469,303 Members | 1,910 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,303 developers. It's quick & easy.

<li> height is to big

Hi there

I am using <li> tags for my menu.

<ul>
<li>item 1</li>
<li>item 2</li>
<li>item 3</li>
</ul>

In a CSS i define the menu.

In IE i can not get the text closer to each other. I mean the one
beneath the former menu item should be a bit closer to this former item.
In firefox it works, but in IE it does not.

Here is my page:

http://www.keyone.nl/lab/grunopark/basis.asp

I did not do the artwork so i am not responsable for the small font-size
and the designer wants to have the total menu on the screen.

Anyone an idea?

I hope you understand my (crappy english) question.

Thanks,
Mark

Feb 16 '06 #1
32 10304
Thu, 16 Feb 2006 16:26:41 +0100 from Mark <sc*****@xs4all.nl>:
the designer wants to have the total menu on the screen.


The only possible answer is "stop wanting that". Your dee-zigh-ner
cannot control the size of the browser window (window, _not_ screen).

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you
Feb 16 '06 #2
Mark wrote:

http://www.keyone.nl/lab/grunopark/basis.asp

I did not do the artwork so i am not responsable for the small font-size
and the designer wants to have the total menu on the screen.


Hmmm... your deezyner thinks he can force me to use a font-size I find
unreadable? Tell him to get a clue, eh?

With my larger-than-average text size several items in the menu
word-wrap to 2 lines, causing clipped text. Plus with line-height:0 the
text looks all squished up, making it rather less readable than it could
be. I don't speak the language, so I don't know if the clipped text
makes the menu (partly) unusable or not. It is suboptimal, for sure. It
looks like you're trying to force a size 10 foot into a size 5 shoe. It
can't work, and it looks bad.

Lesson for the day: The author has no control over the user's browsing
environment. Might as well get used to that concept right now, and save
yourself a whole lot of frustration and failure.

As for the list spacing in IE, in this case it actually improves
readability, at least for those links that don't have a word-wrapping
problem.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Feb 16 '06 #3
kchayka wrote:
Mark wrote:
http://www.keyone.nl/lab/grunopark/basis.asp

I did not do the artwork so i am not responsable for the small font-size
and the designer wants to have the total menu on the screen.

Hmmm... your deezyner thinks he can force me to use a font-size I find
unreadable? Tell him to get a clue, eh?

With my larger-than-average text size several items in the menu
word-wrap to 2 lines, causing clipped text. Plus with line-height:0 the
text looks all squished up, making it rather less readable than it could
be. I don't speak the language, so I don't know if the clipped text
makes the menu (partly) unusable or not. It is suboptimal, for sure. It
looks like you're trying to force a size 10 foot into a size 5 shoe. It
can't work, and it looks bad.

Lesson for the day: The author has no control over the user's browsing
environment. Might as well get used to that concept right now, and save
yourself a whole lot of frustration and failure.

As for the list spacing in IE, in this case it actually improves
readability, at least for those links that don't have a word-wrapping
problem.


Yep, you're right. But that does not solve my problem.
I did inform the designer and the client. But they do not care...

Feb 16 '06 #4
Mark wrote:
Hi there

I am using <li> tags for my menu.

<ul>
<li>item 1</li>
<li>item 2</li>
<li>item 3</li>
</ul>

In a CSS i define the menu.

In IE i can not get the text closer to each other. I mean the one
beneath the former menu item should be a bit closer to this former item.
In firefox it works, but in IE it does not.
It looks much better in IE. It would look better if the font were larger
so it wouldn't look so jagged.

Here is my page:

http://www.keyone.nl/lab/grunopark/basis.asp

I did not do the artwork so i am not responsable for the small font-size
and the designer wants to have the total menu on the screen.
Is this the same designer who thinks that brown (?) lettering on a
saturated pink background is readable? It's very hard on the eyes.

Tell the designer that the total menu isn't on the screen in Firefox
either. The designer has no idea how high my browser window will be.

Anyone an idea?
I wonder if IE understands the height property when applied to an LI.

I hope you understand my (crappy english) question.

Thanks,
Mark

Feb 16 '06 #5
Harlan Messinger wrote:
Mark wrote:
Hi there

I am using <li> tags for my menu.

<ul>
<li>item 1</li>
<li>item 2</li>
<li>item 3</li>
</ul>

In a CSS i define the menu.

