By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
437,648 Members | 1,198 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 437,648 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Frightened new owner of wide screen finds her web pages are in tiny print on it...

P: n/a
Hello,

I've looked through alt.html and this group for an answer to my
question.

However, I found only cranky arguments with, occasionally, bits of
hard-to-understand code - out of context - each of which is slammed by
the next people along in the thread.

So I'm afraid to ask this but I need to know!...

Is there a way to insert a couple of lines in my style sheet that say,
"if the resolution of the viewer's screen is more than 800x600 use a
fontsize 130% bigger"

Please don't call me an idiot, I know already that I am one.

Thanks for your help,
Jane

Apr 2 '07 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
31 Replies


P: n/a
melinama wrote:
I've looked through alt.html and this group for an answer to my
question.
Smart move, Jane! Idiots don't do that. Even some smart people don't do
that.
However, I found only cranky arguments with, occasionally, bits of
hard-to-understand code - out of context - each of which is slammed by
the next people along in the thread.
This neither confirms nor refutes your idiocy. Take another turn.
Is there a way to insert a couple of lines in my style sheet that say,
"if the resolution of the viewer's screen is more than 800x600 use a
fontsize 130% bigger"
AFAIK, no. But (at the risk of starting a cranky argument, only to be
slammed by the next folks) you probably don't need to do that. Possibly
(I'm guessing here, since you didn't mention a URL or other specifics)
you have set the default text unrealistically small in the first place,
if it only looks good at 800x600. I mean, if the boundary of legibility
is already reached for some statistically large percentage of visitors
to your site at 800, and not, say, at 1024, then you've probably styled
your stuff too small to start with.

Quite likely you have already seen stats like the one here (mid-page):
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp . By no means
exact, and I don't believe PDAs and such are even on their radar, but I
don't think aiming at the 800x600 is the best move. "We've grown beyond
that now." :-p

I would advise aiming for a basic comfort zone (what you or other
normally-sighted 30-year-olds see comfortably) at a screen res of
1024x768 (or so). Text will be larger on the (presumably older) 800px or
640px screen, but if you code in relative units the user can probably
scale down. Text will be smaller for owners of wide screens, but again
relative units in the code and cluefulness in the screen's owner will
allow scaling.

I'm also trying to picture a Web page aimed at 800px people, which then
successfully scales up to a wide-screen display (like what, 1600px?) in
a full-window browser. I don't see these very often. Do you have a URL?

Anyway, you'd need scripting to even find out what the resolution is, so
you can't count on that method.
Please don't call me an idiot, I know already that I am one.
Well, you are an idiot, but only for thinking that you are one. ;-) Or
for accepting help from idiots...
Thanks for your help,
Jane
You are welcome. HTH.
--
John
Apr 2 '07 #2

P: n/a
Scripsit melinama:
Hello,

I've looked through alt.html and this group for an answer to my
question.

However, I found only cranky arguments with, occasionally, bits of
hard-to-understand code - out of context - each of which is slammed by
the next people along in the thread.

So I'm afraid to ask this but I need to know!...
You just wasted 11 lines to pointless babbling, and you did not describe the
background that made you ask your question. It's in the Subject line, but
the purpose of the Subject is to act as an external description of what the
message is about.

Regarding your problem with your new wide screen, note that it affects _all_
web pages you view, so trying to fix _your_ pages for _your_ screen would be
rather futile. Select the resolution (and thereby pixel size) that suits
you. The set your browser(s) to use a default font size that suits you, and
hope that web authors are clever enough to let the user decide on the font
size, or at least don't mess too much with it.
Is there a way to insert a couple of lines in my style sheet that say,
"if the resolution of the viewer's screen is more than 800x600 use a
fontsize 130% bigger"
That's not possible, and it would rather harm than help. Why would the
screen resolution dictate the font size? Do you mean that after the user has
carefully done what I suggested to you above, web authors should throw in
their second guesses, saying that the user's choice is wrong, whatever it
is?

