By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
435,635 Members | 2,174 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 435,635 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Font Issues

P: n/a
Hello,

I have been reading a lot about fonts and I got to the following
conclusions:
1.Use % do define font size
2. Avoid defining font in Body and P tags
3. Avoid using Verdana

I understand the reason of point 1.

Point 2 not sure why is that. Why?

Finally, I really like Verdana. Why should I avoid it using? Because
its size gets to small?
And is there a font similar to verdana that I can use?
Is just that I think Verdana is a really easy font to read and looks
good ... under normal conditions.

Thanks,
Miguel

Nov 18 '07 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
37 Replies


P: n/a
On 2007-11-18, shapper wrote:
....
3. Avoid using Verdana
....
Finally, I really like Verdana. Why should I avoid it using? Because
its size gets to small?
And is there a font similar to verdana that I can use?
Is just that I think Verdana is a really easy font to read and looks
good ... under normal conditions.
The problems with Verdana have nothing to do with the font itself.
It has a larger x-height and width than most other fonts, but it
is only slightly larger than Helvetica or Arial.

The problems are the result of misguided attempts to make the font
appear the same size as other fonts by setting its size smaller
(either with the <fonttag, or with font-size in CSS).

Verdana is an attempt to improve on the classic Helvetica font,
solving some of the problems of that font: the similarity of a
capital I and lower-case L, for the 'rn' combination looking too
similar to an 'm', for example.

So long as you don't mess with the font-size, there is no reason
not to use it.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Nov 18 '07 #2

P: n/a
shapper wrote:
I have been reading a lot about fonts and I got to the following
conclusions:
1.Use % do define font size
2. Avoid defining font in Body and P tags
3. Avoid using Verdana

I understand the reason of point 1.

Point 2 not sure why is that. Why?
You want to place all your presentation in the style sheet, not in the
HTML.
Finally, I really like Verdana. Why should I avoid it using? Because
its size gets to small?
No, because you would probably set its size at 80% (common among authors
who don't know why), and on my computer where there is no Verdana, I see
a fall-back font (a regular-sized font, not the enlarged Verdana) at a
size too small to read comfortably.
And is there a font similar to verdana that I can use?
Is just that I think Verdana is a really easy font to read and looks
good ... under normal conditions.
See: http://k75s.home.att.net/fontsize.html

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Nov 18 '07 #3

P: n/a
shapper wrote:
>
1.Use % do define font size
2. Avoid defining font in Body and P tags

Point 2 not sure why is that. Why?
What do you mean by "tags"?

If you are going to set particular fonts you *should* define them in a
CSS selector for the body element. P will inherit fonts from body so
there is no reason to explicitly set them on P.

--
Berg
Nov 18 '07 #4

P: n/a
On Nov 18, 6:25 am, Bergamot <berga...@visi.comwrote:
shapper wrote:
1.Use % do define font size
2. Avoid defining font in Body and P tags
Point 2 not sure why is that. Why?

What do you mean by "tags"?

If you are going to set particular fonts you *should* define them in a
CSS selector for the body element. P will inherit fonts from body so
there is no reason to explicitly set them on P.

--
Berg
See "Doing it right" in
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/fontsize.html

Why should I "avoid specifying a font in CSS for <BODYor <P>"?

Thanks,
Miguel
Nov 18 '07 #5

P: n/a
In article
<a3**********************************@w34g2000hsg. googlegroups.co
m>,
shapper <md*****@gmail.comwrote:
See "Doing it right" in
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/fontsize.html

Why should I "avoid specifying a font in CSS for <BODYor <P>"?
The context is that if you do not do it, you can't go wrong. Not
that it is bad to do it well.

--
dorayme
Nov 18 '07 #6

P: n/a
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007, shapper wrote:
Finally, I really like Verdana. Why should I avoid it using?
You shouldn't - as long as you resist to specify a font size
for BODY or P.
Because its size gets to small?
Only if you define a font size for BODY. The real problem
is that {font-family: Verdana} almost always comes with
{font-size: 80%}. This is especially stupid when the reader
has already chosen Verdana in a suitable size as his
preferred font.