In IE i can not get the text closer to each other. I mean the one
beneath the former menu item should be a bit closer to this former
item. In firefox it works, but in IE it does not.

It looks much better in IE. It would look better if the font were larger
so it wouldn't look so jagged.

Here is my page:

http://www.keyone.nl/lab/grunopark/basis.asp

I did not do the artwork so i am not responsable for the small
font-size and the designer wants to have the total menu on the screen.

Is this the same designer who thinks that brown (?) lettering on a
saturated pink background is readable? It's very hard on the eyes.

Tell the designer that the total menu isn't on the screen in Firefox
either. The designer has no idea how high my browser window will be.

Anyone an idea?

I wonder if IE understands the height property when applied to an LI.

I hope you understand my (crappy english) question.

Thanks,
Mark


Ah, what i meant with the total menu on the screen is not if you can see
all of it (would be nice though), but all the items must show (you can
scroll for some items). That is there already. Now i like to try (well,
the designer wants to) to get the menu-items closer to each other. But
if this is possible at all i don't know. If not, i will have to argue again.

Thanks

Feb 16 '06 #6
Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:17:22 +0100 from Mark <sc*****@xs4all.nl>:
Yep, you're right. But that does not solve my problem.
I did inform the designer and the client. But they do not care...


So how would you deal with a client who said "I don't want to hear
about gravity, this thing has to float without any power source!"

Sorry, but part of your job is explaining the realities to them. If
they want what is impossible (not just expensive, impossible) you
need to make them see reason. I don't say it will be easy or
pleasant...

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you
Feb 16 '06 #7
Harlan Messinger wrote:

I wonder if IE understands the height property when applied to an LI.


IE has known problems spacing list markup containing a{display:block}.
There are multiple ways around it. google if you're interested.

As for honoring height, IE's broken overflow behavior won't allow it, at
least not by default. MS is apparently going to correct that with IE7.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Feb 16 '06 #8
Stan Brown wrote:
Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:17:22 +0100 from Mark <sc*****@xs4all.nl>:
Yep, you're right. But that does not solve my problem.
I did inform the designer and the client. But they do not care...

So how would you deal with a client who said "I don't want to hear
about gravity, this thing has to float without any power source!"

Sorry, but part of your job is explaining the realities to them. If
they want what is impossible (not just expensive, impossible) you
need to make them see reason. I don't say it will be easy or
pleasant...


I think you are confused. Perhaps because of my english.
It is possible to show the menu as you can see. Problem is the font size
and, what the question is about: how to get those (perhaps unreadable
menu items) closer to each other.

Mark

Feb 16 '06 #9
Re: http://www.keyone.nl/lab/grunopark/basis.asp
Mark <sc*****@xs4all.nl> wrote:
It is possible to show the menu as you can see. Problem is the font size
and, what the question is about: how to get those (perhaps unreadable
menu items) closer to each other.


How much closer do you want them to be? I enforce a modest minimum font
size (12px), and several of them are overlapping each other.
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"Do not look where you fell, but where you slipped." - African Proverb
Feb 16 '06 #10
kchayka wrote:
Harlan Messinger wrote:
I wonder if IE understands the height property when applied to an LI.

IE has known problems spacing list markup containing a{display:block}.
There are multiple ways around it. google if you're interested.

As for honoring height, IE's broken overflow behavior won't allow it, at
least not by default. MS is apparently going to correct that with IE7.


Found it, thanks.

<li>
display: inline;
</li>
Feb 16 '06 #11
In message <43************@xs4all.nl>, Mark <sc*****@xs4all.nl> writes
Stan Brown wrote:
Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:17:22 +0100 from Mark <sc*****@xs4all.nl>:
Yep, you're right. But that does not solve my problem.
I did inform the designer and the client. But they do not care...

So how would you deal with a client who said "I don't want to hear
about gravity, this thing has to float without any power source!"
Sorry, but part of your job is explaining the realities to them. If
they want what is impossible (not just expensive, impossible) you
need to make them see reason. I don't say it will be easy or pleasant...


I think you are confused. Perhaps because of my english.
It is possible to show the menu as you can see. Problem is the font
size and, what the question is about: how to get those (perhaps
unreadable menu items) closer to each other.

