468,527 Members | 2,120 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 468,527 developers. It's quick & easy.

CSS software tools sought

The TopStyle people seem to have lost interest in their product. It
does not work in Vista. I would like to find a
replacement/replacement that did the following

1. let me compose CSS using a checkbox style where the field names are
already present and that does some minimal editing on field values.

2. tidier that reorder in some standard order and pretties up.

3. finds illegal class tags in my markup

4. finds orphan unused classes/properties in my style sheet

5. validates syntax strictly

6. shows me colour swatches of chosen colours.

7. lets me pick colours by hex, decimal, RGB, HSB or swatch and maybe
even by eyedropper from some other app.

8. validates that fonts exist on my machine.

9. validates that images mentioned exist on my machine.

10. validate embedded styles in my HTML.
--
Roedy Green Canadian Mind Products
The Java Glossary
http://mindprod.com
Jun 11 '07
158 4553

"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cf********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:hd************@206-248-139-163.dsl.teksavvy.com...
On 2007-06-19, Albert Wiersch wrote:
>>
Perhaps you are running with non-standard settings.

That's necessary to compensate for the many badly written sites on
the Web.
Standard settings work well for me for most sites. It's only the crappy ones
that I have to change from the standard settings. Most sites seem to work
best with standard browser settings.
>I use that and it works great for me in the browsers I've tried it
with (IE, Firefox, Opera). What exactly is the problem? You know if
you want bigger text you can easily increase the font size with most
browsers?

Any site that requires fiddling around with my browser to make it
legible is badly written.
I agree. But "body {font-size: small }" is not something that should
typically cause one to need to change from the default browsers settings.

Albert
Jun 19 '07 #101
Scripsit Albert Wiersch:
Where does it say anything about that being an error?
_You_ marketed your product by claiming that it finds more _errors_. So
apparently they are error messages whenever that's convenient for your
commercial purposes.

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

Jun 19 '07 #102

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jk******@cs.tut.fiwrote in message
news:b3*******************@reader1.news.saunalahti .fi...
Scripsit Albert Wiersch:
>Where does it say anything about that being an error?

_You_ marketed your product by claiming that it finds more _errors_. So
apparently they are error messages whenever that's convenient for your
commercial purposes.
No, I market it by saying it finds more potential problems or issues. Again,
you don't seem to know the facts about the program you are bashing so please
do some research before continuing the bashing. :-)

In rare cases I may have sometimes used the term "errors", but those are
exceptions and I don't market the program that way.

Albert
Jun 19 '07 #103
Tue, 19 Jun 2007 07:54:03 -0500 from Albert Wiersch
<no****@nospam.nospam>:
Which compares W3C vs CSE HTML Validator and why one might find it worth the
money since it finds so many more problems.
I can "find more problems" too, if they don't have to be actual
problems but just things I make up.

--
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
Jun 19 '07 #104
Tue, 19 Jun 2007 12:14:08 -0500 from Albert Wiersch <donotreply@
123donotreply123.com>:
>
"Andreas Prilop" <An***************@trashmail.netwrote in message
news:Pi*******************************@s5b004.rrzn .uni-hannover.de...
It would be quite helpful if your tool could also detect

body { font-size: small }

and issue a warning.
Inept authors tend to include such crap in their style sheets.
This is a nuisance to readers.

Perhaps you are running with non-standard settings. I use that and it works
great for me in the browsers I've tried it with (IE, Firefox, Opera).
If I didn't know it before, it's crystal clear now. You haven't a
clue into even basic issues of writing a decent Web page.

I'm done with this thread. The entertainment value is gone, and
there's no possibility of educating you.

--
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
Jun 19 '07 #105
On 2007-06-19, Albert Wiersch wrote:
>
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cf********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:hd************@206-248-139-163.dsl.teksavvy.com...
>On 2007-06-19, Albert Wiersch wrote:
>>>
Perhaps you are running with non-standard settings.

That's necessary to compensate for the many badly written sites on
the Web.

Standard settings work well for me for most sites. It's only the crappy ones
that I have to change from the standard settings. Most sites seem to work
best with standard browser settings.
I cannot read most of them them with the standard settings.
>>I use that and it works great for me in the browsers I've tried it
with (IE, Firefox, Opera). What exactly is the problem? You know if
you want bigger text you can easily increase the font size with most
browsers?

Any site that requires fiddling around with my browser to make it
legible is badly written.

I agree. But "body {font-size: small }" is not something that should
typically cause one to need to change from the default browsers settings.
The regular font size requires me to change the settings. A good
page is not adversely affected by it.

body {font-size: small } is smaller than my comfortable size, and
there is no good reason to use it. Just because it looks good to
you on your monitor doesn't mean it will look good on anyone
else's.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
========= Do not reply to the From: address; use Reply-To: ========
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Jun 19 '07 #106
In article <13*************@corp.supernews.com>,
"Albert Wiersch" <do********@123donotreply123.comwrote:
>
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cf********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:hd************@206-248-139-163.dsl.teksavvy.com...
On 2007-06-19, Albert Wiersch wrote:
>
Perhaps you are running with non-standard settings.
That's necessary to compensate for the many badly written sites on
the Web.