--
In memoriam Alan J. Flavell
http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...Alan.J.Flavell
Nov 19 '07 #7

P: n/a
Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:36:42 +0100 from Andreas Prilop <aprilop2007
@trashmail.net>:
The real problem is that {font-family: Verdana} almost always comes
with {font-size: 80%}. This is especially stupid when the reader
has already chosen Verdana in a suitable size as his preferred
font.
That would apply to any font. It sounds like the argument is against
defining font-size:80%, not against Verdana.

I can't remember the exact reason off hand, but I remember there was
some problem specific to Verdana and not other fonts.

--
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
Nov 19 '07 #8

P: n/a
Mon, 19 Nov 2007 18:58:53 -0500 from Jonathan N. Little
<lw*****@centralva.net>:
Stan Brown wrote:
Mon, 19 Nov 2007 17:36:42 +0100 from Andreas Prilop <aprilop2007
@trashmail.net>:
The real problem is that {font-family: Verdana} almost always comes
with {font-size: 80%}. This is especially stupid when the reader
has already chosen Verdana in a suitable size as his preferred
font.
That would apply to any font. It sounds like the argument is against
defining font-size:80%, not against Verdana.

No, what the problem is folks that design with Verdana usually notice
that the text looks too large then style their pages

body { font-size:80%; }
You said "no", but you just agreed: the problem is the 80% font size.

Do you know why 100% Verdana is bad?

--
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
Nov 20 '07 #9

P: n/a
Stan Brown meinte:
Do you know why 100% Verdana is bad?
Given the same size (the percentage doesn't matter) Verdana is much
larger than other fonts.

Give it a try on a Windows system: Set up a text block with Verdana and
a size, so that it looks "nice". Then replace Verdana with some other
sans-serif or serif font and keep the size. See what happens.

Gregor

--
http://www.gregorkofler.at ::: Landschafts- und Reisefotografie
http://www.licht-blick.at ::: Forum für Multivisionsvorträge
http://www.image2d.com ::: Bildagentur für den alpinen Raum
Nov 20 '07 #10

P: n/a
Stan Brown wrote:
Do you know why 100% Verdana is bad?
100% Verdana isn't bad.

But as is said oft times in these groups, unknowing authors look at
their own browsers, think that 100% Verdana appears too large, and so
change their style sheets to something usually 'round 80%. Then everyone
without Verdana gets the fall-back normal-sized font in flyspeck size.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Nov 20 '07 #11

P: n/a
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007, Stan Brown wrote:
>The real problem is that {font-family: Verdana} almost always comes
with {font-size: 80%}. This is especially stupid when the reader
has already chosen Verdana in a suitable size as his preferred
font.

That would apply to any font. It sounds like the argument is against
defining font-size:80%, not against Verdana.
Sure, the bad thing is {font-size: 80%}. But I wrote: /especially/ stupid.

I am a reader with a browser that allows me to specify a suitable
font size in pixels or points.

(A)
I have Times New Roman as preferred typeface and a suitable size.
Now comes a web page with {font: 80% Verdana}. This might look okay
since Verdana is so large compared with Times New Roman that it
compensates for 80%.

(B)
I have Verdana as preferred typeface and a suitable size. Now comes
a web page with {font: 80% Verdana}. "Verdana" has no effect because
my typeface is already Verdana. But the size is now reduced to 80%
of my preferred size.

--
Bugs in Internet Explorer 7
http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/ie7-bugs
Nov 20 '07 #12

P: n/a
On 2007/11/20 18:19 (GMT+0100) Andreas Prilop apparently typed:
(A)
I have Times New Roman as preferred typeface and a suitable size.
Now comes a web page with {font: 80% Verdana}. This might look okay
since Verdana is so large compared with Times New Roman that it
compensates for 80%.
(B)
I have Verdana as preferred typeface and a suitable size. Now comes
a web page with {font: 80% Verdana}. "Verdana" has no effect because
my typeface is already Verdana. But the size is now reduced to 80%
of my preferred size.
(C) Verdana is so fugly I've removed it from my system. As a result,
everything in a CSS fallback list (e.g. Lucida Grande, Arial, Helvetica) that
specifies it is of smaller apparent size than Verdana.

