Simple Validation Questins

[linda]

I am completely new to this. I hand-coded my first site. It¹s pretty
basic. I found the validator for CSS on w3.org and this is the result I
got.

Warnings

* Line : 2 font-family: You are encouraged to offer a generic family as
a last alternative
* Line : 2 (Level : 2) font-family: You are encouraged to offer a
generic family as a last alternative : body
* Line : 10 (Level : 1) You have no background-color with your color :
a:link
* Line : 14 (Level : 1) You have no background-color with your color :
a:visited
* Line : 37 (Level : 1) You have no background-color with your color :
..mail
* Line : 41 font-family: You are encouraged to offer a generic family
as a last alternative
* Line : 41 (Level : 2) font-family: You are encouraged to offer a
generic family as a last alternative : #divnav
* Line : 43 (Level : 1) You have no background-color with your color :
#divnav

This is the CSS for line : 2

body {background-color: #A5A5A5;
font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, "sans serif";
font-size: 8pt;
color: #000000;
text-align: center;}

I thought ³generic family² was serif or sans serif. I don¹t understand
what they mean.
I also don¹t know what (Level: 2) is.

This is the CSS for a:link and a:visited

a:link
{color: #000000;
text-decoration: none;}

a:visited
{color: #000000;
text-decoration: none;}

Do I need a background-color every time I use a color?

I hope I¹ve made this clear. I¹m sure all this is very basic but I just
can¹t find the answers. I was able to fix a couple other mistakes and
have been reading all day. I sure could use some help.

I haven¹t published my site yet. I¹m trying to clean things up. Only
have a few mistakes so far. One other thing that doesn¹t work but I¹ll
leave that to another post if I can¹t figure it out.

Thanks, Linda

--
remove invalid to reply

[Darin McGrew]

linda <lr******@invalidnc.rr.com> wrote:

* Line : 2 font-family: You are encouraged to offer a generic family as
a last alternative
[...]
body {background-color: #A5A5A5;
font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, "sans serif";
font-size: 8pt;
color: #000000;
text-align: center;}

I thought ³generic family² was serif or sans serif. I don¹t understand
what they mean.
"sans serif" is a font named "sans serif".

sans-serif is a generic font without serifs.

Also, you might consider avoiding Verdana:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html
I also don¹t know what (Level: 2) is.
It indicates how important the warning is.
* Line : 10 (Level : 1) You have no background-color with your color :
a:link
[...]

a:link
{color: #000000;
text-decoration: none;}
[...]

Do I need a background-color every time I use a color?

Yes. Otherwise your color could be used against the user's default color,
and there may be insufficient contrast for it to be legible.

Also, you should probably use background rather than background-color,
because background also overrides any background-image the user's default
configuration might use.
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"I'd love to make time, if only I could find the recipe."

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

linda wrote:

body {background-color: #A5A5A5;
font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, "sans serif";
font-size: 8pt;

You also want to avoid this 8pt font size. Flyspecks. If you drop the
very large Verdana as Darin recommends, you will see this. Besides, pt
(point) is for print media. Use: font-size: 100%; then we will all
get our default size.

--
-bts
-When motorcycling, never follow a pig truck

[linda]

In article <di**********@blue.rahul.net>, Darin McGrew
<mc****@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:

linda <lr******@invalidnc.rr.com> wrote:

* Line : 2 font-family: You are encouraged to offer a generic family as
a last alternative
[...]
body {background-color: #A5A5A5;
font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, "sans serif";
font-size: 8pt;
color: #000000;
text-align: center;}

I thought ³generic family² was serif or sans serif. I don¹t understand
what they mean.
"sans serif" is a font named "sans serif".

sans-serif is a generic font without serifs.

That's what I thought. So why am I being "encouraged to offer a generic
family as a last alternative? I'm missing something.

this is my new CSS: font-family: arial, helvetica, "sans serif";

Also, you might consider avoiding Verdana:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html
Thanks for the link. The Verdana's gone. And I was having a hard time
grasping % and for some reason all of a sudden it clicked while I was
reading that article. Changed all my font sizes to %

I also don¹t know what (Level: 2) is.

It indicates how important the warning is.

* Line : 10 (Level : 1) You have no background-color with your color :
a:link
[...]

a:link
{color: #000000;
text-decoration: none;}
[...]

Do I need a background-color every time I use a color?

Yes. Otherwise your color could be used against the user's default color,
and there may be insufficient contrast for it to be legible.

Also, you should probably use background rather than background-color,
because background also overrides any background-image the user's default
configuration might use.

Also added background in all the places suggested. Thanks for your
explanation. It makes so much sense.

My CSS now validates except the "generic family as a last alternative"

Thanks for all your help. Much appreciated. Now if I can just fix the
generic family thing.

Linda

--
remove invalid to reply

[linda]

In article <2v****************************@40tude.net>, Beauregard T.
Shagnasty <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote:

linda wrote:

body {background-color: #A5A5A5;
font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, "sans serif";
font-size: 8pt;

You also want to avoid this 8pt font size. Flyspecks. If you drop the
very large Verdana as Darin recommends, you will see this. Besides, pt
(point) is for print media. Use: font-size: 100%; then we will all
get our default size.

I changed all my font sizes to Percentages. As you'll see in my reply
to Darin I get it now. I certainly don't need more Flyspecks.

Can you tell me why my fonts look smaller in Mozilla? I tested in IE,
Mozilla and Opera.

Thanks, Linda

--
remove invalid to reply

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

linda wrote:

In article <2v****************************@40tude.net>, Beauregard T.
Shagnasty <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote:

linda wrote:

body {background-color: #A5A5A5;
font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, "sans serif";
font-size: 8pt;
You also want to avoid this 8pt font size. Flyspecks. If you drop the
very large Verdana as Darin recommends, you will see this. Besides, pt
(point) is for print media. Use: font-size: 100%; then we will all
get our default size.