Standard settings work well for me for most sites. It's only the crappy ones
that I have to change from the standard settings. Most sites seem to work
best with standard browser settings.
I use that and it works great for me in the browsers I've tried it
with (IE, Firefox, Opera). What exactly is the problem? You know if
you want bigger text you can easily increase the font size with most
browsers?
Any site that requires fiddling around with my browser to make it
legible is badly written.

I agree. But "body {font-size: small }" is not something that should
typically cause one to need to change from the default browsers settings.
Albert, there is an issue here and Andreas Prilop's suggestion is
not bad. A warning for this in your software would alert the
author to the issue. I get the feeling you are unaware of the
problem. You might not agree that it is a good idea for at least
main text to be set at 100% but you should read the discussions
on this first. Try searching this ng. Smaller than 100% gets to
be a strain for many people for main body text where there is a
fair amount of it. 100% is rarely a strain. It seems reasonable
therefore that those users really want things smaller should be
doing the adjustments.

--
dorayme
Jun 20 '07 #107

"Stan Brown" <th************@fastmail.fmwrote in message
news:MP************************@news.individual.ne t...
Tue, 19 Jun 2007 12:14:08 -0500 from Albert Wiersch <donotreply@
123donotreply123.com>:

If I didn't know it before, it's crystal clear now. You haven't a
clue into even basic issues of writing a decent Web page.
I suppose anyone who doesn't write their web pages exactly like you "hasn't
a clue into even basic issues of writing a decent Web page." There's more
than your way to write a decent web page.
>
I'm done with this thread. The entertainment value is gone, and
there's no possibility of educating you.
OK. Glad you enjoyed it. Bye.

Albert
Jun 20 '07 #108

"Stan Brown" <th************@fastmail.fmwrote in message
news:MP************************@news.individual.ne t...
>
I can "find more problems" too, if they don't have to be actual
problems but just things I make up.
Of course you could just make things up... but if you had ever looked at the
link I posted, you'd see that the problems CSE HTML Validator finds are real
issues that the vast majority of web developers would want to fix/address.

You are just bashing the program for no good reason (like JK) because you
don't like the name.

Albert
Jun 20 '07 #109
Albert Wiersch wrote:
"Stan Brown" <th************@fastmail.fmwrote in message
news:MP************************@news.individual.ne t...
>I can "find more problems" too, if they don't have to be actual
problems but just things I make up.

Of course you could just make things up... but if you had ever looked at the
link I posted, you'd see that the problems CSE HTML Validator finds are real
issues that the vast majority of web developers would want to fix/address.

You are just bashing the program for no good reason (like JK) because you
don't like the name.
What's in a name? Well not going into a Shakespeare quote, a name *can*
matter. If you developed a medication and called it "Herpes-Cure" where
it only treated symptoms but did not cure the disease would be
misleading and wrong. Such is the case with your linter, I am not
debating its value as a "linter" nor its usefulness as an authoring
tool, but naming it a "CSE HTML Validator" when it clear is not a
validator as my hypothetical example is not a cure is just plain wrong.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Jun 20 '07 #110

"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@centralva.netwrote in message
news:67***************************@NAXS.COM...
>
What's in a name? Well not going into a Shakespeare quote, a name *can*
matter. If you developed a medication and called it "Herpes-Cure" where it
only treated symptoms but did not cure the disease would be misleading and
wrong. Such is the case with your linter, I am not debating its value as a
"linter" nor its usefulness as an authoring tool, but naming it a "CSE
HTML Validator" when it clear is not a validator as my hypothetical
example is not a cure is just plain wrong.
Please see my previous posts on the matter of the name and why it makes
sense.

Albert
Jun 20 '07 #111
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Albert Wiersch wrote:
But "body {font-size: small }" is not something that should
typically cause one to need to change from the default browsers settings.
Small is Normal
Normal is Big
Ignorance is Strength

--
In memoriam Alan J. Flavell
http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...Alan.J.Flavell
Jun 20 '07 #112
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Albert Wiersch wrote:
What exactly is the problem? You know if you want bigger text you can easily
increase the font size with most browsers?
"Our contract is printed in tiny letters??
But you have a magnifying glass, haven't you?!"