One thing to be learned from this is that setting font size in pixels is a
bad thing, just as setting it in points or millimeters is, though for
somewhat different reasons. When you set font size to, say, 12px, most users
get a font size that is pretty close to 12px - with some confusion and
oddities as usual - and that's the _problem_. You cannot know the size of a
pixel on a user's screen, and 12px might mean just illegible, or something
else.

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

Apr 2 '07 #3

P: n/a
melinama scribed:
>Hello,

I've looked through alt.html and this group for an answer to my
question.

However, I found only cranky arguments with, occasionally, bits of
hard-to-understand code - out of context - each of which is slammed by
the next people along in the thread.

So I'm afraid to ask this but I need to know!...

Is there a way to insert a couple of lines in my style sheet that say,
"if the resolution of the viewer's screen is more than 800x600 use a
fontsize 130% bigger"
You can't do what you want using only CSS.

I use a small javascript that ascertains my viewers screen resolution and
then directs my page to use the appropriate style sheet (or pertinent
portion). You could also use a javascript to alter the <bodytag, or if you
use a page wrapper, change its font-size. These, and similar solutions will
fail if your user has not enabled javascript. To overcome this you could use
a server side solution and dynamically generate the page based on user's
screen resolution.

Bottom line, AFAIK, you can't do what you want using CSS alone.
--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email)
Apr 2 '07 #4

P: n/a
On 2 Apr, 12:30, "melinama" <Jane.Pepp...@gmail.comwrote:
Is there a way to insert a couple of lines in my style sheet that say,
"if the resolution of the viewer's screen is more than 800x600 use a
fontsize 130% bigger"
Fortunately not, as this wouldn't actually help. It's not a question
of display resolution, it's a combination of resolution, monitor size
and desktop font settings (for IE at least).

body { font-size: 1em; } is the way to fix this.

Posting the URL to your site helps too.
There's rather more behind this story (that simple fix can make IE
look _too_ big in some cases), but that's as much as you get without a
URL.

Apr 2 '07 #5

P: n/a
John Hosking wrote:
melinama wrote:
>Is there a way to insert a couple of lines in my style sheet that say,
"if the resolution of the viewer's screen is more than 800x600 use a
fontsize 130% bigger"

you'd need scripting to even find out what the resolution is
That would probably be fixing the wrong problem, anyway. Chances are
she's not setting font sizes in em or % units to begin with, which is
the likely cause of the client's complaint.

--
Berg
Apr 2 '07 #6

P: n/a
Andy Dingley wrote:
>
body { font-size: 1em; } is the way to fix this.
Better:
body { font-size: 100%; }

This avoids an IE bug scaling em units.

--
Berg
Apr 2 '07 #7

P: n/a
melinama wrote:
Hello,

I've looked through alt.html and this group for an answer to my
question.

However, I found only cranky arguments with, occasionally, bits of
hard-to-understand code - out of context - each of which is slammed by
the next people along in the thread.

So I'm afraid to ask this but I need to know!...

Is there a way to insert a couple of lines in my style sheet that say,
"if the resolution of the viewer's screen is more than 800x600 use a
fontsize 130% bigger"

Please don't call me an idiot, I know already that I am one.

Thanks for your help,
Jane
Jane,

http://pages.prodigy.net/chris_beall...nt%20size.html provides some
background (without cranky arguments...). The net is that if the user
has set up their browser with a default font size that they find
comfortable, and you DO manage to succeed with your stated objective,
everything on your site will appear huge to the user with a window
larger than 800 X 600.

On a technical note, which dimension would you use to trigger your
font-size change: height, width, total window area? Remember that the
user can change height and width independently.

Finally, you can see some of the sniffing techniques that could be used,
if you chose to ignore all the good advice you've been given, at
http://pages.prodigy.net/chris_beall...vironment.html.
Note, however, that most of these techniques depend on JavaScript, which
some users disable.