Mark

In better browsers (Opera, Firefox) they already overlap in places....
--
Chris Hughes
"Reality is that which, when you cease to believe, continues to exist."
http://www.epicure.demon.co.uk
Feb 16 '06 #12
Darin McGrew wrote:
Re: http://www.keyone.nl/lab/grunopark/basis.asp
Mark <sc*****@xs4all.nl> wrote:
It is possible to show the menu as you can see. Problem is the font size
and, what the question is about: how to get those (perhaps unreadable
menu items) closer to each other.

How much closer do you want them to be? I enforce a modest minimum font
size (12px), and several of them are overlapping each other.


That was not the point. I agree though, but...

I notice people enforce font sizes. I am not sure if this is especially
not in the Netherlands the case or? I mean i do not know people who work
like that. Does not mean that i am interested to do so...

I spoke with others on this matter and they agree that not many people
enforce their own font sizes. That is to come i guess but not now the case.

The point was not to overlap, but to close the gap between the <li> in
IE. I solved that.
Thanks

Feb 16 '06 #13
Thu, 16 Feb 2006 21:02:16 +0100 from Mark <sc*****@xs4all.nl>:
Stan Brown wrote:
[quoted text muted]
they want what is impossible (not just expensive, impossible) you
need to make them see reason. I don't say it will be easy or
pleasant...


I think you are confused. Perhaps because of my english.
It is possible to show the menu as you can see. Problem is the font size
and, what the question is about: how to get those (perhaps unreadable
menu items) closer to each other.


Your English is just fine. You said your client insists that all menu
items appear on screen. I'm telling you that cannot be done.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You:
http://diveintomark.org/archives/200..._wont_help_you
Feb 16 '06 #14
Stan Brown wrote:
Thu, 16 Feb 2006 21:02:16 +0100 from Mark <sc*****@xs4all.nl>:
Stan Brown wrote:
[quoted text muted]
they want what is impossible (not just expensive, impossible) you
need to make them see reason. I don't say it will be easy or
pleasant...


I think you are confused. Perhaps because of my english.
It is possible to show the menu as you can see. Problem is the font size
and, what the question is about: how to get those (perhaps unreadable
menu items) closer to each other.

Your English is just fine. You said your client insists that all menu
items appear on screen. I'm telling you that cannot be done.


So my english is not fine.
I meant that all menu items must show up, even if you have to scroll.
So i did not mean that you actualy must see them on your screen (with
another dimension).

Feb 16 '06 #15
Mark <sc*****@xs4all.nl> wrote:
I notice people enforce font sizes.


I notice that sites like http://www.keyone.nl/lab/grunopark/basis.asp try
to impose illegibly small microfonts on their visitors.
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

Why is "abbreviated" such a long word?
Feb 16 '06 #16
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, Darin McGrew wrote:
Mark <sc*****@xs4all.nl> wrote:
I notice people enforce font sizes.


I notice that sites like
http://www.keyone.nl/lab/grunopark/basis.asp try to impose illegibly
small microfonts on their visitors.


Confirmed. Examination of the offending stylesheet reveals
font-size: 0.65em , for example.

Thank goodness for Mozilla's min. font size - for normal browsing.

Thank Chris Pederick for an easy way to disable that - when reviewing
pesky web sites. (Such as this - hint, hint).

My impression is that there's no shortage of competent contributors
from .nl - who would surely be equally vociferous about web design on
a Nederlands-speaking usenet group, if the hon. Usenaut is doubtful of
his ability to communicate in English.

Gosh - a 404 error ppage which consists solely of an inline gif with
no alt text - this surely has to be some kind of clue-impairment
record? http://www.keyone.nl/lab/grunopark/route.asp ->
http://www.keyone.nl/img/no_page.gif

(And has it gone out of fashion to capitalise the pronoun "U" in
Dutch?)
Feb 16 '06 #17
Mark wrote:
kchayka wrote:

IE has known problems spacing list markup containing a{display:block}.


Found it, thanks.


Now have some pity on your visitors and get rid of the ridiculous
height:.8em and font-size:.65em so they have a better chance of actually
reading it without getting eye strain.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
Feb 16 '06 #18
Mark wrote:

Yep, you're right. But that does not solve my problem.
I did inform the designer and the client. But they do not care...


Seems to me like it's time to fire your client.

To clarify, in case of language problems:

When you run a business, you will encounter from time to time clients
or customers whose demands are unreasonable. When you run across one of
them, it is usually best to tell them that you cannot do (or will not
do) what they are asking, and suggest that they take their business
elsewhere.

Amazingly, you'll find that this tends to bring and keep a better
quality of client, and sends the idiots off to your competition so THEY
can get headaches from dealing with them...

