Clarification on Font Size and Inheritance.

[Viken Karaguesian]

Hello all,

I just need confirmation on the subject of font size and its
inheritance. Take this example:

body {
font-family: arial;
font-size: 95%;
}

p.fineprint {
font-size: 75%;
}

Is the font size in the p.fineprint set to 75% of the *value in the
body*? So in this case, it would be 75% of the 95% in the body. My
experiments seem to show that that's the case, but I just need some
confirmation.

Also, how do EM and % compare? Setting the font to 1em seems to be the
same as setting it to 100%, .90em seems the same as 90%. What are the
technical differences? In which cases should/would I use one over the
other?

Thanks everyone.

Viken K.

[Michael Winter]

On 11/01/2006 13:16, Viken Karaguesian wrote:

[snip]

body {
font-family: arial;
font-size: 95%;
}

p.fineprint {
font-size: 75%;
}

Is the font size in the p.fineprint set to 75% of the *value in the
body*?
Assuming that there are no intervening font-size declarations, yes.

[snip]
Also, how do EM and % compare?
They are directly proportional. A length of 1em equals the computed
value of the font-size property. Furthermore, if the value of a
font-size property is 1em, it equals 100% of the parent font size.

This is explained in the CSS Specification, in 4.3.2 Lengths.

[snip]
What are the technical differences? In which cases should/would I use
one over the other?

I would recommend that you always use percentages, especially if nesting
font-size declarations. IE fails to calculate these properly.

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail.

[Andreas Prilop]

On 11 Jan 2006, Viken Karaguesian wrote:

body {
font-size: 95%;

This is naughty! If you specify any font size for BODY, then
take 100% only.

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

[Viken Karaguesian]

Any reason to set the font-size at 100% only? Since the font-size is
inherited, specifying the font-size for a site in the body means I
don't have to repeat it for <p>, <ul>, <li>, <div>, <td>, etc.

If I set the body to 100% but really want my font-size to be 95%, then
I'd have to specify it for all tags, right?

Viken K.

[Viken Karaguesian]

Thanks for the reply Michael.

[Andreas Prilop]

On 11 Jan 2006, Viken Karaguesian wrote:

really want my font-size to be 95%,

Why? Stop wanting that! 100% is the reader's preferred size.
Setting the body font size to anything smaller, means to annoy
the reader.

You could set the font size of footnotes, legalese phrases
and such to something smaller than 100%.

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

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Viken Karaguesian wrote:

Any reason to set the font-size at 100% only? Since the font-size is
inherited, specifying the font-size for a site in the body means I
don't have to repeat it for <p>, <ul>, <li>, <div>, <td>, etc.
If set in body, no other element needs a font size, except perhaps the
headings (h1, h2, etc) and legalese.

body { font-size: 100%; }
h1 { font-size: 140%; }
h2 { font-size: 125%; }
..legalese { font-size: 85%; }
If I set the body to 100% but really want my font-size to be 95%, then
I'd have to specify it for all tags, right?

No. If you personally like smaller text, set your own browser's default
size a bit smaller. But leave your web pages at *our* default size.

Please see this page as well:
http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer

[Eric Kenneth Bustad]

In article <11**********************@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups .com>,
Viken Karaguesian <vi****@aol.com> wrote:

Any reason to set the font-size at 100% only? Since the font-size is
inherited, specifying the font-size for a site in the body means I
don't have to repeat it for <p>, <ul>, <li>, <div>, <td>, etc.

If I set the body to 100% but really want my font-size to be 95%, then
I'd have to specify it for all tags, right?

That is 95% of what the user's browser is configured to use as the
default text size. Presumably that default is what the user prefers.
So why do you want it smaller?

--
= Eric Bustad, Norwegian Bachelor Programmer

[Michael Winter]

On 11/01/2006 14:29, Michael Winter wrote:

[snip]

I would recommend that you always use percentages, especially if nesting
font-size declarations. IE fails to calculate these properly.

^^^^^
By 'these', I was referring to nested font-size declarations that use em
values. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Mike

--
Michael Winter
Prefix subject with [News] before replying by e-mail.

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Eric Kenneth Bustad wrote:

Viken Karaguesian <vi****@aol.com> wrote:

If I set the body to 100% but really want my font-size to be 95%, then
I'd have to specify it for all tags, right?