Chris Beall

Apr 2 '07 #8

P: n/a
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 12:11:47 -0600, Bergamot <be******@visi.comwrote:
>Andy Dingley wrote:
>>
body { font-size: 1em; } is the way to fix this.

Better:
body { font-size: 100%; }

This avoids an IE bug scaling em units.
Even better:

<style type="text/css">
body { font-size: 1em; }
</style>
<!--[if IE]>
<style type="text/css" >
body { font-size: 80%; /* 120dpi (Windows "large fonts 125%"
)*/ }
</style>
<![endif]-->

This avoids a desktop font scaling bug in IE on the majority of modern
desktops
Apr 2 '07 #9

P: n/a
Mon, 02 Apr 2007 08:31:53 -0700 from Ed Jay <ed***@aes-intl.com>:
I use a small javascript that ascertains my viewers screen resolution and
then directs my page to use the appropriate style sheet (or pertinent
portion).
That's so wrong, on so many levels.

--
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
Apr 3 '07 #10

P: n/a
Scripsit Andy Dingley:
On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 12:11:47 -0600, Bergamot <be******@visi.com>
wrote:
>Andy Dingley wrote:
>>>
body { font-size: 1em; } is the way to fix this.
Nobody ever answered my question what's the point of including a rule that
nominally says just the default but is known to trigger some bugs. If it's
meant to deal with some bugs, I'd like to see a bug comparison (between bugs
it may kill and bugs it may trigger).
>Better:
body { font-size: 100%; }

This avoids an IE bug scaling em units.
Nobody ever answered the my question why debate over the pros and cons of
two nominally equivalent rules (both just stating the default) when there's
the simple option of not using either of them.
Even better:

<style type="text/css">
body { font-size: 1em; }
</style>
<!--[if IE]>
<style type="text/css" >
body { font-size: 80%; /* 120dpi (Windows "large fonts 125%"
)*/ }
</style>
<![endif]-->
Sorry, Andy, you're late; you posted that the 3rd of April, not the 1st.
This avoids a desktop font scaling bug in IE on the majority of modern
desktops
It's an absurd second guess that claims that the user is all wrong (by 20%),
_whatever_ he has done.

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

Apr 3 '07 #11

P: n/a
On 3 Apr, 07:44, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorp...@cs.tut.fiwrote:
It's an absurd second guess that claims that the user is all wrong (by 20%),
_whatever_ he has done.
Try it. Find a Windows box with a high-res display and a monitor
that's small enough so that the user has had to increase their desktop
font size (NB _desktop_, not browser). IE has a scaling bug here and
compensates a second time for soemthing that has already been
compensated for.

It's a work-around and it's not perfect, but it's better (for most IE
users, most of the time) than using 100%. Non-IE users don't see it
at all, they just get 1em by virtue of the conditional comment.

Of course if any of this has changed recently, the conditional comment
_might_ need an update to an <!--[if lte IE6]-- I'd appreciate hard
numbers from anyone who has already done the legwork here.

Apr 3 '07 #12

P: n/a
Scripsit Andy Dingley:
On 3 Apr, 07:44, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorp...@cs.tut.fiwrote:
>It's an absurd second guess that claims that the user is all wrong
(by 20%), _whatever_ he has done.

Try it.
This may surprise you: I did.

It sets the font size to barely legible, instead of comfortably legible.
That's unavoidable: it the user _has_ selected a suitable font size, then
your second guess makes it unsuitable.
Find a Windows box with a high-res display and a monitor
that's small enough so that the user has had to increase their desktop
font size (NB _desktop_, not browser). IE has a scaling bug here and
compensates a second time for soemthing that has already been
compensated for.
Whether you purported solution helps some people or not, it surely hurts me
and millions of other people. You haven't explained how the trick is
supposed to work, but I don't actually care, as long as I can see that it
often causes damage.
It's a work-around and it's not perfect, but it's better (for most IE
users, most of the time) than using 100%.
What you need to prove is that it's better than not setting overall font
size at all.