See also: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Font/f...s-verd-v-times
--
" A patriot without religion . . . is as great a
paradox, as an honest man without the fear of God."
John Adams

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

Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/
Nov 21 '07 #13

P: n/a
Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:29:53 GMT from Beauregard T. Shagnasty
<a.*********@example.invalid>:
Stan Brown wrote:
Do you know why 100% Verdana is bad?

100% Verdana isn't bad.

But as is said oft times in these groups, unknowing authors look at
their own browsers, think that 100% Verdana appears too large, and so
change their style sheets to something usually 'round 80%. Then everyone
without Verdana gets the fall-back normal-sized font in flyspeck size.
So why does everyone here object to the thing that isn't a problem?

Maybe I'm handicapped by thinking logically, but if the problem in
"Verdana 80%" is the 80%, it seems a little silly to keep saying
"Don't use Verdana". "Don't use 80%" would seem to be a more
appropriate response, yet the veterans always seem to be on about
Verdana.

--
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
Nov 21 '07 #14

P: n/a
In article <MP************************@news.individual.net> ,
Stan Brown <th************@fastmail.fmwrote:
Tue, 20 Nov 2007 13:29:53 GMT from Beauregard T. Shagnasty
<a.*********@example.invalid>:
Stan Brown wrote:
Do you know why 100% Verdana is bad?
100% Verdana isn't bad.

But as is said oft times in these groups, unknowing authors look at
their own browsers, think that 100% Verdana appears too large, and so
change their style sheets to something usually 'round 80%. Then everyone
without Verdana gets the fall-back normal-sized font in flyspeck size.

So why does everyone here object to the thing that isn't a problem?

Maybe I'm handicapped by thinking logically, but if the problem in
"Verdana 80%" is the 80%, it seems a little silly to keep saying
"Don't use Verdana". "Don't use 80%" would seem to be a more
appropriate response, yet the veterans always seem to be on about
Verdana.
The idea is that the two things are connected as cause and
effect. Without Verdana, one (so the story is) major motivation
for messing with either default or explicit body {font-size:
100%; } is removed. So the removal is something big in the minds
of those who are greatly pissed off by over small text. I like
Verdana but am pissed off by small text and I am prepared to
sacrifice not seeing this pleasant enough font for this. Does
that help?

--
dorayme
Nov 21 '07 #15

P: n/a
Stan Brown wrote:
Beauregard T. Shagnasty:
>Stan Brown wrote:
>>Do you know why 100% Verdana is bad?

100% Verdana isn't bad.

But as is said oft times in these groups, unknowing authors look at
their own browsers, think that 100% Verdana appears too large, and so
change their style sheets to something usually 'round 80%. Then everyone
without Verdana gets the fall-back normal-sized font in flyspeck size.

So why does everyone here object to the thing that isn't a problem?

Maybe I'm handicapped by thinking logically, but if the problem in
"Verdana 80%" is the 80%, it seems a little silly to keep saying
"Don't use Verdana". "Don't use 80%" would seem to be a more
appropriate response, yet the veterans always seem to be on about
Verdana.
Sure. "Don't use 80%" is a great rule. But the only reason people write
that rule is because they chose Verdana. If they picked a normal sized
font, they would not be tempted to reduce the *size* to 80%.

--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Nov 21 '07 #16

P: n/a
Scripsit Beauregard T. Shagnasty:
Stan Brown wrote:
- -
>Maybe I'm handicapped by thinking logically, but if the problem in
"Verdana 80%" is the 80%, it seems a little silly to keep saying
"Don't use Verdana". "Don't use 80%" would seem to be a more
appropriate response, yet the veterans always seem to be on about
Verdana.