--
In memoriam Alan J. Flavell
http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...Alan.J.Flavell
Jun 20 '07 #113
Albert Wiersch wrote:
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@centralva.netwrote in message
news:67***************************@NAXS.COM...
>What's in a name? Well not going into a Shakespeare quote, a name *can*
matter. If you developed a medication and called it "Herpes-Cure" where it
only treated symptoms but did not cure the disease would be misleading and
wrong. Such is the case with your linter, I am not debating its value as a
"linter" nor its usefulness as an authoring tool, but naming it a "CSE
HTML Validator" when it clear is not a validator as my hypothetical
example is not a cure is just plain wrong.

Please see my previous posts on the matter of the name and why it makes
sense.
I have, hence why I posted my comment. No matter how you insist on
naming your product, your linter is a linter.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Jun 20 '07 #114

"dorayme" <do************@optusnet.com.auwrote in message
news:do**********************************@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...
>
Albert, there is an issue here and Andreas Prilop's suggestion is
not bad. A warning for this in your software would alert the
author to the issue. I get the feeling you are unaware of the
problem. You might not agree that it is a good idea for at least
main text to be set at 100% but you should read the discussions
on this first. Try searching this ng. Smaller than 100% gets to
be a strain for many people for main body text where there is a
fair amount of it. 100% is rarely a strain. It seems reasonable
therefore that those users really want things smaller should be
doing the adjustments.
I agree that main text should not be difficult or straining to read for a
typical user.

However, on my site, "small" text (with body { font-size:small; }) seems to
be the appropriate size. Here is the current page with "small" text:
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/

Here is the page without using "small" text:
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/indextestnosmall.php

I think you will agree that the text seems too large.

Other site designs may work better without small text.

Albert
Jun 20 '07 #115

"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@centralva.netwrote in message
news:bf***************************@NAXS.COM...
>
I have, hence why I posted my comment. No matter how you insist on naming
your product, your linter is a linter.
But I think you'd agree that the included DTD validator is a validator. So
if someone wanted to see if their HTML was technically "valid" according to
a DTD based validator, then they still could using CSE HTML Validator.

Albert
Jun 20 '07 #116
On 2007-06-20, Albert Wiersch <no****@nospam.nospamwrote:
>
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@centralva.netwrote in message
news:67***************************@NAXS.COM...
>>
What's in a name? Well not going into a Shakespeare quote, a name *can*
matter. If you developed a medication and called it "Herpes-Cure" where it
only treated symptoms but did not cure the disease would be misleading and
wrong. Such is the case with your linter, I am not debating its value as a
"linter" nor its usefulness as an authoring tool, but naming it a "CSE
HTML Validator" when it clear is not a validator as my hypothetical
example is not a cure is just plain wrong.

Please see my previous posts on the matter of the name and why it makes
sense.
What your previous posts on that matter have shown is that you will say
anything to promote your product. Your problem is that your approach is
"marketing first, truth second".

Look at Mr Korpela's website, the URL is usually in his signature. It's
full of carefully-written useful information about many things including
advice on how to author www pages which is all properly linked and
referenced, provided free of charge and no doubt collected over many
years of doing whatever it is Mr K does.

Now you also might have accumulated a bit of wisdom about www authoring
based on your own ideas and feedback from your customers. But instead of
sharing that freely you hide it away in a crap program which you
advertise using a lot of exaggeration and distortion. What suffers is
the quality of the information and therefore the value of your product.
You learn less and people learn less from you.

There's nothing wrong at all with charging money but if your product is
to have any value you need to open up and co-operate better with the
rest of the world. I suggest that you have the potential to make more
money not less with this approach. Don't claim your product is "better"
than W3C validators; give it a name that doesn't infuriate people;
invite people to report bugs and then actually fix them instead of
denying their existence; and replace all that tendentious drivel on your
website with useful information and more importantly links to good www
authoring resources. In the meantime expect regular bashings.
Jun 20 '07 #117

"Ben C" <sp******@spam.eggswrote in message
news:sl*********************@bowser.marioworld...
>sense.

What your previous posts on that matter have shown is that you will say
anything to promote your product. Your problem is that your approach is
"marketing first, truth second".
No, it's not. CSE HTML Validator includes a DTD validator and before it did,
I never claimed it to be one.
Look at Mr Korpela's website, the URL is usually in his signature. It's
full of carefully-written useful information about many things including
advice on how to author www pages which is all properly linked and
referenced, provided free of charge and no doubt collected over many
years of doing whatever it is Mr K does.
Yes, I think I've gotten some information from his site before. I agree
there is some useful information there.
Now you also might have accumulated a bit of wisdom about www authoring
based on your own ideas and feedback from your customers. But instead of
sharing that freely you hide it away in a crap program which you
advertise using a lot of exaggeration and distortion. What suffers is
the quality of the information and therefore the value of your product.
You learn less and people learn less from you.
This is just more bashing because you don't like the name. I don't think a
commercial "crap" program would exist for 10+ years.
Don't claim your product is "better"
than W3C validators; give it a name that doesn't infuriate people;
invite people to report bugs and then actually fix them instead of
denying their existence; and replace all that tendentious drivel on your
website with useful information and more importantly links to good www
authoring resources. In the meantime expect regular bashings.
The name only seems to infuriate about 2 or 3 people in the world. Changing
the name because of 2 or 3 people is foolish.