That is 95% of what the user's browser is configured to use as the
default text size. Presumably that default is what the user prefers.
So why do you want it smaller?

It's the modern example of "Optimized for arguing with customers",
don't you know?

As the author of that original article wrote, years ago, when
Windows 95 was state of the art, and 800x600 was a large display:

There is a saying in marketing (at least in Germany): 'No one has
ever won an argument with a customer'. Visitors to your site are your
customers, and if you tell them their configuration is not right, you
are arguing.

But there are web site authors who still don't want to know.

[Viken Karaguesian]

The current site I'm working on uses Arial font, as requested by my
"client" (I'm volunteering my time, 'cause this is fun for me). I set
the font to 100%, but they complained that it looked too big (tall).
They showed me examples of other sites that used Arial font, and said
"make it look like that". Reducing the font to 95% gave it the look
they wanted.

Actually, I think that Arial is easier to read at 95% than at 100%. The
letters don't look so tall and bunched together.

Viken K.

[Viken Karaguesian]

> Please see this page as well:

http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/

Thanks. I was wondering why I couldn't quote in Google. When I'm at
home, I use Outlook Express for my news reader but at work I'm stuck
using the Google interface.

[Andreas Prilop]

On 11 Jan 2006, Viken Karaguesian wrote:

Actually, I think that Arial is easier to read at 95% than at 100%.

This sentence is meaningless because 95% and 100% are *not*
specific font sizes. You might say, for example,

| I think that Arial is easier to read at 10 pt than at 12 pt.

Someone else might say,

| I think that Arial is easier to read at 11 pt than at 10 pt.

[Viken Karaguesian]

> Please see this page as well:

http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/

Thanks. I was wondering why I couldn't quote in Google. When I'm at
home, I use Outlook Express for my news reader but at work I'm stuck
using the Google interface.

[NoSLZZP]

Andreas Prilop Wrote:

On 11 Jan 2006, Viken Karaguesian wrote:

body {
font-size: 95%;

This is naughty! If you specify any font size for BODY, then
take 100% only.

Absolutely. For the "body" font definition, you want that to be your
"base" definition that all other font size determinations are made
from. Ask yourself this: "If you are defining the body font-size to
be 95%, it's 95% of WHAT?".

The best thing to do here is just to say:

font-size: medium;

Let the browsers interpret the rest from that point forward based on
your percentages.

--
NoSLZZP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NoSLZZP's Profile: http://2006.html.com/forums/member.php?userid=109
View this thread: http://2006.html.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45121

1
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-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 =----

[Viken Karaguesian]

> This sentence is meaningless because 95% and 100% are *not*

specific font sizes.

Ok, I see your point. Using percentages, then, must mean that the font
size is relative, but relative to what? It must be X% of something.

Viken K.

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Viken Karaguesian wrote:

Actually, I think that Arial is easier to read at 95% than at 100%. The
letters don't look so tall and bunched together.

Then, once again, you need to adjust your own browser's default font
size. You may have really good eyes. Your visitors may not, and have set
their browsers to what they like. If you use 100%, you accomodate them.

You might also want to instruct your client on how to adjust the default
size in his/her browsers.

And ask them to read this thread.

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Viken Karaguesian wrote:

This sentence is meaningless because 95% and 100% are *not*
specific font sizes.

Ok, I see your point. Using percentages, then, must mean that the font
size is relative, but relative to what? It must be X% of something.

X% of what each and every visitor (including yourself) has chosen as
their personal, preferred size. If you deviate from 100%, well, you are
abusing your visitors.

In Firefox, Tools > Options > General > Fonts & Colors
Adjust your own taste a bit lower than what it is now.

Not sure how we can make this any more clear...

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer

[Viken Karaguesian]

> X% of what each and every visitor (including yourself) has chosen as

their personal, preferred size.

OK...I see. If I use the percent value in the <body> tag, then the base
font size is derived from the user's browser settings.

Viken K.

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Viken Karaguesian wrote:

X% of what each and every visitor (including yourself) has chosen as
their personal, preferred size.

OK...I see. If I use the percent value in the <body> tag, then the base
font size is derived from the user's browser settings.

Exactly.