Sure. "Don't use 80%" is a great rule. But the only reason people
write that rule is because they chose Verdana. If they picked a
normal sized font, they would not be tempted to reduce the *size* to
80%.
Unfortunately, authors reduce font size for many reasons. Verdana is not
the only one. Even Arial looks rather big in 12pt size, and authors who
assume that 12pt is the default font size (as it often is) then reduce
the font size by some percentage or set it in points or pixels.

Verdana is bad because it does not fit into the "let the user decide the
size" model. When a user decides on the font size, by setting the font
size in his browser, or by not setting it (i.e., defaulting it to
initial settings), he typically does not do this using Verdana but, say,
Times New Roman. When Times New Roman is conveniently readable, Verdana
of the same font size is surely too big.

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

Nov 21 '07 #17

P: n/a
Wed, 21 Nov 2007 07:52:00 +0200 from Jukka K. Korpela
<jk******@cs.tut.fi>:
Verdana is bad because it does not fit into the "let the user decide the
size" model. When a user decides on the font size, by setting the font
size in his browser, or by not setting it (i.e., defaulting it to
initial settings), he typically does not do this using Verdana but, say,
Times New Roman. When Times New Roman is conveniently readable, Verdana
of the same font size is surely too big.
Thank you! I can understand *that* reason -- if the user sets her own
font size for her own preferred non-Verdana font, and the author
specifies Verdana, it's going to look uncomfortably big to the user.

--
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
Nov 21 '07 #18

P: n/a
On 2007/11/21 07:52 (GMT+0200) Jukka K. Korpela apparently typed:
When Times New Roman is conveniently readable, Verdana
of the same font size is surely too big.
Bigger doesn't necessarily equate to "too big", or to "bad".
--
" A patriot without religion . . . is as great a
paradox, as an honest man without the fear of God."
John Adams

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

Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/
Nov 21 '07 #19

P: n/a
On 2007/11/21 07:48 (GMT-0500) Stan Brown apparently typed:
if the user sets her own
font size for her own preferred non-Verdana font, and the author
specifies Verdana, it's going to look uncomfortably big to the user.
Maybe yes, maybe no. I've been doing a lot of reading about font sizes the
past couple days, leading me to an even stronger opinion that web
developers/designers are a special class of people who like smaller sizes
than virtually everyone else on this planet. The larger group seems to have
no problem with "large" sizes. Most people I know who have stated an opinion
on the subject find average web page text too be too small. Those who don't
make that claim I watch leaning forward and squinting to see. Their body
language seems more honest.
--
" A patriot without religion . . . is as great a
paradox, as an honest man without the fear of God."
John Adams

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

Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/
Nov 21 '07 #20

P: n/a
Felix Miata wrote:
>
Most people I know who have stated an opinion
on the subject find average web page text too be too small.
That's been my experience, too. And once I teach someone how to adjust
their browser's default size, they invariably make it larger.

--
Berg
Nov 21 '07 #21

P: n/a
Felix Miata <Ug********************@dev.nulwrites:
On 2007/11/21 07:48 (GMT-0500) Stan Brown apparently typed:
if the user sets her own
font size for her own preferred non-Verdana font, and the author
specifies Verdana, it's going to look uncomfortably big to the user.

Maybe yes, maybe no. I've been doing a lot of reading about font sizes the
past couple days, leading me to an even stronger opinion that web
developers/designers are a special class of people who like smaller sizes
than virtually everyone else on this planet.
I don't think it's so much that the designers like reading small fonts
either, as that it makes it much easier to get a nice visual
look. After all, most common (readable body text) fonts are fairly
ugly, so the smaller they're made, the neater the page looks. I don't
think it's the sometimes-suggested opinion about young designers with
good eyesight (I have near-perfect sight and my *minimum* font size
setting is larger than the usual suggestions from websites) - I think
it's because the designers generally don't view the text as text but
as another graphical element, and so whether it's readable or not
doesn't matter anymore than whether you can easily read the text on a
sign in the background of a photograph matters.