I changed all my font sizes to Percentages. As you'll see in my reply
to Darin I get it now. I certainly don't need more Flyspecks.

Good on you. Now all you need to do is correct the word above
"sans serif";
to
sans-serif;

It's a hypenated word, and don't use quotes.
Can you tell me why my fonts look smaller in Mozilla? I tested in IE,
Mozilla and Opera.

Well, since you've now switched to percentages, you are now seeing your
own default sizes in each browser. They may be set differently. By doing
this, you have given your visitors the freedom to view your site the way
they want to, especially those who have vision problems and have chosen
a large size.

--
-bts
-When motorcycling, never follow a pig truck

[Johannes Koch]

linda wrote:

That's what I thought. So why am I being "encouraged to offer a generic
family as a last alternative? I'm missing something.

this is my new CSS: font-family: arial, helvetica, "sans serif";

"sans serif" is no generic font family. The keyword is sans-serif (no
quotes, hyphen).
--
Johannes Koch
In te domine speravi; non confundar in aeternum.
(Te Deum, 4th cent.)

['sNiek]

Darin McGrew schreef:

Also, you might consider avoiding Verdana:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html

I disagree on that, just because verdana uses a bigger x-height doesn't mean that it is bad. You can read it
very well
Verdana is used on most computers, I understand that Linux users and such don't have it by default. So why
don't they install it?
Screenshots on http://virtuelvis.com/archives/2004/01/avoid-verdana proove that Verdana is best readable, do
webdigners have to care about users who don't have a windows/apple default-font? That would trim the options a
very lot!
BTW: I find it very misleading to just say "Throw away Verdana" to newbees.

--
Niek

[The Major]

>> Also, you might consider avoiding Verdana:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html

I disagree on that, just because verdana uses a bigger x-height doesn't
mean that it is bad. You can read it very well
Verdana is used on most computers, I understand that Linux users and
such don't have it by default. So why don't they install it?
Screenshots on http://virtuelvis.com/archives/2004/01/avoid-verdana
proove that Verdana is best readable, do webdigners have to care about
users who don't have a windows/apple default-font? That would trim the
options a very lot!
BTW: I find it very misleading to just say "Throw away Verdana" to newbees.

Verdana is the best bad choice we have! What else are we to use -
Arial? <sarcasm>Comic Sans</sarcasm>?
--
Chris Hughes
"Reality is that which, when you cease to believe, continues to exist."
http://www.epicure.demon.co.uk

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, 'sNiek wrote:

Darin McGrew schreef:

Also, you might consider avoiding Verdana:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html
I disagree on that, just because verdana uses a bigger x-height
doesn't mean that it is bad. You can read it very well

You evidently haven't understood the point yet.
Verdana is used on most computers, I understand that Linux users and
such don't have it by default. So why don't they install it?
That's none of your business as a web author. Their browser belongs
to them - your job is to offer content that's optimised to display on
it, whatever it may be.
BTW: I find it very misleading to just say "Throw away Verdana" to
newbees.

Who ever said that? Verdana is a perfectly fine font for its
purposes. But it's inappropriate for authors to specify it for body
text on their web pages, for the reason that you have read but
apparently have not yet understood.

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, The Major wrote:

Verdana is the best bad choice we have! What else are we to use

I suppose you wouldn't consider allowing the user to use the body
text font which they have already chosen, whatever it may be, at the
size they already found comfortable?

What you do with headers and other snippets of text is up to you, but
with body text surely the user priority is comfortable reading?

Fortunately the user always has the last word anyway, no matter how
hard you try to fight them. But I, for one, resent having to apply
force to web pages merely in order to be able to read them comfortably
(or, in extreme cases, to be able to read them at all!).

['sNiek]

Alan J. Flavell schreef:

On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, 'sNiek wrote:

Darin McGrew schreef:

Also, you might consider avoiding Verdana:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html
I disagree on that, just because verdana uses a bigger x-height
doesn't mean that it is bad. You can read it very well

You evidently haven't understood the point yet.

i did get it, I just don't agree with it, hard to swallow maybe?

Verdana is used on most computers, I understand that Linux users and
such don't have it by default. So why don't they install it?

That's none of your business as a web author. Their browser belongs
to them - your job is to offer content that's optimised to display on
it, whatever it may be.

Curtainly their browser belongs to them, but it is also their choice not to install Verdana (that's like still
washing your clothes by hand).
If the user refuses to keep their software up to "everyday standards" then that's their choice, allthough
there still are people using it we don't make websites for Netscape/IE 3 or older anymore do we?

BTW: I find it very misleading to just say "Throw away Verdana" to
newbees.

Who ever said that? Verdana is a perfectly fine font for its
purposes. But it's inappropriate for authors to specify it for body
text on their web pages, for the reason that you have read but
apparently have not yet understood.

Oke, it wasn't posted exactly like that, but the OP was pointed in a direction we don't all agree on. So the
first reply by Darin should have been a little less forcing. For reasons a lot of us clearly understand.
--
Niek

[Andreas Prilop]

On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, linda wrote:

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
User-Agent: Thoth/1.7.2 (Carbon/OS X)

I thought ³generic family² was serif or sans serif. I don¹t understand
what they mean.

I just want to inform you that André Pirard has been taken out and shot.

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

'sNiek wrote:

Darin McGrew schreef:

Also, you might consider avoiding Verdana:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html
I disagree on that, just because verdana uses a bigger x-height
doesn't mean that it is bad.

Verdana isn't a bad font. It's the font-size: 80%; or font-size: 10px;
that authors use with it, because it looks "too large" on their own
monitors.
BTW: I find it very misleading to just say "Throw away Verdana" to
newbees.

Agreed. We have to tell them why... :-)

--
-bts
-When motorcycling, never follow a pig truck

['sNiek]

Beauregard T. Shagnasty schreef:

Verdana isn't a bad font. It's the font-size: 80%; or font-size: 10px;
that authors use with it, because it looks "too large" on their own
monitors.