And since this is "Be Kind To Visitors" week, use 100%. :-)

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer

[Viken Karaguesian]

> In Firefox, Tools > Options > General > Fonts & Colors

Adjust your own taste a bit lower than what it is now.

Not sure how we can make this any more clear...

It's not a matter of making it more clear. I'm merely trying to figure
out and understand the technical and background aspects of it all.

The <p> tag inherits the font-size from the <body>. I was just trying
to understand where the <body> inherits the font size from if I use a
percentage value. It's clear to me now that it gets it from the browser
settings.

Anyone can just copy and paste code and make a website work. If I
understand *how* it all works, I can be better at it. Of course, one
can't learn everything in a day :>)

Viken K.

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Viken Karaguesian wrote:

In Firefox, Tools > Options > General > Fonts & Colors
Adjust your own taste a bit lower than what it is now.

Not sure how we can make this any more clear...
It's not a matter of making it more clear. I'm merely trying to
figure out and understand the technical and background aspects of it
all.

Ok. <g>
The <p> tag inherits the font-size from the <body>. I was just trying
to understand where the <body> inherits the font size from if I use a
percentage value. It's clear to me now that it gets it from the
browser settings.
Yes, that is how it works, so long as the body sizing is using
percentage. It will also work if you use a value of em, but Internet
Explorer has a bug whereby using em causes problems. A small increase of
yours may end up displaying double the size.
Anyone can just copy and paste code and make a website work.
For some value of "work" <g>
If I understand *how* it all works, I can be better at it. Of course,
one can't learn everything in a day :>)

Allow at least .. three? .. days.

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer

[Eric B. Bednarz]

"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> writes:

Viken Karaguesian <vi****@aol.com> wrote:

If I set the body to 100% but really want my font-size to be 95%,

Neither you nor any client (let alone users) ever wants *that*. What's
certainly demanded on a reguarly basis is what I'd call 'professional
PR (pixel ratio ;) marketese'.

There's the widespread half-witted 'accessibility' directive 'use
relative units for font-size instead of absolute ones' (without further
notion, 'relative' includes the 'px' unit of course :), though.

Which usually boils down to scaling some notorious sans-serif of sorts
downwards to a percentage that equals the pretty sight of 12px in a
house and garden 96 dpi environment. And sticking a 'strong
accessibility commitment' on top of it.

This level of insight and commitment is excellently illustrated by the
fine guidelines of the Dutch government for "A durable and accessible
web for everybody". Have a screenshot:
<http://bednarz.nl/img/duur.png>
I do not *need* it like *that* myself, BTW, but on my Laptop any size
that is at least legible is good enough to mess things up (and my
eyesight is perfectly alright for spotting pixels at an arm's length ;).

Now for the good news; as a natural person you need not be a hypocrite
and can just choose an absolute (in reality, not per spec) size to your
likes (if that's what your site is all about) with the px unit.
Or be a good boy and decide not to fuck with your visitors.
It's the modern example of "Optimized for arguing with customers",
don't you know? [...] But there are web site authors who still don't want to know.

This is unfairly overgeneralising as professional web authors are
regularly doing just that, not arguing with *their* customer, when
generating flyshit on demand.

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Eric B. Bednarz wrote:

"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> writes:

It's the modern example of "Optimized for arguing with customers",
don't you know?

[...]

But there are web site authors who still don't want to know.

This is unfairly overgeneralising as professional web authors are
regularly doing just that, not arguing with *their* customer, when
generating flyshit on demand.

I understand that, but it doesn't wash - the *site* has still been
optimized for arguing with *customers*, no matter what the
subcontracting details behind how the *site* came into being.

If I engaged an architect to build me a house, and I demanded
something that was in clear violation of building codes, I would
expect the architect to advise me of my mistake - not to simply do
what I'd innocently asked for, and leave me to pick up the costs of
the mistake. I don't see why we shouldn't apply the same standards to
web designers.

[Eric B. Bednarz]

"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@physics.gla.ac.uk> writes:

If I engaged an architect to build me a house, and I demanded
something that was in clear violation of building codes, I would
expect the architect to advise me of my mistake - not to simply do
what I'd innocently asked for,
That should go without saying. But you cannot do any *more* than that
-- convincing advice at gunpoint is still illegal in some countries I'm
afraid -- short of turning down the assignment. Which isn't really an
option for everybody's situation, and it might even require some
legalese in advance that wouldn't read as a convincing advertisement to
hire you in the first place.