You can also fit more text on the screen with smaller fonts, which I
think is an excellent reason to use the default size and so help force
the content writers into being concise.

Anecdotally, when we produced similar versions of a design a few years
ago, one basically straight from the graphics designers' picture and
one modified to remove some of the worst problems (most visibly,
80%->100% font size) the one with the larger font size was described
as 'friendlier' in user testing.

--
Chris
Nov 21 '07 #22

P: n/a
Felix Miata wrote:
On 2007/11/21 07:48 (GMT-0500) Stan Brown apparently typed:
if the user sets her own
font size for her own preferred non-Verdana font, and the author
specifies Verdana, it's going to look uncomfortably big to the user.

Maybe yes, maybe no. I've been doing a lot of reading about font
sizes the past couple days, leading me to an even stronger opinion
that web developers/designers are a special class of people who like
smaller sizes than virtually everyone else on this planet. [snip]
But look at newspapers, books, magazines, in fact just about any place else you
see printed words intended for individual reading. Typical web fonts are no
smaller than those.

How do the fonts on a web page compare to the fonts in your Windows menus and
toolbars? IMO they should be at least as large as that, but I see no reason for
them to be much larger.

I think there are just a lot of people who need more vision correction than they
will admit to.

Nov 21 '07 #23

P: n/a
"Rick Brandt" <ri*********@hotmail.comwrites:
Felix Miata wrote:
Maybe yes, maybe no. I've been doing a lot of reading about font
sizes the past couple days, leading me to an even stronger opinion
that web developers/designers are a special class of people who like
smaller sizes than virtually everyone else on this planet. [snip]

But look at newspapers, books, magazines, in fact just about any
place else you see printed words intended for individual reading.
Typical web fonts are no smaller than those.
That rather depends on several factors of the display device, though:
- the physical size of the display (PDA, monitor, projection screen)
- the resolution of the display. Whether web fonts are larger or
smaller than paper fonts depends to a fair extent on whether I set
my display to 800x600 or 1280x1024
- the distance of the viewer from the display screen (for which one
shouldn't necessarily be as close to the screen as to a piece of
paper)
- while it doesn't strictly affect size, it does affect readability:
the quality of the display. Any mainstream display will be
considerably worse-quality than paper (newspaper perhaps excepted),
and while this is improving it's still a long way off.

For a simple test, get a large amount of text in whatever plausible
font size you want to test, and print out half of it (by number of
lines). It will almost certainly be quicker for you to read on paper
than on screen.

If your monitor is exceptionally good, or you yourself are a
statistical anomaly in this respect, then studies show that *in
general* reading speeds are 25% slower on screen.
See http://www.useit.com/alertbox/whyscanning.html and many others
How do the fonts on a web page compare to the fonts in your Windows
menus and toolbars? IMO they should be at least as large as that,
but I see no reason for them to be much larger.
Larger on the webpage if it uses my default size, larger in the
toolbars for the majority of sites at their suggested size, as it
happens. I haven't modified the toolbar text size from the default.

Additionally, there's a very good reason that web page text should be
larger than menu text: the menu text is approximately constant. No
matter how hard it is to read, once you've figured it out you don't
need to put that effort in again: you know where it is and what it
does, and if you forget it's only a couple of words to re-read. Often,
you don't even need to read it once. Conversely, unless your browsing
habits consist of reading very short webpages over and over, you spend
most of your browsing time reading relatively large amounts of new
text. It's therefore much more important that it's readable without
effort.
I think there are just a lot of people who need more vision
correction than they will admit to.
Either there's enough that making your site difficult/unreadable to
them makes a significant dent in your profits (or profit-equivalents),
and so you should design to allow for this phenomenon, or there's a
tiny and insignificant amount and the widespread preference for larger
text sizes has another cause.

--
Chris
Nov 21 '07 #24

P: n/a
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Felix Miata wrote:
The larger group seems to have no problem with "large" sizes.
In German:
"Zu groß" passt!
:-)

Perhaps in English:
"Too big" fits!