I got that a few posts ago :-)

--
Niek

[Keith Baird]

'sNiek <ni*******@netscape.net> wrote:

... For reasons a lot of us clearly understand.

I wonder if you understand clearly that I see the entire World Wide Web,
including any pages/sites for which you may be responsible, in Arial?

--/<eith

[Jim Moe]

'sNiek wrote:

Verdana is used on most computers, I understand that Linux users and
such don't have it by default. So why don't they install it?

It is not licensed to them. Verdana is not in the public domain.

--
jmm dash list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

[linda]

In article <bz****************************@40tude.net>, Beauregard T.
Shagnasty <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote:

Good on you. Now all you need to do is correct the word above
"sans serif";
to
sans-serif;

It's a hypenated word, and don't use quotes.

Thanks

I knew it was something silly like spelling. I looked sans serif (no
hyphen) up in a number of places. I'd like to say I didn't find it
spelled with a hyphen but I think it's more accurate to say I didn't
see the hyphen.

If I use a font such as "Times New Roman" would that be a string and
would I then put it in Quotes?

Thanks again everyone for your help. I learned alot.

Linda

--
remove invalid to reply

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

linda wrote:

I knew it was something silly like spelling. I looked sans serif (no
hyphen) up in a number of places. I'd like to say I didn't find it
spelled with a hyphen but I think it's more accurate to say I didn't
see the hyphen.
The hyphenated word probably only applies to browsers and style sheets?
If I use a font such as "Times New Roman" would that be a string and
would I then put it in Quotes?
Yes, font names with multiple words require quoting.

{ ... "Times New Roman", Georgia, serif; }
{ ... "Trebuchet MS", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; }
Thanks again everyone for your help. I learned alot.

The process never stops.

['sNiek]

Keith Baird schreef:

'sNiek <ni*******@netscape.net> wrote:

... For reasons a lot of us clearly understand.

I wonder if you understand clearly that I see the entire World Wide Web,
including any pages/sites for which you may be responsible, in Arial?

--/<eith

Depends on what typeface the designer chooses, sometimes the Verdana
shows up oin the body - sometimes it shows up only in the headingd an
dArial is used in the body.

--
Niek

[Darin McGrew]

Keith Baird schreef:

I wonder if you understand clearly that I see the entire World Wide Web,
including any pages/sites for which you may be responsible, in Arial?

'sNiek <ni*******@netscape.net> wrote: Depends on what typeface the designer chooses, sometimes the Verdana
shows up oin the body - sometimes it shows up only in the headingd an
dArial is used in the body.

I wonder if you understand clearly that browsers can ignore the designer's
font choices completely.

For that matter, some browsers don't use fonts at all...
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"How long is this Beta guy going to keep testing our stuff?"

['sNiek]

Darin McGrew schreef:

Keith Baird schreef:

I wonder if you understand clearly that I see the entire World Wide Web,
including any pages/sites for which you may be responsible, in Arial?

'sNiek <ni*******@netscape.net> wrote:

Depends on what typeface the designer chooses, sometimes the Verdana
shows up oin the body - sometimes it shows up only in the headingd an
dArial is used in the body.

I wonder if you understand clearly that browsers can ignore the designer's
font choices completely.

For that matter, some browsers don't use fonts at all...

I do understand that, is that so hard to imagine? Most people don't even
know how to change the displayed font in their browser (Hey, sadly they
even don't know that there are other browsers then IE)
--
Niek

[Jake]

In message <43********@news.interstroom.nl>, 'sNiek
<ni*******@netscape.net> writes

Darin McGrew schreef:

Also, you might consider avoiding Verdana:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html
I disagree on that, just because verdana uses a bigger x-height doesn't
mean that it is bad. You can read it very well
Verdana is used on most computers, I understand that Linux users and
such don't have it by default. So why don't they install it?
Screenshots on http://virtuelvis.com/archives/2004/01/avoid-verdana
proove that Verdana is best readable, do webdigners have to care about
users who don't have a windows/apple default-font? That would trim the
options a very lot!
BTW: I find it very misleading to just say "Throw away Verdana" to newbees.

As you say -- '... very misleading .....'

The 'problem' that (some) people love to quote goes something like this:

"The author specified Verdana at 85% and I don't have Verdana installed.
The alternative font is Arial and I find this too small".

Well,
(1) Most users do have Verdana installed; it's a very small minority
that don't.
(2) Arial at 85% is quite readable
(3) If (2) is really true for a small minority, then there is a facility
on most (all?) graphical browsers called (effectively) 'make the font'
bigger -- and takes some 3, maybe 4 seconds to put into effect.

(Am I right in thinking that a small minority of a small minority is a
..... very small minority?)

It's becoming a 'Verdana' world out there on the Web, so I'm not sure
just how effective 'swimming against the tide' really is ... ;-)

regards.

--
Jake (ja**@gododdin.demon.co.uk -- just a 'spam trap' mail address)

[Stan McCann]

Jake <ja**@gododdin.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:df**************@gododdin.demon.co.uk:

In message <43********@news.interstroom.nl>, 'sNiek
<ni*******@netscape.net> writes

Darin McGrew schreef: BTW: I find it very misleading to just say "Throw away Verdana" to
newbees.

As you say -- '... very misleading .....'

The 'problem' that (some) people love to quote goes something like
this:

"The author specified Verdana at 85% and I don't have Verdana
installed. The alternative font is Arial and I find this too small".

Well,
(1) Most users do have Verdana installed; it's a very small minority
that don't.

So you don't care about those few?
(2) Arial at 85% is quite readable
Maybe to your 20 (wild guess) year old eyes; what about my 50 year old
eyes? They don't see too good anymore. Arial at 120% can be too small
for me. Although not usually since I set a minimum size in my browser
so that I can see those small fonts. Many of your average viewers
don't even know that they can do that.
(3) If (2) is really true for a small minority, then there is a
facility on most (all?) graphical browsers called (effectively)
'make the font' bigger -- and takes some 3, maybe 4 seconds to put
into effect.
How many people do you know (average users, not techy friends) that
know that they can change font sizes or how to do it?