Feb 16 '06 #19
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, Darin McGrew wrote:

Mark <sc*****@xs4all.nl> wrote:
I notice people enforce font sizes.
I notice that sites like
http://www.keyone.nl/lab/grunopark/basis.asp try to impose illegibly
small microfonts on their visitors.


Agree. My point is that i am not yet used to people who are aware of the
possibilty to enforce font size in their browsers. That is what i read
and wrote and where my question on that subject was about.

(English is not about the words, but also about how things are said. I
am sorry the things i try to say are "heard" as something else. I'll try
harder.)

Confirmed. Examination of the offending stylesheet reveals
font-size: 0.65em , for example.

Thank goodness for Mozilla's min. font size - for normal browsing.

Thank Chris Pederick for an easy way to disable that - when reviewing
pesky web sites. (Such as this - hint, hint).

My impression is that there's no shortage of competent contributors
from .nl - who would surely be equally vociferous about web design on
a Nederlands-speaking usenet group, if the hon. Usenaut is doubtful of
his ability to communicate in English.
Unfortunately not found one yet. Even companies which are realy on to
this are not yet that far as you people about this (well, there may be
one or two of course).

Gosh - a 404 error ppage which consists solely of an inline gif with
no alt text - this surely has to be some kind of clue-impairment
record? http://www.keyone.nl/lab/grunopark/route.asp ->
http://www.keyone.nl/img/no_page.gif
Okay, i am not ready yet ;)

(And has it gone out of fashion to capitalise the pronoun "U" in
Dutch?)


It has neven been in fashion. Only religious people who address their
god use "U".


Feb 17 '06 #20
Tony wrote:
Mark wrote:
Yep, you're right. But that does not solve my problem.
I did inform the designer and the client. But they do not care...

Seems to me like it's time to fire your client.

To clarify, in case of language problems:

When you run a business, you will encounter from time to time clients
or customers whose demands are unreasonable. When you run across one of
them, it is usually best to tell them that you cannot do (or will not
do) what they are asking, and suggest that they take their business
elsewhere.

Amazingly, you'll find that this tends to bring and keep a better
quality of client, and sends the idiots off to your competition so THEY
can get headaches from dealing with them...


As soon as i have the luxury to do that i will. At this point i have to
eat, drink an pay for my rent. So i am happy to have this client. In the
end he has to deal with complaints (if any) from visitors. Til, then
i'll try to explain again and again what it is all about.

Feb 17 '06 #21
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, Mark wrote:
My impression is that there's no shortage of competent
contributors from .nl - who would surely be equally vociferous
about web design on a Nederlands-speaking usenet group, if the
hon. Usenaut is doubtful of his ability to communicate in English.


Unfortunately not found one yet.


For an outspoken contributor, who I probably don't always agree with,
but who is likely to make you think, I suggest
http://www.pretletters.net/html/webontwerp.html

for example
http://www.pretletters.net/html/webo...id-design.html
and so on.

I don't personally read nl.internet.www.ontwerp, but I see that she
points to it.
(And has it gone out of fashion to capitalise the pronoun "U" in
Dutch?)


It has neven been in fashion.


This is clearly wrong - I guess you're too young, but my printed Dutch
course (from half a lifetime back) is quite definite that the polite
2nd person is always capitalised. I guess there's been a change in
the meantime - sorry that I hadn't noticed that before.

best
Feb 18 '06 #22
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, Mark wrote:

My impression is that there's no shortage of competent
contributors from .nl - who would surely be equally vociferous
about web design on a Nederlands-speaking usenet group, if the
hon. Usenaut is doubtful of his ability to communicate in English.
Unfortunately not found one yet.

For an outspoken contributor, who I probably don't always agree with,
but who is likely to make you think, I suggest
http://www.pretletters.net/html/webontwerp.html

for example
http://www.pretletters.net/html/webo...id-design.html
and so on.

I don't personally read nl.internet.www.ontwerp, but I see that she
points to it.


Ah, thanks!

(And has it gone out of fashion to capitalise the pronoun "U" in
Dutch?)


It has neven been in fashion.

This is clearly wrong - I guess you're too young, but my printed Dutch
course (from half a lifetime back) is quite definite that the polite
2nd person is always capitalised. I guess there's been a change in
the meantime - sorry that I hadn't noticed that before.

best


Well, i can write for over 30 years and it has been "u" for all i know.
But what you write can be true. I think it changed during the years then.