I am quite happy to fix any reported bugs... feel free to report them if you
find anything. I'm talking real bugs, not fake ones because you don't like
the name.

Also, feel free to tell me exactly what "drivel" on our website you are
referring to. If I deem it to be "drivel" or if it can be improved, then I
will do so.

Albert
Jun 20 '07 #118
Albert Wiersch wrote:
"dorayme" <do************@optusnet.com.auwrote:
>>
Albert, there is an issue here and Andreas Prilop's suggestion is
not bad. A warning for this in your software would alert the
author to the issue. I get the feeling you are unaware of the
problem. You might not agree that it is a good idea for at least
main text to be set at 100% but you should read the discussions
on this first. Try searching this ng. Smaller than 100% gets to
be a strain for many people for main body text where there is a
fair amount of it. 100% is rarely a strain. It seems reasonable
therefore that those users really want things smaller should be
doing the adjustments.

I agree that main text should not be difficult or straining to read
for a typical user.
Or for one with vision difficulties.
However, on my site, "small" text (with body { font-size:small; })
seems to be the appropriate size. Here is the current page with
"small" text:
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/

Here is the page without using "small" text:
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/indextestnosmall.php

I think you will agree that the text seems too large.
So it seems you use: font-family:verdana,
which is an overly large font. Try your little 'experiment' again after
removing verdana from the font-family settings.

You really don't read these groups except to advertise, then hang around
to attempt to justify your product.
Other site designs may work better without small text.
Those that don't use an overly large font-family, and who either assign
font size as 100% or 1em, work better than yours.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Jun 20 '07 #119
Albert Wiersch wrote:
"Ben C" <sp******@spam.eggswrote:
>What your previous posts on that matter have shown is that you will
say anything to promote your product. Your problem is that your
approach is "marketing first, truth second".

No, it's not. CSE HTML Validator includes a DTD validator and before
it did, I never claimed it to be one.
Heh. "My Validator is not a validator."
<snippage>
The name only seems to infuriate about 2 or 3 people in the world. Changing
the name because of 2 or 3 people is foolish.
There are a lot more than "2 or 3" in this thread alone. Wake up.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Jun 20 '07 #120

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalidwrote in message
news:yQ********************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
Heh. "My Validator is not a validator."
That's quite a misinterpretation.
There are a lot more than "2 or 3" in this thread alone. Wake up.
No point in continuing to discuss this. I've made myself clear. If you want
to think there's only one definition of validator, and want to ignore all
the other definitions, then that's your choice.

Albert
Jun 20 '07 #121

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalidwrote in message
news:tQ********************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
So it seems you use: font-family:verdana,
which is an overly large font. Try your little 'experiment' again after
removing verdana from the font-family settings.
Yes, it seems you are right... small font size seems to work well with
Verdana because it is a larger font.
You really don't read these groups except to advertise, then hang around
to attempt to justify your product.
While it is true I don't spend much time in these forums, I do not just hang
around to advertise. I came here to correct the misinformation about CSE
HTML Validator that was being spread by those who simply don't like the name
(because they only know of one definition of "validator"). They do a
disservice by spreading false information about the program. In fact, CSE
HTML Validator can help anyone who wants to learn HTML as it's also a good
learning tool.
>Other site designs may work better without small text.

Those that don't use an overly large font-family, and who either assign
font size as 100% or 1em, work better than yours.
Really? So all sites that do that work better than mine? It seems my site
has worked just fine for years and still works well the way it is. What
makes it so much better to use different fonts? Perhaps there is some
advantage, but I wouldn't say there's much. I'm sure there's also an
advantage to using Verdana as it's a very clear and readable font.

I will further investigate this and see if it makes practical sense to
switch fonts so I can switch from using a small font size.

Albert
Jun 20 '07 #122
On 2007-06-20, Albert Wiersch <do********@123donotreply123.comwrote:
>
"Ben C" <sp******@spam.eggswrote in message
news:sl*********************@bowser.marioworld...
[...]
This is just more bashing because you don't like the name. I don't think a
commercial "crap" program would exist for 10+ years.
I can think of a few offhand.
>Don't claim your product is "better"
than W3C validators; give it a name that doesn't infuriate people;
invite people to report bugs and then actually fix them instead of
denying their existence; and replace all that tendentious drivel on your
website with useful information and more importantly links to good www
authoring resources. In the meantime expect regular bashings.

The name only seems to infuriate about 2 or 3 people in the world. Changing
the name because of 2 or 3 people is foolish.