On the upside, talking sense is seldom a problem if there is an even
communication channel available, id est, one person advising one other
who is entitled and willing to make a decision all by herself.
Quite often, that's not the case.
and leave me to pick up the costs of
the mistake. I don't see why we shouldn't apply the same standards to
web designers.

If all the houses in your neighbourhood sport the same clear violations,
you are certainly entitled to your own copy. This isn't meant to be
funny, by the way. E.g., the odds really *are* that 'people' will find
their accidental default text size too large if you don't do anything
about it. Because quite literally all the 'normal interest' sites they
visit *have* done that for them, and there _is_ a real problem when real
people (customers, staff members, business relations) start complaining
about that -- and they actually do; expect the advising formerly expert
to be greeted with 'see, I told you so right from the beginning' by the
late client.

There's no conclusion on my account, btw, except that 'doing the
right thing' will not always just fly, neither as a line of
argumentation nor in terms of, eeks, user experience.

[Rob McAninch]

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote in
<news:1o******************************@40tude.ne t> :

Viken Karaguesian wrote:

X% of what each and every visitor (including yourself) has
chosen as their personal, preferred size.

OK...I see. If I use the percent value in the <body> tag,
then the base font size is derived from the user's browser
settings.

Exactly.

How many visitors to the average site actually know how to change
the font size in the browser? Probably not as many as we would
like, or the op's situation wouldn't have happened. The site's
owner would have already had his font size reduced.

Perhaps that should be added to the installation routines:
Pick a font size you like and this will be the default, you can
change the appearance of web pages [here]. Have a nice day.

Just a thought.

--
Rob McAninch
http://rock13.com

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Rob McAninch wrote:

How many visitors to the average site actually know how to change
the font size in the browser?

Maybe those visitors prefer the size which was selected for them by
their vendor? We really don't know - and, as authors, we shouldn't be
expected to ask. Their choice is their choice - no matter how it was
arrived at. Our job as authors is to work *with* that choice, not to
argue with it, unless we can find some good excuse for interfering.

Authors who say "the font looks too big *to me*" isn't what I'd call
an adequate excuse to interfere with the reader's right to choose.

As a reader, of course, I set a minimum font size in my browser, to
protect me from those idiot authors who persist in trying to reduce
the font size way below what I chose for myself. (I'm glad to see
that Chris Pederick has now implemented the suggestion for an option
to disable that setting when one is *reviewing* web pages, rather than
trying to *use* them - web developer toolbar version 1.0.)

[Jim Moe]

Viken Karaguesian wrote:

The current site I'm working on uses Arial font, as requested by my
"client" (I'm volunteering my time, 'cause this is fun for me). I set
the font to 100%, but they complained that it looked too big (tall).
They showed me examples of other sites that used Arial font, and said
"make it look like that". Reducing the font to 95% gave it the look
they wanted.
Show your client the marvels of his browser. Specifically how to adjust
the default font size.
Also, what is the client using? A 21" monitor at 800x600?
Actually, I think that Arial is easier to read at 95% than at 100%. The
letters don't look so tall and bunched together.

That only applies to your particular monitor, screen resolution, color
depth, default font size, quality of font package(s) installed, font
rendering subsystem, font smoothing, and personal taste. If you can adjust
all of those properties at the visitor's machine, you are a wizard. But
the visitor may not appreciate it.

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

[Darin McGrew]

Alan J. Flavell <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote:

As a reader, of course, I set a minimum font size in my browser, to
protect me from those idiot authors who persist in trying to reduce
the font size way below what I chose for myself.

FWIW, in addition to setting a minimum font size, I also use my user style
sheet to apply "font-size: 100% !important" to the HTML and BODY elements.
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"Shin: a device for finding furniture in the dark." - Steven Wright

[Mark Parnell]

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Rob McAninch
<ro****@excite.com> spouted in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:

Perhaps that should be added to the installation routines:

That assumes that the browser is actually installed by the user, not by
e.g. the company technician or a friend who "knows computers".

It also ignores that commonly-used browser-like OS component that is
installed as part of Windows, not installed separately.