The usual "proof" consists of claiming that the default font size 12pt is
too large and users are too stupid to fix it if they care. It surprises me
that you haven't mentioned this line of reasoning.

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

Apr 3 '07 #13

P: n/a
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>On Mon, 02 Apr 2007 12:11:47 -0600, Bergamot <be******@visi.com>
wrote:
>>Andy Dingley wrote:

body { font-size: 1em; }
>>Better:
body { font-size: 100%; }

Nobody ever answered the my question why debate over the pros and cons of
two nominally equivalent rules (both just stating the default) when there's
the simple option of not using either of them.
If you use em units for anything at all (margins, widths, etc.) then
omitting font-size:100% probably won't give results in IE that are
comparable to other browsers, all other things being equal. It can mess
up positioning, among other things.

Better safe than sorry, don't you think?

--
Berg
Apr 3 '07 #14

P: n/a
On 3 Apr, 13:38, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorp...@cs.tut.fiwrote:
It sets the font size to barely legible, instead of comfortably legible.
85% is hardly "barely legible" on a system where 100% is optimised,
although I agree that it's not ideal.

The actual setting, on a majority of Windows boxes for the one target
audience I had the budget to go and do real spending-money-and-asking-
people surveys was 75%. I didn't chose this value as I considerd it to
be under the 80% arbitrary cut-off where I consider you'd have had a
point.
What you need to prove is that it's better than not setting overall font
size at all.
Can't do that. It's an IE bug, and I just can't fix all those.

OTOH, it's harmless on non-Windows or non-IEs, so anyone who cares
should get their act together and a better browser.

Apr 3 '07 #15

P: n/a
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fiwrites:
>>Andy Dingley wrote:

body { font-size: 1em; } is the way to fix this.

Nobody ever answered my question what's the point of including a rule
that nominally says just the default but is known to trigger some
bugs.
Is triggering bugs in IE a bad thing? :-)

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Apr 3 '07 #16

P: n/a
Scripsit Andy Dingley:
85% is hardly "barely legible" on a system where 100% is optimised,
So 80% is 85% now?

For a common default size of 12pt, 80% means 9.6pt, which might get rounded
to 10pt or 9.5pt. There's a considerable difference between 12pt and 10pt in
many fonts, including commonly used fonts. I'm surprised at the observation
that you apparently didn't check this.
although I agree that it's not ideal.
Yet you told that 80% is the best solution.
>What you need to prove is that it's better than not setting overall
font size at all.

Can't do that.
I kind of suspected you cannot prove your claims.
It's an IE bug, and I just can't fix all those.
Or maybe you use pronouns sloppily and still insist on your claim and just
fail to provide any proof.
OTOH, it's harmless on non-Windows or non-IEs, so anyone who cares
should get their act together and a better browser.
No, the setting that sets font size to 20% smaller than the user has
selected is even more wrong on browsers where the user has better
possibilities of setting the font size.

But I'm satisfied with your elitistic final remark, which confirms that you
have run out of excuses for purported arguments in this discussion.

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

Apr 3 '07 #17

P: n/a
Scripsit Bergamot:
If you use em units for anything at all (margins, widths, etc.) then
omitting font-size:100% probably won't give results in IE that are
comparable to other browsers, all other things being equal. It can
mess up positioning, among other things.
I'm still waiting for some definite statements of how defaulting font-size
would cause trouble and some URLs of demos.
Better safe than sorry, don't you think?
How would it be safe? What guarantee do I have that some browsers won't get
upset by that 100%?

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

Apr 3 '07 #18

P: n/a
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>
What guarantee do I have that some browsers won't get
upset by that 100%?
What guarantee do any of us have that any browser will [not] get upset
over anything?

Honestly, I think you argue for its own sake. Pick something worth
debating over. This isn't.

