By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
438,880 Members | 1,817 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 438,880 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Font sizes on Windows and Linux

P: n/a
Hello Group

On my website I used to have Tahoma 8pt defined in my CSS styles. That gives
me the "normal" font Windows uses everywhere in its dialogues.
However, on Linux things seem to be different. If I want a font equal in
size to Windows' Tahoma 8pt, I need to set 11 as font size. This has the
result that text on my website is too small for Linux systems at the
moment.

Could you tell me what I need to do in order to get the same font size on
both systems?

TIA
--
Gruß | Greetings | Qapla'
No user was harmed by sending this Outlook-free message.
Mar 14 '07 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
16 Replies


P: n/a
Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
Could you tell me what I need to do in order to get the same font size on
both systems?
Sure. Do not set any font size at all. And the world would be a better
place...

Osmo

Mar 14 '07 #2

P: n/a
Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
>
Could you tell me what I need to do in order to get the same font size on
both systems?
Use ems or % to set the font sizes, not px or pt.
Using pt puts you at the mercy of the browser's interpretation of what a
point is. Without some sort of external physical length reference all a
browser can do is guess at the size. Obviously Windows and Linux guess
differently.
Using px or pt also had the disadvantage that an IE user cannot adjust
the font size to their preference.

--
jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)
Mar 14 '07 #3

P: n/a
Osmo Saarikumpu schrob:
>Could you tell me what I need to do in order to get the same font size on
both systems?

Sure. Do not set any font size at all. And the world would be a better
place...
Hm... quite an idea.
--
Gruß | Greetings | Qapla'
No user was harmed by sending this Outlook-free message.
Mar 14 '07 #4

P: n/a
Scripsit Frank Steinmetzger:
Hello Group
Oh, Group just left, sorry. He never felt at home in this mixed gang.
On my website I used to have Tahoma 8pt defined in my CSS styles.
And you were cured from that? Fine.

It's off-topic for this group, though.
That gives me the "normal" font Windows uses everywhere in its
dialogues.
You're trolling, right? Everyone knows that's not true, and most people in
this gang know that it would be completely irrelevant anyway.
However, on Linux things seem to be different.
Yeah, and what about all the 171 other operating systems?
If I want a font equal
in size to Windows' Tahoma 8pt, I need to set 11 as font size.
I must admire your capability of pretending to be extremely clueless.
Could you tell me what I need to do in order to get the same font
size on both systems?
That's simple. Just acquire total dominance over the Earth and have anyone
killed who dares to deviate from your font size. Simply enforce the same
system and the same settings for everyone and let it be called under two
different names.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Mar 14 '07 #5

P: n/a
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
That's simple. Just acquire total dominance over the Earth and have
anyone killed who dares to deviate from your font size. Simply enforce
the same system and the same settings for everyone and let it be called
under two different names.
LOL. That would amount to exactly my advice... but then again, maybe
not. Usually Mr. Korpela (as them martians call him) excels in a subtle
manner :)

Osmo

Mar 14 '07 #6

P: n/a
Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
Hello Group

On my website I used to have Tahoma 8pt defined in my CSS styles. That gives
me the "normal" font Windows uses everywhere in its dialogues.
However, on Linux things seem to be different. If I want a font equal in
size to Windows' Tahoma 8pt, I need to set 11 as font size. This has the
result that text on my website is too small for Linux systems at the
moment.

Could you tell me what I need to do in order to get the same font size on
both systems?

TIA
Don't force any font size! Some of us (my wife, for example) want all
fonts larger than usual because their eyes are getting old. Having
experimented with various sizes, I set my browser's default to 13pt
(Georgia, a serif font) as being the most readable.

As others indicated, different browsers, different operating systems,
and different platforms show point sizes differently. That's why it is
better to use relative sizing (em or %) instead of absolute sizing (pt).
Further, sizing should only be specified for text that is NOT part of
the content body. That is, larger sizes may be specified for titles and
section headers while smaller sizes may be specified for footnotes and
copyright notices. But the main body of content should be at the size
the user finds most readable and has thus set as his or her default.

Don't force any font face! According to
<http://www.codestyle.org/css/font-family/sampler-CombinedResults.shtml>,
more than 6% of Windows users do not have Tahoma installed. Almost 28%
of Mac users do not have Tahoma. Tahoma does not even appear in that
site's UNIX survey (which also covers Linux); I infer that fewer than 9%
of users of UNIX-type systems have Tahoma.