I am quite happy to fix any reported bugs... feel free to report them if you
find anything. I'm talking real bugs, not fake ones because you don't like
the name.
You're wasted on crap software programming, you should have been a prime
minister.
Also, feel free to tell me exactly what "drivel" on our website you are
referring to. If I deem it to be "drivel" or if it can be improved, then I
will do so.
OK perhaps "drivel" was a bit unkind. I meant just "marketing speak" and
marketing speak is drivel.
Jun 20 '07 #123
In article
<tQ********************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalidwrote:
Albert Wiersch wrote:
"dorayme" <do************@optusnet.com.auwrote:
>
Albert, there is an issue here and Andreas Prilop's suggestion is
not bad. A warning for this in your software would alert the
author to the issue. I get the feeling you are unaware of the
problem. ... 100% is rarely a strain. It seems reasonable
therefore that those users really want things smaller should be
doing the adjustments.
I agree that main text should not be difficult or straining to read
for a typical user.

Or for one with vision difficulties.
The point of this remark from BTS as I understand it is this:
folk with abnormal vision will have set their text sizes in their
browser to be comfortable for them. Rationally, this means that
font-size: 100% looks comfortable to them. Anything else, is
likely to be less than comfortable.

True, there are complications to do with an arms race in these
matters (people sometimes set their browser text size prefs, if
at all, on the basis of the tendency of young website authors
using less than 100%). But the point here is that you are
supposed to be above all this ruckus and play with a straight
bat, not personally encourage this arms race or put little speed
bumps in the road to accessibility.

--
dorayme
Jun 20 '07 #124
On Wed, 20 Jun 2007, Albert Wiersch wrote:
However, on my site, "small" text (with body { font-size:small; })
seems to be the appropriate size.

Here is the page without using "small" text:
I think you will agree that the text seems too large.
I summarize:

Small is Normal
Normal is Large
Ignorance is Strength
And for me: Enough is enough.
Bye

--
In memoriam Alan J. Flavell
http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...Alan.J.Flavell
Jun 21 '07 #125
Albert Wiersch wrote:
Really? So all sites that do that work better than mine? It seems my site
has worked just fine for years and still works well the way it is. What
makes it so much better to use different fonts? Perhaps there is some
advantage, but I wouldn't say there's much. I'm sure there's also an
advantage to using Verdana as it's a very clear and readable font.
You seem to miss the point entirely! Verdana is *not* on all systems, so
a *normal* sized font will be substituted and since your have
compensated for an *oversize* font with a normal font it will be
*undersized* and difficult to read.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Jun 23 '07 #126
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Albert Wiersch wrote:
>Really? So all sites that do that work better than mine? It seems my
site has worked just fine for years and still works well the way it
is. What makes it so much better to use different fonts? Perhaps
there is some advantage, but I wouldn't say there's much. I'm sure
there's also an advantage to using Verdana as it's a very clear and
readable font.

You seem to miss the point entirely! Verdana is *not* on all systems,
so a *normal* sized font will be substituted and since your have
compensated for an *oversize* font with a normal font it will be
*undersized* and difficult to read.
Albert also doesn't seem to know about the Cascade part of Cascading
Style Sheets. Verdana (and the other fonts) are assigned ten times in
his hv1.css file. Font sizes are repeatedly assigned as well.

Albert, change your hv1.css to this:

body { font-size:small; max-width:900px; font-family: sans-serif; }
li { margin-top: 0.5em }
p, dl, ul, td { font-family: sans-serif; font-size:small }

...and you will see it as I do, where there is no Verdana or Tahoma.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Jun 23 '07 #127
On 2007/06/20 12:23 (GMT-0500) Albert Wiersch apparently typed:
I agree that main text should not be difficult or straining to read for a
typical user.
:-)
However, on my site, "small" text (with body { font-size:small; }) seems to
be the appropriate size. Here is the current page with "small" text:
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
Its text is too small. :-(
Here is the page without using "small" text:
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/indextestnosmall.php
I think you will agree that the text seems too large.
It's not too large. It's perfect, exactly as I selected in my browser preferences.
Other site designs may work better without small text.
Most work best for visitors that are designed to work with whatever size is selected in visitors' browser preferences.