So perhaps it's a nice theory, but it would never work (and yes, I
realise your comment was at least partly tongue in cheek). :-)

--
Mark Parnell
================================================== ===
Att. Google Groups users - this is your last warning:
http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/

[Eric B. Bednarz]

"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> writes:

Authors who say "the font looks too big *to me*" isn't what I'd call
an adequate excuse to interfere with the reader's right to choose.
There's never an *adequate* excuse (well, certain default aspect ratios
are really terrible, notably sans-serif/monospace on Linux distros
I've used; or /cursive/ -- Mr. Clark's desperate attempts at
http://blog.fawny.org/ to produce something suitable on *n*x is
wonderfully illegible -- I'd prefer a call for Arial any day, mainly
because I *don't* have it, as opposed to suggesting Courier for
monospaced issues improving things a lot -- *here*, that is). But there
commonly _is_ a problem; there just ain't no solution at the wrong end
of the wire. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be an adequate
approach for most business applications.

'Adequate' has grown pretty meaningless to me in that sense; I pretty
much know what's adequate or how to make a case when preaching to the
choir.
As a reader, of course, I set a minimum font size in my browser, to
protect me from those idiot authors who persist in trying to reduce
the font size way below what I chose for myself.

Not to give a wrong impression, as a reader, I mostly use a 10 inch
screen with a resolution of 1024*768. With a default 14px size as
minimum, thanks to the wonders of CSS, that also requires some serious
greasemonkey hacking to use some contemporary, uh, web-services.

[Ed Mullen]

Eric B. Bednarz wrote:

"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> writes:

Not to give a wrong impression, as a reader, I mostly use a 10 inch
screen with a resolution of 1024*768. With a default 14px size as
minimum, thanks to the wonders of CSS, that also requires some serious
greasemonkey hacking to use some contemporary, uh, web-services.

Umm, is that a typo? A 10-inch screen at 1024x768? I'd love some details.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net

[Andreas Prilop]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Rob McAninch wrote:

How many visitors to the average site actually know how to change
the font size in the browser?

How many drivers actually know how to adjust their seats and
their rear-view mirror?

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

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Ed Mullen wrote:

Eric B. Bednarz wrote:

"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> writes:
[**nothing** that you quoted...]
Not to give a wrong impression, as a reader, I mostly use a 10 inch
screen with a resolution of 1024*768.

Umm, is that a typo? A 10-inch screen at 1024x768? I'd love some
details.

I suppose we should wait for Eric's response, but it could be the
horizontal dimension of a not unreasonable laptop?

[Rob McAninch]

Andreas Prilop <nh******@rrzn-user.uni-hannover.de> wrote in
<news:Pi*************************************@s5b0 04.rrzn.uni-han
nover.de> :

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Rob McAninch wrote:

How many visitors to the average site actually know how to
change the font size in the browser?

How many drivers actually know how to adjust their seats and
their rear-view mirror?

How many web users have been trained, tested, and licensed to
operate the web browser? (Speaking of U.S. laws at any rate.)

--
Rob McAninch
http://rock13.com

[Mark Parnell]

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Rob McAninch
<ro****@excite.com> spouted in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:

Andreas Prilop <nh******@rrzn-user.uni-hannover.de> wrote in
<news:Pi*************************************@s5b0 04.rrzn.uni-han
nover.de> :

How many drivers actually know how to adjust their seats and
their rear-view mirror?

How many web users have been trained, tested, and licensed to
operate the web browser? (Speaking of U.S. laws at any rate.)

I don't know about the US, but we certainly don't get trained, tested
and licensed to adjust the seat and mirrors. If they need adjusting, you
work it out.

--
Mark Parnell
================================================== ===
Att. Google Groups users - this is your last warning:
http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/

[Eric B. Bednarz]

Ed Mullen <[e-mail]> writes:

Eric B. Bednarz wrote:

I mostly use a 10 inch screen with a resolution of 1024*768

Umm, is that a typo?
Uh, right. Must be something pathological, as I made it before. I'll
better have a look into auto-correction. :) It's 12".

(also, I rather wanted to make a point about _not_ using anything
special ;-)
A 10-inch screen at 1024x768?

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/oryl/65912101/in/set-1382209/>