don't say this is a great site but everybody likes
to read a good book now and then. It would seem many (but not all) designers
have a resolution of 800x600 in mind when they design their sites.

Another reason I prefer using a resolution of 800x600 is that system fonts
are fine without any adjustment. All of my software works well for me. I can
work with documents, graphics, applications and still not have to scroll. In
addition there's still room for toolbars, pallets etc etc etc.
Signed,
me
Jul 21 '05 #295
Spartanicus wrote:
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%.

My problems with verdana are the same regardless whether my DPI is 72 or
192: 1-among commonly available fonts it's at the extreme upper end of
the physical size range, resulting in any substitute being smaller when
verdana is not available; 2-when smaller than default is specified by
the author, who thinks he is compensating for its large size in so
reducing, guests whose default is already verdana are guaranteed to see
smaller than their chosen default.
How can such a statement be valid without knowing display size, screen
resolution, and visual acuity?

Display size is irrelevant,
Display size is never irrelevant. Bigger displays make everything
bigger. A bigger display can easily make the difference between just
right and too big, or too small and just right, or usable and unusable.
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.


Oh, but "reasonable" is not a good assumption. 33% bigger can in no
reasonable way be assumed to be "too" big just because 100% is "good".

It is typical among members of this and other web design groups to think
of size as the "size" specified in a stylesheet, such as 'font-size:
70%'. In fact, 70% is just a label that misleads most into thinking it
is a real size when in fact the size we see on a screen display is only
seen at all because it has two dimensions, height AND width. 70% applies
to both height and width, and the true size is a factor of both height
and width, area, giving a real size when that rule is applied of 49%:
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/area70.html
--
"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 =----
Jul 21 '05 #296
Felix Miata <Ug********************@dev.nul> wrote:

Creative snipping & rearranging deleted (sorry, it didn't fool me).
>How can such a statement be valid without knowing display size, screen
>resolution, and visual acuity?

Display size is irrelevant,


Display size is never irrelevant. Bigger displays make everything
bigger.


Nope, you haven't understood the difference between resolution and
screen size.

More creative twisting of the discussion deleted.

--
Spartanicus
Jul 21 '05 #297
Spartanicus wrote:
Felix Miata <Ug********************@dev.nul> wrote:
Display size is irrelevant,
Display size is never irrelevant. Bigger displays make everything
bigger.

Nope, you haven't understood the difference between resolution and
screen size.


No one knows better than an old man like me who can hardly see any more
the relationship between resolution and display size. When I want bigger
text on a puter display, I do one or more of several things (in order of
ease):

1-use zoom
2-sit closer to the display
3-set a minimum font size
4-disallow pages to shrink text
5-use a BIGGER DISPLAY ****************
6-DECREASE RESOLUTION (e.g. drop back from 1600x1200 to 1280x960)
****************
7-lower DPI (10pt @ 120 DPI is bigger than 10pt @ 96 DPI)
8-add a user stylesheet

It can work the same for everyone.
--
"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 =----
Jul 21 '05 #298
Felix Miata <Ug********************@dev.nul> wrote:
>> Display size is irrelevant, >Display size is never irrelevant. Bigger displays make everything
>bigger.

Nope, you haven't understood the difference between resolution and
screen size.


No one knows better than an old man like me who can hardly see any more
the relationship between resolution and display size. When I want bigger
text on a puter display, I do one or more of several things (in order of
ease):

1-use zoom
2-sit closer to the display
3-set a minimum font size
4-disallow pages to shrink text
5-use a BIGGER DISPLAY ****************
6-DECREASE RESOLUTION (e.g. drop back from 1600x1200 to 1280x960)


You are making a common mistake, 1600x1200 and 1280x960 are values for
the *screen area* configuration setting. *Resolution* is an entirely
different property which is expressed in PPI. For flat panel displays
the resolution in the panel's native screen area size is straight
forward. For CRT monitors the *maximum* attainable resolution is
determined by the granularity of the mask inside the CRT and the
phosphor dots, the actual resolution may be less than that depending on
the screen area setting.

--
Spartanicus
Jul 21 '05 #299
in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Felix Miata wrote:
Spartanicus wrote:
Felix Miata <Ug********************@dev.nul> wrote:
> Display size is irrelevant,Display size is never irrelevant. Bigger displays make everything
bigger.

Nope, you haven't understood the difference between resolution and
screen size.


No one knows better than an old man like me who can hardly see any more
the relationship between resolution and display size.


Obviously, you don't know. Resolution is about how many dots or pixels
there are per inch. That can be exactly same, and often is, on 17" and
21".
When I want bigger
text on a puter display, I do one or more of several things (in order of
ease):

1-use zoom
2-sit closer to the display
3-set a minimum font size
4-disallow pages to shrink text
5-use a BIGGER DISPLAY
6-DECREASE RESOLUTION (e.g. drop back from 1600x1200 to 1280x960)
7-lower DPI (10pt @ 120 DPI is bigger than 10pt @ 96 DPI)
This quite handily proofs that you don't know what resolution means. 10pt
is same size on 120dpi and 96dpi. What you are doing, is setting your
display, and you seem to be doing it irrelated to real resolution. Not
bad approach, but won't help too much when fonts are specified in
different unit, and there is drawback of not being able to do pt stuff
right.
8-add a user stylesheet

It can work the same for everyone.


What you miss is that large part of people only know, or can use #2.

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.
Jul 21 '05 #300

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.