--
In memoriam Alan J. Flavell
http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...Alan.J.Flavell
Nov 21 '07 #25

P: n/a
On 2007-11-21, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
....
Verdana is bad because it does not fit into the "let the user decide the
size" model. When a user decides on the font size, by setting the font
size in his browser, or by not setting it (i.e., defaulting it to
initial settings), he typically does not do this using Verdana but, say,
Times New Roman. When Times New Roman is conveniently readable, Verdana
of the same font size is surely too big.
The same argument applies to Arial and Helvetica, which are much
larger than Times and almost as large as Verdana.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Nov 21 '07 #26

P: n/a
Scripsit Chris F.A. Johnson:
On 2007-11-21, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
...
>Verdana is bad because it does not fit into the "let the user decide
the size" model. When a user decides on the font size, by setting
the font size in his browser, or by not setting it (i.e., defaulting
it to initial settings), he typically does not do this using Verdana
but, say, Times New Roman. When Times New Roman is conveniently
readable, Verdana of the same font size is surely too big.

The same argument applies to Arial and Helvetica, which are much
larger than Times and almost as large as Verdana.
Not really.

Times New Roman (which is probably what you mean) has relative x-height
value(i.e., x-height divided by font size) of 0.448, Arial has 0.519 and
Helvetica almost the same (0.523), whereas Verdana has 0.545. Of
course, there's some variation depending on implementation of font and
method used to estimate its x-height.

The visible differences are bigger, since the impression is also
affected by stroke width, aperture, and other properties of the font.

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

Nov 21 '07 #27

P: n/a
On 2007/11/21 13:59 (GMT) Chris Morris apparently typed:
I don't think it's so much that the designers like reading small fonts
either, as that it makes it much easier to get a nice visual
"nice" as beholden by their own eyes.
look. After all, most common (readable body text) fonts are fairly ugly,
Actually when resolution is as high as it can be nowadays they needn't be
"ugly" at all. "12pt" @ 120 DPI (~200px per character box - 1680x1050 on
16"-17" laptop) is seemingly near infinitely less ugly than "12pt" @ 80 DPI
(~89px per character box - 1024x768 on '17"' CRT).
so the smaller they're made, the neater the page looks...I think
it's because the designers generally don't view the text as text but
as another graphical element, and so whether it's readable or not
doesn't matter anymore than whether you can easily read the text on a
sign in the background of a photograph matters.
Exactly. They're generally incapable of using/reading their work product as
an ordinary user would.
--
" A patriot without religion . . . is as great a
paradox, as an honest man without the fear of God."
John Adams

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

Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/
Nov 21 '07 #28

P: n/a
In article <3X*******************@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net> ,
"Rick Brandt" <ri*********@hotmail.comwrote:
How do the fonts on a web page compare to the fonts in your Windows menus and
toolbars? IMO they should be at least as large as that, but I see no reason
for
them to be much larger.
One does not sit there reading menu items.

--
dorayme
Nov 21 '07 #29

P: n/a
VK
On Nov 21, 9:55 pm, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorp...@cs.tut.fiwrote:
Times New Roman (which is probably what you mean) has relative x-height
value(i.e., x-height divided by font size) of 0.448, Arial has 0.519 and
Helvetica almost the same (0.523), whereas Verdana has 0.545. Of
course, there's some variation depending on implementation of font and
method used to estimate its x-height.