On 2007/06/19 13:41 (GMT-0500) Albert Wiersch apparently typed:
I agree. But "body {font-size: small }" is not something that should
typically cause one to need to change from the default browsers settings.
People who understand the interrelationships between web page font sizes and usability and accessibility would not agree with your statement. Most web users presumably have either found the defaults
suitable, or don't care, or have already adjusted them so that they are suitable. Any deviation from their choices, up or down, is a rude, arbitrary, and unwarranted imposition that implies you
somehow know better than they do about something you can't possibly know anything relevant about. Suggested reading on the subject:
http://www.informationarchitects.jp/100e2r?v=4
http://www.w3.org/2003/07/30-font-size
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/dao/
http://www.lighthouse.org/accessibility/top-10/
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/fontsize.html
http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/accessibility.html
http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/bigdefaults.html
http://css.nu/articles/font-analogy.html
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/essence.html
http://www.cameratim.com/personal/so...ns-in-webspace
--
"Respect everyone." I Peter 2:17 NIV

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

Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/
Jun 23 '07 #128

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalidwrote in message
news:83*********************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
Albert also doesn't seem to know about the Cascade part of Cascading
Style Sheets. Verdana (and the other fonts) are assigned ten times in
his hv1.css file. Font sizes are repeatedly assigned as well.
Perhaps I know more than you think. I created most that style sheet a few
years ago and most likely had to do that to get the site to look right in
the browsers I was testing at the time. As you know, browsers do not often
follow correct CSS rules, especially the older ones.
Albert, change your hv1.css to this:

body { font-size:small; max-width:900px; font-family: sans-serif; }
li { margin-top: 0.5em }
p, dl, ul, td { font-family: sans-serif; font-size:small }

..and you will see it as I do, where there is no Verdana or Tahoma.
I know what you are talking about and I'm going to leave it as is because I
am happy with the way it looks. My targeted users are Windows users because
that's what CSE HTML Validator runs on. It is my belief that changing fonts
would have more negatives than postives for my target audience so it makes
sense to use a larger font and set the size to "small", at least for my
site.

Albert
Jun 25 '07 #129

"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@centralva.netwrote in message
news:b7**************************@NAXS.COM...
>
You seem to miss the point entirely! Verdana is *not* on all systems, so a
*normal* sized font will be substituted and since your have compensated
for an *oversize* font with a normal font it will be *undersized* and
difficult to read.
Yes, I understand that. Please see my reply to Beauregard as to why I've
decided that it is more beneficial to keep it the way it is.

Albert
Jun 25 '07 #130

"Felix Miata" <Ug********************@dev.nulwrote in message
news:r3***************@newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
On 2007/06/20 12:23 (GMT-0500) Albert Wiersch apparently typed:
>I agree that main text should not be difficult or straining to read for a
typical user.

:-)
>However, on my site, "small" text (with body { font-size:small; }) seems
to
be the appropriate size. Here is the current page with "small" text:
http://www.htmlvalidator.com/

Its text is too small. :-(
What browser are you using on what OS? My site targets Windows users who
should have the needed fonts installed.

So my website can look better for 99.9% of targeted visitors it looks worse
for perhaps .1% who don't have the font installed. That's a trade-off
decision that I've made because I think it is worth it.

Albert
Jun 25 '07 #131
Albert Wiersch wrote:
I know what you are talking about and I'm going to leave it as is
because I am happy with the way it looks.
...thereby proving that you don't care about your visitors.

"It looks alright to my eyes, and using my computer and browser."

Since you are selling a product that supposedly creates and edits CSS,
why do you want to use bad examples on your own site?

(Wait... that was rhetorical. You needn't answer.)

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Jun 25 '07 #132
Albert Wiersch wrote:
[re: using Verdana with font-size:small]
I've
decided that it is more beneficial to keep it the way it is.
There is no *benefit* in doing what you've done. You've just
rationalized a poor design decision.

--
Berg
Jun 25 '07 #133

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalidwrote in message
news:yB********************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Albert Wiersch wrote:
>I know what you are talking about and I'm going to leave it as is
because I am happy with the way it looks.

..thereby proving that you don't care about your visitors.
Actually, it's the opposite. I do what I think is best for them. It should
be obvious in my messages if you read them correctly and you want to
understand.
"It looks alright to my eyes, and using my computer and browser."
That's quite a misinterpretation.

Albert
Jun 25 '07 #134

"Bergamot" <be******@visi.comwrote in message
news:5e*************@mid.individual.net...
>
There is no *benefit* in doing what you've done. You've just
rationalized a poor design decision.
There's no benefit to a better looking site? How so?

If you know of a practical way to use a good-looking font like Verdana (or
other nice font that is modern, good-looking, common, and easy to read) and
that doesn't have a "size" problem when the user doesn't have the font
installed, then let me know. If there's a way to have the best of both
without any side-effects, I like to know what it is.

Albert
Jun 25 '07 #135
Albert Wiersch wrote:
If you know of a practical way to use a good-looking font like Verdana
(or other nice font that is modern, good-looking, common, and easy to
read) and that doesn't have a "size" problem when the user doesn't
have the font installed, then let me know. If there's a way to have
the best of both without any side-effects, I like to know what it is.
I (and others) already gave you the answer.

font-family: sans-serif;
font-size: 100%;

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Jun 25 '07 #136
Albert Wiersch wrote:
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalidwrote:
>Albert Wiersch wrote:
>>I know what you are talking about and I'm going to leave it as is
because I am happy with the way it looks.