(Am I right in thinking that a small minority of a small minority is
a .... very small minority?)
That you don't care about. Fine, if you're doing personal pages. If
you're doing business stuff, you're losing income from that small
minority *and* possibly a lot of their friends they complain to.
It's becoming a 'Verdana' world out there on the Web, so I'm not
sure just how effective 'swimming against the tide' really is ...
;-)

It's also a "crappy code" web out there. So why are all of us reading
this group which (to me) is about learning how to do it right? Use
whatever font(s) you wish; I'll continue to (usually) not specify a
font at all.

--
Stan McCann "Uncle Pirate" http://stanmccann.us/pirate.html
Webmaster/Computer Center Manager, NMSU at Alamogordo
http://alamo.nmsu.edu/ There are 10 kinds of people.
Those that understand binary and those that don't.

[kchayka]

Jake wrote:

(2) Arial at 85% is quite readable
For you, perhaps. That doesn't mean it is for everyone else. It may be
tolerable for small amounts of text, but I personally find it quite
tough on the eyes for body text.
(3) If (2) is really true for a small minority, then there is a facility
on most (all?) graphical browsers called (effectively) 'make the font'
bigger -- and takes some 3, maybe 4 seconds to put into effect.
So you think it's OK for an author to make the visitor work to make a
page usable? That's pretty inconsiderate, I'd say.
(Am I right in thinking that a small minority of a small minority is a
.... very small minority?)
By that reasoning, aren't AT users a very small minority of the web user
population? Are you suggesting authors don't bother addressing
accessibility issues because of those small numbers? Of course not. So
why should the Verdana issue be any different just because it affects
non-AT users?
It's becoming a 'Verdana' world out there on the Web,

You're kidding, right?

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

[Jake]

In message <Xn************************@216.234.192.142>, Stan McCann
<[e-mail]> writes

Jake <ja**@gododdin.demon.co.uk> wrote in
news:df**************@gododdin.demon.co.uk:

In message <43********@news.interstroom.nl>, 'sNiek
<ni*******@netscape.net> writes

Darin McGrew schreef:BTW: I find it very misleading to just say "Throw away Verdana" to
newbees.

As you say -- '... very misleading .....'

The 'problem' that (some) people love to quote goes something like
this:

"The author specified Verdana at 85% and I don't have Verdana
installed. The alternative font is Arial and I find this too small".

Well,
(1) Most users do have Verdana installed; it's a very small minority
that don't.

So you don't care about those few?

No. I'm simply reflecting on the fact that most users have Verdana
installed.

(2) Arial at 85% is quite readable
Maybe to your 20 (wild guess) year old eyes; what about my 50 year old
eyes? They don't see too good anymore. Arial at 120% can be too small
for me. Although not usually since I set a minimum size in my browser
so that I can see those small fonts. Many of your average viewers
don't even know that they can do that.

Well, I must admit that I can't read a thing without my glasses on ;-)

But with my glasses on I find I can read Arial at 85% without much
trouble. Arial at 100% is better, but at 85% it's still readable to the
point where I wouldn't go out of my way to increase the size
temporarily.

Of course, how any individual will see the text will depend on quite a
few variables -- screen resolution, screen size, dpi setting, etc. so
it's hard to generalise.

(3) If (2) is really true for a small minority, then there is a
facility on most (all?) graphical browsers called (effectively)
'make the font' bigger -- and takes some 3, maybe 4 seconds to put
into effect.
How many people do you know (average users, not techy friends) that
know that they can change font sizes or how to do it?

I would suggest that if they *need* to do so, then they will probably
have learnt to do so by now. But that's pure speculation on my part.

(Am I right in thinking that a small minority of a small minority is
a .... very small minority?)
That you don't care about. Fine, if you're doing personal pages. If
you're doing business stuff, you're losing income from that small
minority *and* possibly a lot of their friends they complain to.

Just facing facts. That 'very small minority' does have the option of
increasing the text size or setting a minimum font size (something I do
myself with one of my browsers when I look at sites that specify Arial
at very small px sizes).

As for losing business -- I doubt it.

If that really was the case, I'm sure that 'big business' would have
figured that one out my now, would they not?

It's becoming a 'Verdana' world out there on the Web, so I'm not
sure just how effective 'swimming against the tide' really is ...
;-)

It's also a "crappy code" web out there. So why are all of us reading
this group which (to me) is about learning how to do it right? Use
whatever font(s) you wish; I'll continue to (usually) not specify a
font at all.

That's fine -- depends how you fell about typography.

Verdana was, after all, designed specifically as a 'Web font'; Arial
never was.

Regards.
--
Jake (ja**@gododdin.demon.co.uk -- just a 'spam trap' mail address)

[Jake]

In message <3q************@individual.net>, kchayka <us****@c-net.us>
writes

Jake wrote:

(2) Arial at 85% is quite readable
For you, perhaps. That doesn't mean it is for everyone else. It may be
tolerable for small amounts of text, but I personally find it quite
tough on the eyes for body text.

I'm sure there are people out there who find anything less than 300%**
intolerable.

[** Pick any figure you like]

(3) If (2) is really true for a small minority, then there is a facility
on most (all?) graphical browsers called (effectively) 'make the font'
bigger -- and takes some 3, maybe 4 seconds to put into effect.
So you think it's OK for an author to make the visitor work to make a
page usable? That's pretty inconsiderate, I'd say.

Are you saying you can't read Verdana at 85%? Arial at 85%? of your
default setting?

(Am I right in thinking that a small minority of a small minority is a
.... very small minority?)
By that reasoning, aren't AT users a very small minority of the web user
population? Are you suggesting authors don't bother addressing
accessibility issues because of those small numbers? Of course not.