Mark

Feb 18 '06 #23
Mark wrote on 18 feb 2006 in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
Well, i can write for over 30 years and it has been "u" for all i know.


You are wrong.

I often still write "U" and "Uw".
--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
Feb 18 '06 #24
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@physics.gla.ac.uk> writes:
My impression is that there's no shortage of competent contributors
from .nl


Indeed, accessibility has matured and is nowadays written with a
capitalised U (for Unusable) over here. We (oh my, I am actually
entitled to say 'they' :) have fine advice all over the place

<http://drempelsweg.nl/>

Oh sorry, bad request.

<http://www.drempelsweg.nl/>

(anybody capable of making it *that* bad with only infinitely nested
tables and <FONT> all over the place can be sure of my professional
respect; I wouldn't know how)
--
||| hexadecimal EBB
o-o decimal 3771
--oOo--( )--oOo-- octal 7273
205 goodbye binary 111010111011
Feb 19 '06 #25
Stan Brown <th************@fastmail.fm> writes:
Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:17:22 +0100 from Mark <sc*****@xs4all.nl>:
I did inform the designer and the client. But they do not care...


Fait accompli. Note that on the bill you write, require your name to be
excluded from the development process and charge a resonable fee for
that (just for the idea - you do a bad job at the expense of possible
*quality* follow-up work; if you do not have a policy about that, make
one *now* and confidently reverse-engineer the marketese-approach in
future: your nominal fees are for interoperable products, anything less
costs extra; be smart and polite at that - you want your customer to
come back later).
Sorry, but part of your job is explaining the realities to them. If
they want what is impossible (not just expensive, impossible) you
need to make them see reason.


The odds are that they find somebody else who does not consider it
impossible in no time.
--
||| hexadecimal EBB
o-o decimal 3771
--oOo--( )--oOo-- octal 7273
205 goodbye binary 111010111011
Feb 19 '06 #26
Mark <sc*****@xs4all.nl> writes:
kchayka wrote:
IE has known problems spacing list markup containing
a{display:block}.


Or any inline element, BTW.
Found it, thanks.

<li>
display: inline;
</li>
It's bad practice to have block-display boxes in inline-display boxes.
Instead of *adding* a css rule you could simply *remove* the whitespace
in the markup, e.g.

<ul<li>item 1</li
<li>item 2</li
<li>item 3</li
</ul


(NB: this markup style is also generally a good thing for walking
through DOM nodes; when looking for e.g. a previous sibling of a list
item you probably do not want to catch whitespace :)
--
||| hexadecimal EBB
o-o decimal 3771
--oOo--( )--oOo-- octal 7273
205 goodbye binary 111010111011
Feb 19 '06 #27
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006, Eric B. Bednarz wrote:
Indeed, accessibility has matured and is nowadays written with a
capitalised U (for Unusable) over here.
(Alright, there's no need to rub it in that it took me 40+ years to
notice...)
<http://www.drempelsweg.nl/>


An accessibility site, eh? Hmmm, they "helpfully" offer to Lynx this
menu:

Lettergrootte
normale lettergrootte normaal
grotere letter groter
grootste letter grootst

None of the choices have the slightest effect on Lynx, of course, (and
they evidently don't understand the appropriate use of ALT text, but
that's another topic).

I really can't welcome this kind of nannying - if they were *really*
interested in all-round accessibility, they would be teaching their
users how to set their *own* text size, not purporting to offer them a
choice of only three sizes - and which won't have the slightest effect
on any other site.

Personally, I think "XHTML/1.0 Transitional" is a big warning sign in
itself. I suppose there might just now and again be exceptions, but
this doesn't seem to be one of them. Hmmm, the page that I tried
validating came up with only 30 validation errors - and the CSS
checker refused to even start, with such crap XHTML. That's a WAI
failure in itself.

OK, I'll admit that their actual CSS files are syntactically OK,
unlike their XHTML, but what about this as their default?

body
{
font-size: 75%;
}

Ha! I finally managed to get back on-topic for this group. If I
disable my browser's handy minimum font size, I'm back in their world
of microfonts.

Feb 20 '06 #28
Evertjan. wrote:
Mark wrote on 18 feb 2006 in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:

Well, i can write for over 30 years and it has been "u" for all i know.

You are wrong.

I often still write "U" and "Uw".