..thereby proving that you don't care about your visitors.

Actually, it's the opposite. I do what I think is best for them. It
should be obvious in my messages if you read them correctly and you
want to understand.
Oh, I understand exactly what you wrote. The fact remains you have no
idea what fonts are available on the computers of your visitors, nor
what their vision problems might be. Why is that so hard for you to
understand?
>"It looks alright to my eyes, and using my computer and browser."

That's quite a misinterpretation.
Seems only you think that. <lol>

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Jun 25 '07 #137
On 2007-06-25, Albert Wiersch wrote:
....
If you know of a practical way to use a good-looking font like Verdana (or
other nice font that is modern, good-looking, common, and easy to read) and
that doesn't have a "size" problem when the user doesn't have the font
installed, then let me know. If there's a way to have the best of both
without any side-effects, I like to know what it is.
There's nothing wrong with Verdana; problems only occur when you
size it differently from any other font (mostly, that means
don't). If you want to use Verdana because you are using a small
font-size, then you are making a mistake, and the page will be
less than optimal to those without Verdana. Verdana is only
slight wider than Helvetica or Arial -- not enough to make it
less legible.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
========= Do not reply to the From: address; use Reply-To: ========
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Jun 25 '07 #138

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalidwrote in message
news:_z********************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
Oh, I understand exactly what you wrote. The fact remains you have no
idea what fonts are available on the computers of your visitors, nor
what their vision problems might be. Why is that so hard for you to
understand?
It seems that it's hard for you to understand. I ACTUALLY do have an idea of
what is on my visitors' computers. Sure, not everyone has everything, but
the vast majority of them do have verdana. A little research onto what is
installed on most Windows computers would show that verdana is available.

Albert
Jun 25 '07 #139
Albert Wiersch wrote:
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalidwrote in message
news:_z********************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>Oh, I understand exactly what you wrote. The fact remains you have no
idea what fonts are available on the computers of your visitors, nor
what their vision problems might be. Why is that so hard for you to
understand?

It seems that it's hard for you to understand. I ACTUALLY do have an idea of
what is on my visitors' computers. Sure, not everyone has everything, but
the vast majority of them do have verdana. A little research onto what is
installed on most Windows computers would show that verdana is available.
And what's on the computer one of our patrons is using to check out your
product at our public library where I have installed Kubuntu, Feisty Fawn?

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Jun 25 '07 #140

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalidwrote in message
news:0w********************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Albert Wiersch wrote:
>If you know of a practical way to use a good-looking font like Verdana
(or other nice font that is modern, good-looking, common, and easy to
read) and that doesn't have a "size" problem when the user doesn't
have the font installed, then let me know. If there's a way to have
the best of both without any side-effects, I like to know what it is.

I (and others) already gave you the answer.

font-family: sans-serif;
font-size: 100%;
Not exactly the answer I was looking for as that still shows up larger than
I'd like. If the size issue affected enough of my visitors to make it
practical to change, then I'd probably use that. However I am not yet
convinced that it is better to change than to leave it as it is.

I may do some more tests though and investigate it further.

Albert
Jun 25 '07 #141

"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@centralva.netwrote in message
news:6a**************************@NAXS.COM...
>
And what's on the computer one of our patrons is using to check out your
product at our public library where I have installed Kubuntu, Feisty Fawn?
That would be the exception rather than the rule, but I will do a little
further testing to see how much of a practical difference it makes in cases
like that vs. the typical visitor on a Windows box. Sounds like an excuse to
play around with Ubuntu a bit more.

Albert
Jun 25 '07 #142
On 2007-06-25, Albert Wiersch wrote:
>
"Jonathan N. Little" <lw*****@centralva.netwrote in message
news:6a**************************@NAXS.COM...
>>
And what's on the computer one of our patrons is using to check out your
product at our public library where I have installed Kubuntu, Feisty Fawn?

That would be the exception rather than the rule,
The rule is that everyone is (or could be) an exception.
but I will do a little further testing to see how much of a
practical difference it makes in cases like that vs. the typical
visitor on a Windows box.
Why bother? Do it right and it will work for everyone.
Sounds like an excuse to play around with Ubuntu a bit more.
Why do you need an excuse? ;)

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
========= Do not reply to the From: address; use Reply-To: ========
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Jun 25 '07 #143
Albert Wiersch wrote:
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalidwrote:
>Albert Wiersch wrote:
>>If you know of a practical way to use a good-looking font like
Verdana (or other nice font that is modern, good-looking, common,
and easy to read) and that doesn't have a "size" problem when the
user doesn't have the font installed, then let me know. If there's
a way to have the best of both without any side-effects, I like to
know what it is.