Having no alternative text on images is much more of a problem then
specifying Verdana at 85% ;-)
So
why should the Verdana issue be any different just because it affects
non-AT users?
I'm not sure that I understand why you're trying to associate this
mysterious 'Verdana issue' with AT users.

Users with a genuine need for AT have plenty of options.

It's becoming a 'Verdana' world out there on the Web,
You're kidding, right?

Take a look around.

regards
--
Jake (ja**@gododdin.demon.co.uk -- just a 'spam trap' mail address)

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, Jake wrote:

No. I'm simply reflecting on the fact that most users have Verdana
installed.
So what? There's no compulsion to go and select it, merely on the
basis that many users have it.
As for losing business -- I doubt it.

If that really was the case, I'm sure that 'big business' would have
figured that one out my now, would they not?
Would they? There seems to be a bit of naivety showing through here.

There are "big businesses" whose existence depends on doing business
via the web. Shall we take Google for an example? Their main web
page is mighty odd, by any W3C standards, but one thing I can report:
no sign of Verdana on there. Or try www.easyjet.co.uk: I didn't find
any there either (in HTML nor CSS). Chosen more or less at random -
maybe you can prove me wrong, but there's some kind of a message here.

Then there are "big businesses" who have been there since long before
there was a web. They have no need to have a widely successful web
page - they're already doing business just fine, thanks, and one
rather suspects they'd prefer to drive away any fastidious folks who
tried to access their web site. No point in attracting customers who
are going to make a nuisance of themselves, is there? So they shower
one with cookies, redirect one to an alternative web page demanding
that one "download MSIE now", stuff their pages full of irritating
flash, popups and anything else their designers can think of to
irritate those who have their own opinions. Only their most committed
customers would remain on the site, and - as often as not - one
suspects that's just how they want it. What can we learn from *them*
about the use of Verdana, riddle me that?

And then there's the whole spectrum in between. Including those who
didn't want to take time to understand, so they outsourced the web
design.
That's fine -- depends how you fell about typography.

Verdana was, after all, designed specifically as a 'Web font'; Arial
never was.

Yeah, and WebDings was "designed" (by someone who didn't understand
the web) too. Just because it has loose associations with the web
does not mean it's necessarily a good thing for use on the web!

Keep in mind that screen definition, on average is noticeably better
nowadays than when these conventions started. But display situations
are also *more diverse* than ever before. *If* you need a font which
optimises readability at small pt sizes, which is what Verdana aimed
at, feel free to impose it *in the privacy of your own browser*.

OK, so you choose to lecture us about typography. Surely, those who
care enough about typography have a higher definition screen, and, in
all probability, some commercial fonts that you wouldn't know the
names of, instead of that stuff that gets tossed in "free" with an MS
OS. Will they thank you for taking away their nice expensive font and
replacing it with Verdana, or any other mass-market font of your
choice for that matter? I suspect not, although you'd be no worse
than many another web site in that regard.

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, Jake wrote:

I'm sure there are people out there who find anything less than
300%** intolerable.
300% of their chosen default text size? Then they made a poor choice,
and should be advised to make a better one.
[** Pick any figure you like]

Shan't.

[Johannes Koch]

Stan McCann wrote:

Arial at 120% can be too small
for me. Although not usually since I set a minimum size in my browser
so that I can see those small fonts.

If 120% of your default font size is too small for you, you should
increase your default font size.
--
Johannes Koch
Spem in alium nunquam habui praeter in te, Deus Israel.
(Thomas Tallis, 40-part motet)

['sNiek]

Alan J. Flavell schreef:

There are "big businesses" whose existence depends on doing business
via the web. Shall we take Google for an example? Their main web
page is mighty odd, by any W3C standards, but one thing I can report:
no sign of Verdana on there. Or try www.easyjet.co.uk: I didn't find
any there either (in HTML nor CSS). Chosen more or less at random -
maybe you can prove me wrong, but there's some kind of a message here.

Then there are "big businesses" who have been there since long before
there was a web. They have no need to have a widely successful web
page - they're already doing business just fine, thanks, and one
rather suspects they'd prefer to drive away any fastidious folks who
tried to access their web site. No point in attracting customers who
are going to make a nuisance of themselves, is there? So they shower
one with cookies, redirect one to an alternative web page demanding
that one "download MSIE now", stuff their pages full of irritating
flash, popups and anything else their designers can think of to
irritate those who have their own opinions. Only their most committed
customers would remain on the site, and - as often as not - one
suspects that's just how they want it. What can we learn from *them*
about the use of Verdana, riddle me that?
Hey, wait a minute... Does choosing Verdana mean you do stuff like this?
No way! Don't just assume that I (and other sitebuilders) build fucked
up websites because I, or the designer, desides to use Verdana.
OK, so you choose to lecture us about typography. Surely, those who
care enough about typography have a higher definition screen, and, in
all probability, some commercial fonts that you wouldn't know the
names of, instead of that stuff that gets tossed in "free" with an MS
OS.
How about Mac OS? They supply Verdana as well.
Why? Because webdesigners want to use it, and they do know something
about typography: they studied it.
Will they thank you for taking away their nice expensive font and
replacing it with Verdana, or any other mass-market font of your
choice for that matter? I suspect not, although you'd be no worse
than many another web site in that regard.

Have a nice time in Times-world ;-)
--
Niek

[kchayka]

Jake wrote:

Are you saying you can't read Verdana at 85%? Arial at 85%? of your
default setting?
I don't have Verdana, so I can't comment on its readability. Arial at
85% is quite a bit smaller than my own default font at 100%, thus it is
an uncomfortable size for reading body text. Why don't you get this?
I'm not sure that I understand why you're trying to associate this
mysterious 'Verdana issue' with AT users.

You don't seem to care about issues unless they affect screen reader
users (more specifically, HPR users). Font sizes don't affect those
folks, so you think it's an unimportant issue. Not so.

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

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, 'sNiek wrote:

Alan J. Flavell schreef: [...]