Well, i checked my dictionary from 1980. There i find: u pers. vnm. v.d.
tweede persoon and not U...

So "wrong" would be a bit to much ;)
You can write what you want though.

Feb 20 '06 #29
Mark wrote on 20 feb 2006 in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
Evertjan. wrote:
Mark wrote on 18 feb 2006 in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
Well, i can write for over 30 years and it has been "u" for all i know.
You are wrong.

I often still write "U" and "Uw".


Well, i checked my dictionary from 1980. There i find: u pers. vnm. v.d.
tweede persoon and not U...

So "wrong" would be a bit to much ;)


No, the modern habit of writing lowercase is not wrong, but that you think
"it has been "u" for all i know".
You can write what you want though.


Tja ..

It is not a dictionary thing. The uppercase U is[/was?] only used when
addressing a person in a letter, not when quoting a spoken senence like in:

Ze zei: "Hoe heet u?"

--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
Feb 20 '06 #30
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@physics.gla.ac.uk> writes:
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006, Eric B. Bednarz wrote:
<http://www.drempelsweg.nl/>


An accessibility site, eh?


They even spawn certificates if you declare to have good intentions.
I really can't welcome this kind of nannying
Well, I have a couple of problems with this, uh, initiative.
Unsurprisingly, they do a mighty fine job proving that accesible sites
are butt ugly, but worse, they are not even accessible at that.
Text-size wasn't really *that* much of a problem when Siegel tried to
kill the web.
but what about this as their default?

body
{
font-size: 75%;
}


It's accessibility and stuff ('IE-lusers can resize'), for the time
being the politically correct and like totally certified way du jour to
say '12px is more pretty' over here.
--
||| hexadecimal EBB
o-o decimal 3771
--oOo--( )--oOo-- octal 7273
205 goodbye binary 111010111011
Feb 21 '06 #31

"Mark" <sc*****@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:43**************@xs4all.nl...
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, Mark wrote:

My impression is that there's no shortage of competent contributors from
.nl - who would surely be equally vociferous about web design on a
Nederlands-speaking usenet group, if the hon. Usenaut is doubtful of his
ability to communicate in English.

Unfortunately not found one yet.

For an outspoken contributor, who I probably don't always agree with, but
who is likely to make you think, I suggest
http://www.pretletters.net/html/webontwerp.html

for example
http://www.pretletters.net/html/webo...id-design.html
and so on.

I don't personally read nl.internet.www.ontwerp, but I see that she
points to it.


Ah, thanks!

(And has it gone out of fashion to capitalise the pronoun "U" in Dutch?)

It has neven been in fashion.

This is clearly wrong - I guess you're too young, but my printed Dutch
course (from half a lifetime back) is quite definite that the polite 2nd
person is always capitalised. I guess there's been a change in the
meantime - sorry that I hadn't noticed that before.

best


Well, i can write for over 30 years and it has been "u" for all i know.
But what you write can be true. I think it changed during the years then.

Mark

Feb 26 '06 #32

"Mark" <sc*****@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:43**************@xs4all.nl...
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006, Mark wrote:

My impression is that there's no shortage of competent contributors from
.nl - who would surely be equally vociferous about web design on a
Nederlands-speaking usenet group, if the hon. Usenaut is doubtful of his
ability to communicate in English.

Unfortunately not found one yet.

For an outspoken contributor, who I probably don't always agree with, but
who is likely to make you think, I suggest
http://www.pretletters.net/html/webontwerp.html

for example
http://www.pretletters.net/html/webo...id-design.html
and so on.

I don't personally read nl.internet.www.ontwerp, but I see that she
points to it.


Ah, thanks!

(And has it gone out of fashion to capitalise the pronoun "U" in Dutch?)

It has neven been in fashion.

This is clearly wrong - I guess you're too young, but my printed Dutch
course (from half a lifetime back) is quite definite that the polite 2nd
person is always capitalised. I guess there's been a change in the
meantime - sorry that I hadn't noticed that before.

best


Well, i can write for over 30 years and it has been "u" for all i know.
But what you write can be true. I think it changed during the years then.

Mark

Feb 26 '06 #33

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

8 posts views Thread by Michael | last post: by
2 posts views Thread by Andrew Donaldson | last post: by
1 post views Thread by CARIGAR | last post: by
reply views Thread by harlem98 | last post: by
1 post views Thread by Geralt96 | last post: by
reply views Thread by harlem98 | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.