I (and others) already gave you the answer.

font-family: sans-serif;
font-size: 100%;

Not exactly the answer I was looking for as that still shows up larger than
I'd like.
It's not about *you* and what *you* like, Albert. It's about your
*visitors* and what is practical and accessible for *them*. [1]
If the size issue affected enough of my visitors to make it practical
to change, then I'd probably use that. However I am not yet convinced
that it is better to change than to leave it as it is.
Goodness gracious. It will take you about thirty seconds to change your
style sheet, and perhaps another thirty to FTP it to your web server.

Do that and I may even stop picking on you.
I may do some more tests though and investigate it further.
Enough of us have already done that...

[1. Pardon my excessive use of emphasis, but it seemed necessary.]
--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Jun 25 '07 #144
On 2007/06/25 11:20 (GMT-0500) Albert Wiersch apparently typed:
Felix Miata wrote:
>On 2007/06/20 12:23 (GMT-0500) Albert Wiersch apparently typed:
>>http://www.htmlvalidator.com/
>Its text is too small. :-(
What browser are you using on what OS? My site targets Windows users who
should have the needed fonts installed.
That's not supposed to matter: http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/essence.html
So my website can look better for 99.9% of targeted visitors it looks worse
for perhaps .1% who don't have the font installed. That's a trade-off
decision that I've made because I think it is worth it.
I don't care how "good" it looks, only how well it works, how easy it is to read. Main content text smaller than 100% of my choice degrades how any site works. I'm the only person in the universe in a
position to determine what size works best right here where I'm sitting. Any author setting a size on main content text other than 100% of my choice is being arbitrary, capricious, tyrannical, and
rude. http://www.informationarchitects.jp/100e2r?v=4
--
"Respect everyone." I Peter 2:17 NIV

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

Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/
Jun 26 '07 #145
On 2007/06/25 14:52 (GMT-0500) Albert Wiersch apparently typed:
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>"It looks alright to my eyes, and using my computer and browser."
That's quite a misinterpretation.
No, it's just a way of stating some facts. You have no basis to know it's alright anywhere that you're not situated.
--
"Respect everyone." I Peter 2:17 NIV

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

Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/
Jun 26 '07 #146

"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cf********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:i9************@206-248-139-163.dsl.teksavvy.com...
>
The rule is that everyone is (or could be) an exception.
But it is often better to do according to the norm than the exception.
Why bother? Do it right and it will work for everyone.
There's more than one "right" way to do things, at least in most cases.
>Sounds like an excuse to play around with Ubuntu a bit more.

Why do you need an excuse? ;)
Because I am busy with so many other things right now!

Albert
Jun 26 '07 #147

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalidwrote in message
news:LO********************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
It's not about *you* and what *you* like, Albert. It's about your
*visitors* and what is practical and accessible for *them*. [1]
Yes, of course. Which is why I try to make my site look the best for my
vistors which are mostly using Windows since my software is only for Windows
right now. When I say it's what I like, it means it's what I like based on
what I think my visitors will like.
Goodness gracious. It will take you about thirty seconds to change your
style sheet, and perhaps another thirty to FTP it to your web server.
Of course it is easy to change, but I'm not doing it because of the possible
negative effects of the change, not because it would take me a minute.
Do that and I may even stop picking on you.
Well I suppose that would be nice.
>I may do some more tests though and investigate it further.

Enough of us have already done that...
And that was enough to make me more interested in the matter. When I get a
chance, I want to see for myself how "bad" it really looks like in Ubuntu...
just need to bring home my analog video cable so I can hook up an old
computer to a monitor and install Ubuntu. Better throw that cable in my box
now before I forget.

Albert
Jun 26 '07 #148
Albert Wiersch wrote:
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalidwrote:
>It's not about *you* and what *you* like, Albert. It's about your
*visitors* and what is practical and accessible for *them*. [1]

Yes, of course. Which is why I try to make my site look the best for
my vistors which are mostly using Windows since my software is only
for Windows right now. When I say it's what I like, it means it's
what I like based on what I think my visitors will like.
Do you know that over 40% of your visitors have vision problems?

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Jun 26 '07 #149
On 2007-06-26, Albert Wiersch wrote:
>
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cf********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:i9************@206-248-139-163.dsl.teksavvy.com...
>>
The rule is that everyone is (or could be) an exception.

But it is often better to do according to the norm than the exception.
> Why bother? Do it right and it will work for everyone.

There's more than one "right" way to do things, at least in most cases.
Then use one of them instead of the wrong way.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
========= Do not reply to the From: address; use Reply-To: ========
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Jun 26 '07 #150

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

reply views Thread by ACM SIGSOFT 2004 Publicity Chair | last post: by
reply views Thread by Dana Morris | last post: by
reply views Thread by SoftComplete Development | last post: by
reply views Thread by engnr.maria | last post: by
reply views Thread by NPC403 | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.