Only their most committed customers would remain on the site, and
- as often as not - one suspects that's just how they want it.
What can we learn from *them* about the use of Verdana, riddle me
that?

Hey, wait a minute... Does choosing Verdana mean you do stuff like
this?

You just made a classic error of logic. I never said any such thing,
nor did I intend it.
How about Mac OS? They supply Verdana as well.
So what? I say again, the mere fact that they all have it (they
probably have some version of Times too) is no reason, in and of
itself, to try to insist on them using it as their normal font for
body text. Those who have a good Helvetica probably prefer it, and
those who haven't, might make do with Arial if they haven't got
anything they like better. But this isn't really the point...

As is well known, Verdana has properties that are significantly
different from other sans fonts at the same nominal pt size -- if
font-size-adjust had been developed into a working implementation,
that might not have been so bad, but in fact the (somewhat
unsatisfactory) initial specification for it has now simply been
abandoned, leaving nothing in its place. From that follow the well
known disadvantages of throwing Verdana into an author-specified CSS
font mix (which you, it seems, have decided to disregard, for whatever
reason).
Have a nice time in Times-world ;-)

You really do have difficulties with the concepts of logic, don't you?

However, those who want to take their vendor's recommendation for the
default browser font have just as much right to their opinions as you
and I have, even though I personally have no wish to use Times myself
as my default font - even less try to impose it on others (if I wanted
to use a serif font on my browser, it still wouldn't be Times).

['sNiek]

Alan J. Flavell schreef:

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, 'sNiek wrote:

Alan J. Flavell schreef:
[...]

Only their most committed customers would remain on the site, and
- as often as not - one suspects that's just how they want it.
What can we learn from *them* about the use of Verdana, riddle me
that?

Hey, wait a minute... Does choosing Verdana mean you do stuff like
this?

You just made a classic error of logic. I never said any such thing,
nor did I intend it.

No, you didn't *say* it, but reading between the lines...

How about Mac OS? They supply Verdana as well.

So what? I say again, the mere fact that they all have it (they
probably have some version of Times too) is no reason, in and of
itself, to try to insist on them using it as their normal font for
body text. Those who have a good Helvetica probably prefer it, and
those who haven't, might make do with Arial if they haven't got
anything they like better. But this isn't really the point...

As is well known, Verdana has properties that are significantly
different from other sans fonts at the same nominal pt size -- if

There are more fonts that have a large x-height, like there are a lot of fonts with a small x-height.
font-size-adjust had been developed into a working implementation,
that might not have been so bad, but in fact the (somewhat
unsatisfactory) initial specification for it has now simply been
abandoned, leaving nothing in its place.
AFAIK Font-size-adjustment works just fine, it's truly a shame that IE doesn't follow the guidelines.
From that follow the well
known disadvantages of throwing Verdana into an author-specified CSS
font mix (which you, it seems, have decided to disregard, for whatever
reason).
So you're meaning is that the author mustnt specify a font? I find that very hard to follow, what;s next? The
author mustn't specify a hyperlink-colour (Do I hear jakob Nielsen whispering?).

Have a nice time in Times-world ;-)

You really do have difficulties with the concepts of logic, don't you?

That was a joke, that's why I put a smiley after it.


However, those who want to take their vendor's recommendation for the
default browser font have just as much right to their opinions as you
and I have, even though I personally have no wish to use Times myself
as my default font - even less try to impose it on others (if I wanted
to use a serif font on my browser, it still wouldn't be Times).

I think we just don't agree, that's nice: CSS isn't that boring after all :-)

--
Niek

[Andreas Prilop]

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Alan J. Flavell wrote:

How about Mac OS? They supply Verdana as well.

So what?

Verdana for Mac OS as distributed by Microsoft has a *very*
restricted character set: essentially MacRoman, no Greek,
no Cyrillic.

[Jake]

In message <Pi******************************@ppepc56.ph.gla.a c.uk>, Alan
J. Flavell <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> writes

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, Jake wrote:

I'm sure there are people out there who find anything less than
300%** intolerable.

300% of their chosen default text size? Then they made a poor choice,
and should be advised to make a better one.

[** Pick any figure you like]

Shan't.

Spoilsport.

--
Jake (ja**@gododdin.demon.co.uk -- just a 'spam trap' mail address)

[Jake]

In message <Pi******************************@ppepc56.ph.gla.a c.uk>, Alan
J. Flavell <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> writes

On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, Jake wrote:

No. I'm simply reflecting on the fact that most users have Verdana
installed.
So what? There's no compulsion to go and select it, merely on the
basis that many users have it.

As for losing business -- I doubt it.

If that really was the case, I'm sure that 'big business' would have
figured that one out my now, would they not?

Would they? There seems to be a bit of naivety showing through here.

There are "big businesses" whose existence depends on doing business
via the web. Shall we take Google for an example? Their main web
page is mighty odd, by any W3C standards, but one thing I can report:
no sign of Verdana on there. Or try www.easyjet.co.uk: I didn't find
any there either (in HTML nor CSS). Chosen more or less at random -
maybe you can prove me wrong, but there's some kind of a message here.

Then there are "big businesses" who have been there since long before
there was a web. They have no need to have a widely successful web
page - they're already doing business just fine, thanks, and one
rather suspects they'd prefer to drive away any fastidious folks who
tried to access their web site. No point in attracting customers who
are going to make a nuisance of themselves, is there? So they shower
one with cookies, redirect one to an alternative web page demanding
that one "download MSIE now", stuff their pages full of irritating
flash, popups and anything else their designers can think of to
irritate those who have their own opinions. Only their most committed
customers would remain on the site, and - as often as not - one
suspects that's just how they want it. What can we learn from *them*
about the use of Verdana, riddle me that?

And then there's the whole spectrum in between. Including those who
didn't want to take time to understand, so they outsourced the web
design.

All very interesting, but let's get back to the point under discussion:

Show me some evidence that the use of Verdana specified at less than
100% has affected 'big business'.