If you really like Tahoma (I prefer Verdana for sans-serif), use
something in your CSS such as
Body {font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif}
This will cause Tahoma to be used if it is available. Otherwise, the
user's specified default sans-serif font will be used. Without the
generic "sans-serif" in the CSS, a user without Tahoma will see your
text in his or her general default, which might be a serif, cursive, or
fantasy font.

--
David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

Natural foods can be harmful: Look at all the
people who die of natural causes.
Mar 14 '07 #7

P: n/a
David E. Ross schrob:
Don't force any font face! According to
[...]
If you really like Tahoma (I prefer Verdana for sans-serif), use
something in your CSS such as
Body {font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif}
Actually, I do:
* {font-family:tahoma,arial,sans-serif}
--
Gruß | Greetings | Qapla' - http://www.stud.tu-ilmenau.de/~frst-ii/ - EDOB
No user was harmed by sending this Outlook-free message.
Mar 14 '07 #8

P: n/a
David E. Ross schrob:
Don't force any font face! According to
<http://www.codestyle.org/css/font-family/sampler-CombinedResults.shtml>
Interesting that there is no mentioning of any of the Bitstream Vera fonts.
[...]
If you really like Tahoma (I prefer Verdana for sans-serif), use
something in your CSS such as
Body {font-family: Tahoma, sans-serif}
Actually, I do:
* {font-family:tahoma,arial,sans-serif}
--
Gruß | Greetings | Qapla' - http://www.stud.tu-ilmenau.de/~frst-ii/ - EDOB
No user was harmed by sending this Outlook-free message.
Mar 14 '07 #9

P: n/a
Jukka K. Korpela schrob:
>On my website I used to have Tahoma 8pt defined in my CSS styles.

And you were cured from that? Fine.
I'm getting a hang of it, yes. Because now that Vista dooms over everybody's
head, I'm almost cured from MS (if it wasn't for some special apps that I
keep XP for).
It's off-topic for this group, though.
It was my closest guess because I tried to find a solution for my
CSS-problem. *ooops* I didn't look for css groups, sorry.
>That gives me the "normal" font Windows uses everywhere in its
dialogues.

You're trolling, right? Everyone knows that's not true
*ehem* I intentionally put "normal" into those: ""
>If I want a font equal
in size to Windows' Tahoma 8pt, I need to set 11 as font size.

I must admire your capability of pretending to be extremely clueless.
-_- I guess my posting was a quick shot because right now I have no time to
do extensive searches. Sorry for that, I'm starting to feel like those poor
noobs that need their monthly magazine of the latest Windows tuning tricks.
Just acquire total dominance over the Earth and have anyone
killed who dares to deviate from your font size. Simply enforce the same
system and the same settings for everyone and let it be called under two
different names.
Yeaaahh, LCARS rules.

If I was from the US I think I could get that patented.

Again, I'm really ashamed for the quality of my question. It was no try to
troll, but maybe I've made someone laugh. Usually I'm good at this :)
--
Gruß | Greetings | Qapla'
No user was harmed by sending this Outlook-free message.
Mar 14 '07 #10

P: n/a
Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
David E. Ross schrob:
Don't force any font face! According to
<http://www.codestyle.org/css/font-fa...inedResults.sh
tml>

Interesting that there is no mentioning of any of the Bitstream Vera
fonts.
Not on the combined results page, but if you dig a little deeper....
http://www.codestyle.org/css/font-fa...xResults.shtml

The highest rank for any of the Bitstream Vera fonts in this survey
appears as 78.63% on this page, so it doesn't quite reach the bottom
cutoff on the combined results page. According to this survey, the most
commonly installed Linux-based font is Courier, which at "only" 84.64%
comes in 38th place (out of 40) in the combined results, and is the
only one from Linux/BSD/UNIX/etc. in that particular results page.

--
Kim André Akerø
- ki******@NOSPAMbetadome.com
(remove NOSPAM to contact me directly)
Mar 14 '07 #11

P: n/a
On 14 Mar, 19:16, Osmo Saarikumpu <o...@weppipakki.comwrote:
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
That's simple. Just acquire total dominance over the Earth and have
anyone killed who dares to deviate from your font size.
>
LOL. That would amount to exactly my advice...
Although I suspect that if you talk about "total dominance over the
Earth" you mean it as a joke, Jukka is thinking of the One _Million_
Pounds he could demand afterwards...