--
Berg
Apr 3 '07 #19

P: n/a
Bergamot wrote:
Honestly, I think you argue for its own sake. Pick something worth
debating over. This isn't.
Me thinks you are missing the point. Jukka's argument could be stated
classically: if it works, don't fix it. But you are saying: it don't
work, fix it ("It can mess up positioning, among other things.").

Jukka is asking for some beef, while you are evading the question.

Osmo
Apr 3 '07 #20

P: n/a
Osmo Saarikumpu wrote:
Bergamot wrote:
>Honestly, I think you argue for its own sake. Pick something worth
debating over. This isn't.

Me thinks you are missing the point.
It can be hard to see his point when he is so unpleasant all the time.
Jukka's argument could be stated
classically: if it works, don't fix it.
And if you don't size anything in em units, that is indeed the desirable
way to go. My original comment was in response to a suggestion for using
body {font-size:1em}
This triggers a well-known IE bug.
But you are saying: it don't
work, fix it ("It can mess up positioning, among other things.").

Jukka is asking for some beef, while you are evading the question.
It's a tiresome subject. The problems IE has with scaling ems is not
anything new. If you have never run into it before, perhaps you just
don't make much use of em units, or if you do you haven't done much
testing in any of IE's Text Size settings except "Medium". That's where
problems make themselves known. For example, a 1em border does not scale
predictably (if at all) at Smallest vs Largest settings, even after
reloading the page. That's a very simplified case of course.
body {font-size:100%} avoids all those issues with ems.

As I said, this is nothing new.

--
Berg
Apr 3 '07 #21

P: n/a
In article <46***********************@news.fv.fi>,
Osmo Saarikumpu <os**@weppipakki.comwrote:
Bergamot wrote:
Honestly, I think you argue for its own sake. Pick something worth
debating over. This isn't.

Me thinks you are missing the point. Jukka's argument could be stated
classically: if it works, don't fix it. But you are saying: it don't
work, fix it ("It can mess up positioning, among other things.").

Jukka is asking for some beef, while you are evading the question.
Time to put the cards on the table.

--
dorayme
Apr 3 '07 #22

P: n/a
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 20:08:01 +0300, "Jukka K. Korpela"
<jk******@cs.tut.fiwrote:
>So 80% is 85% now?
No, it's a typo.
>For a common default size of 12pt,
It's _not_ the most common default size (for our IE users, anyway),
that's the point. For a statistically significant majority of the target
audience (who by the nature of the content were likely to be tech
early-adopters) the IE 100% default size was excessive and 125% of what
it ought to have been, owing to the aforementioned bug.

For the other IE users, then tough. There were fewer of them and they
lost out. If you know of a way to keep everyone happy, then please
enlighten us. They could of course still adjust their default font size.
>Yet you told that 80% is the best solution.
Yes. Best, not perfect. Some of us have jobs, projects, deadlines and
paying users.

Management, hardly surprisingly, wanted to use fixed pixel font sizes.
Would you advocate that instead?
>>What you need to prove is that it's better than not setting overall
font size at all.

Can't do that.

I kind of suspected you cannot prove your claims.
That's a particularly duplicitous piece of trimming on your part. Your
trollish behaviour is getting worse. Isn't it dawn up there in the
Arctic yet?
>OTOH, it's harmless on non-Windows or non-IEs, so anyone who cares
should get their act together and a better browser.

No, the setting that sets font size to 20% smaller than the user has
selected is even more wrong on browsers where the user has better
possibilities of setting the font size.
That's why it's wrapped in an IE -only conditional comment. It's one of
the few good uses I've found for the things.

Apr 3 '07 #23

P: n/a
Sherm Pendley wrote:
>
Is triggering bugs in IE a bad thing? :-)

sherm--
Sherm,

IMO it is a good thing. We should all do it whenever possible (and the
possibilities are legion...). If enough sites did this, the general
public might <optimismnotice and elect to use a more stable browser
</optimism>.