That's fine -- depends how you fell about typography.

Verdana was, after all, designed specifically as a 'Web font'; Arial
never was.
Yeah, and WebDings was "designed" (by someone who didn't understand
the web) too. Just because it has loose associations with the web
does not mean it's necessarily a good thing for use on the web!

So; let's see. Microsoft design a font (Verdana) especially for display
on the Web and you're saying it's not a good thing? Is this right?
Keep in mind that screen definition, on average is noticeably better
nowadays than when these conventions started. But display situations
are also *more diverse* than ever before.
Quite so.
*If* you need a font which
optimises readability at small pt sizes, which is what Verdana aimed
at, feel free to impose it *in the privacy of your own browser*.
Verdana was designed for *general* Web usage. Where do you get the idea
that it was designed for use in small sizes?
OK, so you choose to lecture us about typography.
(a) where do I 'lecture' anyone?
(b) who's 'us'?
Surely, those who
care enough about typography have a higher definition screen, and, in
all probability, some commercial fonts that you wouldn't know the
names of, instead of that stuff that gets tossed in "free" with an MS
OS. Will they thank you for taking away their nice expensive font and
replacing it with Verdana, or any other mass-market font of your
choice for that matter? I suspect not, although you'd be no worse
than many another web site in that regard.
Not sure what you're trying to say here -- but interesting, I'm sure.

Regards.

--
Jake (ja**@gododdin.demon.co.uk -- just a 'spam trap' mail address)

[Jake]

In message <3r************@individual.net>, kchayka <us****@c-net.us>
writes

Jake wrote:

Are you saying you can't read Verdana at 85%? Arial at 85%? of your
default setting?
I don't have Verdana, so I can't comment on its readability.

Not a Windows user, then?
Arial at
85% is quite a bit smaller than my own default font at 100%, thus it is
an uncomfortable size for reading body text. Why don't you get this?
So what do you do with sites using Arial at 80%? 70%?

Regards

--
Jake (ja**@gododdin.demon.co.uk -- just a 'spam trap' mail address)

[kchayka]

Jake wrote:

In message <3r************@individual.net>, kchayka <us****@c-net.us>
writes

Arial at
85% is quite a bit smaller than my own default font at 100%, thus it is
an uncomfortable size for reading body text. Why don't you get this?

So what do you do with sites using Arial at 80%? 70%?

It's not just about me. Why don't you get this either?

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

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Jake wrote:

All very interesting, but let's get back to the point under
discussion:

Show me some evidence that the use of Verdana specified at less than
100% has affected 'big business'.
Well, if you can show me some evidence that specifying Verdana has had
some demonstrably positive results for "big business", then maybe I'll
try to find some counter-examples for you. I don't expect there will
be any reliable evidence available in the public domain, to be honest.
OK: so Jakob Nielsen specifies Verdana on his own site, but at least
he resists the temptation to downsize it.

Could I remind you that merely specifying the name of a font (face)
does not in itself help with character repertoire, and there are some
versions of Verdana out there which have a significantly impaired
character repertoire - a fact which the deezyners might be unaware of.
So by specifying Verdana for all users, they might be getting the
"benefit" that some characters won't display at all, for some readers.
And this is a problem which especially affects MSIE - which is
doubtless the browser-like object at which those deezyners think they
are aiming (Gecko-based browsers seem quite good at going and finding
missing characters from some other font -- although the mixture of
fonts might not be so very cosmetically attractive, at least the
character won't be missing, or displayed as an empty box).

*If* you need a font which optimises readability at small pt
sizes, which is what Verdana aimed at, feel free to impose it *in
the privacy of your own browser*.

Verdana was designed for *general* Web usage.

Yes, that's true - I wasn't trying to say that there's anything wrong
with using it also at larger sizes - but a particular design criterion
was legibility at small nominal pt sizes when displayed on pixel-based
displays, even at lower resolutions.
Where do you get the idea that it was designed for use in small
sizes?

Would you believe e.g
http://www.microsoft.com/typography/...na/default.htm ?

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, 'sNiek wrote, quoting me:

From that follow the well known disadvantages of throwing Verdana
into an author-specified CSS font mix (which you, it seems, have
decided to disregard, for whatever reason).
So you're meaning is that the author mustnt specify a font?

You seem to have a routine agenda of reading something extra into
everything that you disagree with, in order to enhance your
disagreement...?

But since you ask: for body text, I'd say that it's an option worth
considering, even though I wouldn't say "mustn't specify". For
headings and other snippets expected to be displayed larger than body
text, and if a wider character repertoire is avoided, then there's
less at risk when a specific font is proposed.
I find that very hard to follow, what;s next? The author mustn't
specify a hyperlink-colour (Do I hear jakob Nielsen whispering?).

Let's try an analogy. It seems to be generally agreed around here
that specifying an absolute font size is a bad idea, even though CSS
contains the syntax for doing it. I'm not sure why you'd want to
over-stretch that specific advice to mean that it's generally a bad
idea to specify *anything* in CSS, which is where your debating style
seems to be leading you.

Nevertheless, I hate it when authors set their links and visited links
to be the same colour as normal text, and with no other indication
that they are links, unless and until one hovers over them. I call
that "mystery meat navigation", and I don't find it attractive in a
web page.

Blue and purple might not have been the best possible choices for the
purpose, but they -are- a widely-understood convention, and if there's
no good reason to avoid them, why avoid them?

['sNiek]

Alan J. Flavell schreef:

On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, 'sNiek wrote, quoting me:

From that follow the well known disadvantages of throwing Verdana
into an author-specified CSS font mix (which you, it seems, have
decided to disregard, for whatever reason).
So you're meaning is that the author mustnt specify a font?

You seem to have a routine agenda of reading something extra into
everything that you disagree with, in order to enhance your
disagreement...?