Mar 15 '07 #12

P: n/a
On 14 Mar, 18:18, Jim Moe <jmm-list.AXSPA...@sohnen-moe.comwrote:

I'd agree with your first two paras, but not this:
Using px or pt also had the disadvantage that an IE user cannot adjust
the font size to their preference.
Px and pt units have a defined meaning, which it's wrong for FF to
make flexible like this. Understandable, as it was a reaction to
clueless web coders setting fonts this way rather than in ems, but
still wrong.

Mar 15 '07 #13

P: n/a
Scripsit Frank Steinmetzger:
>It's off-topic for this group, though.

It was my closest guess because I tried to find a solution for my
CSS-problem. *ooops* I didn't look for css groups, sorry.
Apology not accepted, since you show no sign of really being sorry - you
don't even move the discussion to a group where it might be on-topc.
>You're trolling, right? Everyone knows that's not true

*ehem* I intentionally put "normal" into those: ""
So let's say that you an "annoying" and "boring" "troll".
Again, I'm really ashamed for the quality of my question.
Remember, there are no stupid questions, just...

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Mar 15 '07 #14

P: n/a
Scripsit Andy Dingley:
> Using px or pt also had the disadvantage that an IE user cannot
adjust the font size to their preference.

Px and pt units have a defined meaning, which it's wrong for FF to
make flexible like this. Understandable, as it was a reaction to
clueless web coders setting fonts this way rather than in ems, but
still wrong.
It's wrong indeed, but px and pt don't really have that well-defined
meanings, and - more importantly - browsers generally deviate from the
defined meaning of pt.

The px is defined as a pixel, but what _is_ a pixel? It's a basic unit of
rendering on screen, though not atomic unit (since we have subpixel
rendering). It's physical size naturally varies.

But please read what the CSS 2.1 draft babbles about "reference pixel" at
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#x39
They say: "If the pixel density of the output device is very different from
that of a typical computer display, the user agent should rescale pixel
values." What is "very different", and rescale how? Probably this is meant
to relate to "pixels" (dots) in printing, not on screen, but it's not clear
at all.

I gets worse with pt. Nominally, 1pt = 1/72 of an inch, by definition. This
means that 1pt is based on the inch, which in turn is based on the meter
(1in = 25.4mm = 0.0254 m, by definition), which in turn in based on
universal physical constants.

Yet, what happens if set something in pt (or in or mm)? In most contexts,
browsers convert the quantity to pixels, usually by the formula 1in = 96px.
This means that pt, in, or mm coincide with their defined physical meanings
only by accident, when the display device happens to use a pixel size of
1/96px. This might well be your monitor's default resolution, so if you make
something 1in or 96px wide and measure it with a rules, it's correct. But if
you then change your monitor properties to use a different resolution - and
most modern monitors have a few resolutions to choose from - you get
different results. You will see that a point is no longer a point, an inch
is not an inch, and a millimeter is not a millimeter.

People who do something remarkably stupid like setting the overall font size
to 8pt usually have no clue of this. They think the text is quite legible,
without realizing even the _physical_ variation of the size, not the mention
different viewing conditions and people's eyesight.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Mar 15 '07 #15

P: n/a
On 15 Mar, 13:44, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorp...@cs.tut.fiwrote:
But please read what the CSS 2.1 draft babbles about "reference pixel"
I'd rather not (read it once, didn't enjoy the experience).

However whatever a "reference pixel" is, it does suggest that it's not
a resizable unit under user control, in the way that ems are.

If a browser wants to implement a "zoom" feature, then that's a useful
addition (although arguably the desktop should be doing this already,
and instead of). It should zoom all things equally though, including
images, not just font sizes.

Mar 15 '07 #16

P: n/a
Kim André Akerø wrote:
Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
>David E. Ross schrob:
>>Don't force any font face! According to
<http://www.codestyle.org/css/font-fa...inedResults.sh
tml>
Interesting that there is no mentioning of any of the Bitstream Vera
fonts.

Not on the combined results page, but if you dig a little deeper....
http://www.codestyle.org/css/font-fa...xResults.shtml

The highest rank for any of the Bitstream Vera fonts in this survey
appears as 78.63% on this page, so it doesn't quite reach the bottom
cutoff on the combined results page. According to this survey, the most
commonly installed Linux-based font is Courier, which at "only" 84.64%
comes in 38th place (out of 40) in the combined results, and is the
only one from Linux/BSD/UNIX/etc. in that particular results page.
That's why, when I wrote my partially-quoted reply, I looked at the
individual surveys for Windows, Mac, and UNIX rather than relying on the
combined survey.

--
David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

Natural foods can be harmful: Look at all the
people who die of natural causes.
Mar 16 '07 #17

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.