Besides, it's fun, in a dark sort of way.

Chris Beall

Apr 4 '07 #24

P: n/a
Ahh,

I've enjoyed (?) reading this exchange, though it proves my theory
that you're a little scary over here. I am 53 and my eyes aren't great
so I HATE websites with tiny print, yes, I increase the text size in
my browser, but this often makes all the columns and placements go
screwy and causes overlaps etc. So the websites OFTEN look like hell
when I increase text size but I don't care - I won't squint at the
little letters...

To follow-up, since it seemed I can't do what I originally wanted to
do (have a somewhat smaller type-size indicated for people who are
viewing at 800x600) I took the easiest suggestion and specified
100%... so now I guess my site looks retarded on a small monitor but
at least everybody can read it.

The reason I didn't post the URL is simply that it's a blogger site
and I've patched on the code so often it's a mess and I didn't want to
get scolded. But here it is: http://pratie.blogspot.com

Thanks to all who answer in a kindly fashion so we gentle confounded
types don't feel like it was our day on the windshield.

Jane

Apr 4 '07 #25

P: n/a
In <11*********************@w1g2000hsg.googlegroups.c omon 4 Apr
2007 03:45:28 -0700, "melinama" <Ja**********@gmail.comwrote:
>I've enjoyed (?) reading this exchange, though it proves my theory
that you're a little scary over here.
Posters to Usenet in general tend to be fairly blunt and to the
point. Politeness and subtlety take time and most posters don't
have much of that lying around spare.
>I am 53 and my eyes aren't great
so I HATE websites with tiny print, yes, I increase the text size in
my browser, but this often makes all the columns and placements go
screwy and causes overlaps etc. So the websites OFTEN look like hell
when I increase text size but I don't care - I won't squint at the
little letters...
That's not your fault, it's the fault of the idiots who build
those sites and think everyone is a clone of themselves.

Leaving aside all the technical arguments about arcane IE bugs and
methods of setting default font size, all the advice you've been
given on either not setting a default size at all or setting it at
either 1em or 100% is trustworthy and should be standard practise
on all sites. Pick one of those methods and stick with it and
you'll be fine.

--
DG
Apr 4 '07 #26

P: n/a
Scripsit Andy Dingley:
>For a common default size of 12pt,

It's _not_ the most common default size
On this planet, it is.
(for our IE users, anyway),
I cannot argue with that, but have you actually studied it?
For a statistically significant majority of the
target audience
That's foolish pseudo-scientific babbling. Either you know it's the
majority, or you don't. (The odds are that you don't.) "Statistically
significant" is relevant only as regards to _samples_ (in the statistical
sense, which 99 % of people don't understand).
(who by the nature of the content were likely to be
tech early-adopters) the IE 100% default size was excessive
So you're telling that they are early adopters and yet don't know how to set
the font size of the browser if it's too large for them?
>>>What you need to prove is that it's better than not setting overall
font size at all.

Can't do that.

I kind of suspected you cannot prove your claims.

That's a particularly duplicitous piece of trimming on your part.
No, I didn't silently removed anything. It is your responsibility to make it
clear what you are commenting on, by making _your_ quotations and use of
pronouns adequate.
>No, the setting that sets font size to 20% smaller than the user has
selected is even more wrong on browsers where the user has better
possibilities of setting the font size.

That's why it's wrapped in an IE -only conditional comment. It's one
of the few good uses I've found for the things.
Doing wrong things in WWW authoring doesn't become much better if you do
that to the overwhelming majority of users "only".