Well no, I've been reading and posting in this newsgroup for a few
months now and I thought that I have reached the point to give my
opinion now and then. And this subject seems to be a worth a good
discussion right?
I'm not into the "I'm against everything you say"-attitude at all.
Neither do I want to enhance my disagreement, I just want to test my
opinion against yours and other posters. If you concince me I'l be so
honest to say so.

But since you ask: for body text, I'd say that it's an option worth
considering, even though I wouldn't say "mustn't specify". For
headings and other snippets expected to be displayed larger than body
text, and if a wider character repertoire is avoided, then there's
less at risk when a specific font is proposed.
You allready know what's my opinion about that ;-)

I find that very hard to follow, what;s next? The author mustn't
specify a hyperlink-colour (Do I hear jakob Nielsen whispering?).

Let's try an analogy. It seems to be generally agreed around here
that specifying an absolute font size is a bad idea, even though CSS
contains the syntax for doing it.

Yep, I agree (you see!)
I'm not sure why you'd want to
over-stretch that specific advice to mean that it's generally a bad
idea to specify *anything* in CSS, which is where your debating style
seems to be leading you.
Nope, just want to find out how far you would go. There are CSS-freaks
who claim that you must leave as much as possible to the UA. I'm not
into that, I think it is good to give a websites it's own identity.

Nevertheless, I hate it when authors set their links and visited links
to be the same colour as normal text, and with no other indication
that they are links, unless and until one hovers over them. I call
that "mystery meat navigation", and I don't find it attractive in a
web page.
That's one of the baddest things you can do, so again we agree :-)

Blue and purple might not have been the best possible choices for the
purpose, but they -are- a widely-understood convention, and if there's
no good reason to avoid them, why avoid them?

I like to specify a general link-colour, depending on the design, but
let's say red. Visited links then will be dark or grayish red. The
hover-colour will be another colour based on the website-design.
Sometimes you see a link-colour in - let's say - orange and then the
visited link-colour will be blue. That's to much: I have to learn that
orange is the unvisited colour and blue is the visited one.
--
Niek

[Matt Silberstein]

On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 10:24:21 +0100, in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets , "Alan J. Flavell"
<fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> in
<Pi******************************@ppepc56.ph.gla.a c.uk> wrote:

On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, The Major wrote:

Verdana is the best bad choice we have! What else are we to use
I suppose you wouldn't consider allowing the user to use the body
text font which they have already chosen, whatever it may be, at the
size they already found comfortable?

What you do with headers and other snippets of text is up to you, but
with body text surely the user priority is comfortable reading?
I can argue both ways. If I am just placing some text on a page, then
the readers font choice is fine by me. But I can also see wanting to
suggest, and that is all I can do remember, the font. First off, I
happen to see a major different between serif and sans serif fonts. If
I have bulky text, then serif is better and I would suggest it to the
read. If I am going to have sparse text bits, then a sans serif font
makes more sense.

I am torn here because I really like picking typeface. I think it make
a big difference and should vary with both layout and content. There
are serious typefaces and casual and formal and so on. "Lucky" for me
I don't have any of those choices on the web. (So I make all text a
graphic. Just kidding.) I think the best I can hope for is leading the
reader to a serif or sans serif font.

Of course I can "solve" the problem by not having anything in body
text but making everything into some special class where I set the
font. Of course this can be overridden anyway, but it sidesteps the
question of changing body text.
Fortunately the user always has the last word anyway, no matter how
hard you try to fight them. But I, for one, resent having to apply
force to web pages merely in order to be able to read them comfortably
(or, in extreme cases, to be able to read them at all!).

I rarely have that problem since so few pages are worth putting in any
effort. If they mess things up, and color does this for me more than
typeface, then I just ignore the page.
--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org

Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/

[Matt Silberstein]

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 13:26:19 GMT, in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets , "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.*********@example.invalid> in
<1e******************************@40tude.net> wrote:

'sNiek wrote:

Darin McGrew schreef:

Also, you might consider avoiding Verdana:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html

I disagree on that, just because verdana uses a bigger x-height
doesn't mean that it is bad.

Verdana isn't a bad font. It's the font-size: 80%; or font-size: 10px;
that authors use with it, because it looks "too large" on their own
monitors.

Does it really come down to Veranda is a good font at small sizes
because they made the font large?

BTW: I find it very misleading to just say "Throw away Verdana" to
newbees.

Agreed. We have to tell them why... :-)

--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

Genocide is news | Be A Witness
http://www.beawitness.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
www.darfurgenocide.org

Save Darfur.org :: Violence and Suffering in Sudan's Darfur Region
http://www.savedarfur.org/

[Daniel Déchelotte]

Matt Silberstein a écrit :

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:

Verdana isn't a bad font. It's the font-size: 80%; or font-size:
10px; that authors use with it, because it looks "too large" on their
own monitors.

Does it really come down to Veranda is a good font at small sizes
because they made the font large?

I believe it is more accurate to say they made the font *wide* (i.e.
wider than the average, given the height).

--
Daniel Déchelotte
http://yo.dan.free.fr/

[dingbat]

Matt Silberstein wrote:

Does it really come down to Veranda is a good font at small sizes
because they made the font large?

Yes.

It's a bad font because this size trick is incompatible with other
fonts, so it thus breaks the CSS fallback mechanism for use with
unavailable fonts.

What's Verdana like as a typeface? (i.e. just the shape) As far as my
eyes can tell, I can't distinguish it from a cheap Arial or clone
Helvetica.

[Andreas Prilop]

On 18 Oct 2005 di*****@codesmiths.com wrote:

What's Verdana like as a typeface? (i.e. just the shape) As far as my
eyes can tell, I can't distinguish it from a cheap Arial or clone
Helvetica.

You must be blind.

--
Netscape 3.04 does everything I need, and it's utterly reliable.
Why should I switch? Peter T. Daniels in <news:sci.lang>

[kchayka]

di*****@codesmiths.com wrote:

cheap Arial

Isn't 'cheap' superfluous in this case? ;)

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