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

Apr 4 '07 #27

P: n/a
Scripsit Bergamot:
It can be hard to see his point when he is so unpleasant all the time.
I would hate myself if I ever caught myself calling some person unpleasant
in public when I was not writing under my own full name. I would feel myself
a coward, or worse.
For example, a 1em border does
not scale predictably (if at all) at Smallest vs Largest settings,
even after reloading the page. That's a very simplified case of
course.
body {font-size:100%} avoids all those issues with ems.
Fine. Thank you. You could have saved much by giving a specific example
first time when the question was raised.
As I said, this is nothing new.
Maybe not, but I have only seen people mention the setting without saying
_why_ it is used, despite being apparently redundant and potentially risky
(we know that browsers compute percentages wrongly at times).

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

Apr 4 '07 #28

P: n/a
On 2 Apr 2007 04:30:10 -0700, "melinama" <Ja**********@gmail.com>
wrote:

Hello,

I've looked through alt.html and this group for an answer to my
question.

However, I found only cranky arguments with, occasionally, bits of
hard-to-understand code - out of context - each of which is slammed by
the next people along in the thread.

So I'm afraid to ask this but I need to know!...

Is there a way to insert a couple of lines in my style sheet that say,
"if the resolution of the viewer's screen is more than 800x600 use a
fontsize 130% bigger"

Please don't call me an idiot, I know already that I am one.

Thanks for your help,
Jane
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Jane,

Cranky? You think the people who post to this newgroup are CRANKY?
Just wait 'til I'm through beating my dog, I'll show you CRANKY!

But back to your question. You shouldn't have to worry about screen
resolution. If you are worried about it, you're likely doing something
else wrong. You could post a URL here on the newsgroup, but that's a
little like going up on top of one of those Aztec pyramids in Mexico
and waiting for the high priest to eviscerate you. It hard to regard
it as a learning experience!
Regards,
Kent Feiler
www.KentFeiler.com
Apr 4 '07 #29

P: n/a
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
Scripsit Bergamot:
>It can be hard to see his point when he is so unpleasant all the time.

I would hate myself if I ever caught myself calling some person unpleasant
in public when I was not writing under my own full name. I would feel myself
a coward, or worse.
Should I call myself John Doe or Jane Smith instead? They would be false
names, of course. Is the illusion of a real name more acceptable? I
think that would be worse.

BTW, I don't feel like a coward at all. I like my anonymity.
(we know that browsers compute percentages wrongly at times).
Sometimes that's true with margin, padding or width, but I've never had
an issue setting font-size:100%.

--
Berg
Apr 4 '07 #30

P: n/a
On 4 Apr, 18:03, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorp...@cs.tut.fiwrote:
I cannot argue with that, but have you actually studied it?
Yes, that's why I said that I had. We had a forum. We had interested
and involved readers. I could get them to do things, such as looking
at sample pages and commenting on the sizes they observed.
For a statistically significant majority of the
target audience

That's foolish pseudo-scientific babbling. Either you know it's the
majority, or you don't. (The odds are that you don't.) "Statistically
significant" is relevant only as regards to _samples_ (in the statistical
sense, which 99 % of people don't understand).
It's a majority of a sample, it's a sample that's large enough to be
statistically significant. Although your "99%" is probably accurate
(or an under-estimate), don't assume that you aren't the only one in
the <=1%.
Apr 5 '07 #31

P: n/a
On 2007/04/03 02:44 (GMT-0400) Jukka K. Korpela apparently typed:
Scripsit Andy Dingley:
>body { font-size: 80%; /* 120dpi (Windows "large fonts 125%"
)*/ }
</style>
<![endif]-->
Sorry, Andy, you're late; you posted that the 3rd of April, not the 1st.
>This avoids a desktop font scaling bug in IE on the majority of modern
desktops
It's an absurd second guess that claims that the user is all wrong (by 20%),
_whatever_ he has done.
It's worse than that. A default (12pt/16px) windoz character box has 256
discrete px. A windoz "large fonts" default (12pt/20px) character box has
400 discrete px. That makes the text size result of Andy's styles smaller by
36%. http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/area80.html
--
"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the
old has gone, the new has come!" 2 Corinthians 5:17 NIV

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/
Apr 14 '07 #32

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.