The visible differences are bigger, since the impression is also
affected by stroke width, aperture, and other properties of the font.
Each Web author gives you an *image of the whole page*, not a
particular font-size for Verdana, Times New Roman etc. Think of a
vector graphics image: if it is too small for you, then make it all
bigger; if it is to big then make it all smaller. So the user chooses
the magnification/diminution coefficient for the whole page, not for
its particular parts. The default fonts and the default fonts
coefficients supplied with the browser installation is the product of
long usability analysis and very hot discussions. No one can give you
a set that will be the best suited for 100% of situations: the task is
to give you MaxSituation coverage. That means that as being as an end
user one must never change any of these settings unless it is a fixed
known set of sites one planning to visit. Otherwise one be in the
position of a user of some imaginary vector graphics viewer where one
can set independently different "one step coefficient" for say
straight lines and Besier curves, so say on Ctrl+ straight lines
getting x1.2 bigger, L-Bezier x1.3 bigger and Q-Besier x1.4 bigger. It
is evident that with some minimum efforts the majority of available
vector images will be in FUBAR state in this given viewer. So again
and INHO the reasoning of the kind "what if I want to set Arial/
Verdana as default with such exact size" is another reflection of the
webpunk thinking, thus the strong idea that the whole world has to
turn around beloved myself, and if it's refusing to turn in such way
then I have all my holly rights to f*ck the world and to f*ck anyone
preventing the world to turn around beloved myself.

Ctrl + gets everything one step bigger
Ctrl - gets everything one step smaller
Enjoy, everyone, what an fn problem?

From the further usability point of view browser producers are way
late to provide the most evident feature: a possibility to have the
view coefficient as a browser setting. So each page could be open as
if one pressed say Ctrl + twice or Ctrl - twice.

Nov 23 '07 #30

P: n/a
VK wrote:
>
Each Web author gives you an *image of the whole page*, not a
particular font-size for Verdana, Times New Roman etc. Think of a
vector graphics image: if it is too small for you, then make it all
bigger; if it is to big then make it all smaller.
If I wanted page zoom, I'd use Opera. BTW, this particular feature is
one reason why I *don't* use Opera. I much prefer just text zoom. I
could care less about preserving some pixel-perfect design, or even most
graphics in general.

Fortunately, there are enough browsers out there that give users the
choice over things like zoom. It would be wrong to take that away.
So the user chooses
the magnification/diminution coefficient for the whole page, not for
its particular parts.
Which invariably leads to increased horizontal scrolling, sometimes huge
amounts of it. That's a pretty rude thing to force on users.
one must never change any of these settings unless it is a fixed
known set of sites one planning to visit.
That's the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time.

--
Berg
Nov 23 '07 #31

P: n/a
On 2007/11/23 13:07 (GMT-0600) Bergamot apparently typed:
Fortunately, there are enough browsers out there that give users the
choice over things like zoom. It would be wrong to take that away.
You might want to make that sentiment known on Bugzilla if you haven't
already. The current status of Firefox 3 is page zoom only, but it's an open
issue about how and whether to offer a text only option.
--
" A patriot without religion . . . is as great a
paradox, as an honest man without the fear of God."
John Adams

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

Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/
Nov 23 '07 #32

P: n/a
Felix Miata wrote:
On 2007/11/23 13:07 (GMT-0600) Bergamot apparently typed:
>Fortunately, there are enough browsers out there that give users the
choice over things like zoom. It would be wrong to take that away.

The current status of Firefox 3 is page zoom only
Thanks for the heads up on that. I looked around bugzilla and it looks
like Seamonkey will have both, regardless of what Firefox does. :)

--
Berg
Nov 24 '07 #33

P: n/a
On 2007-11-21, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
Scripsit Chris F.A. Johnson:
>On 2007-11-21, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
...
>>Verdana is bad because it does not fit into the "let the user decide
the size" model. When a user decides on the font size, by setting
the font size in his browser, or by not setting it (i.e., defaulting
it to initial settings), he typically does not do this using Verdana
but, say, Times New Roman. When Times New Roman is conveniently
readable, Verdana of the same font size is surely too big.

The same argument applies to Arial and Helvetica, which are much
larger than Times and almost as large as Verdana.

Not really.

Times New Roman (which is probably what you mean) has relative x-height
value(i.e., x-height divided by font size) of 0.448, Arial has 0.519 and
Helvetica almost the same (0.523), whereas Verdana has 0.545.
Exactly. The difference between Helvetica and Times is 4 times as
great as between Verdana and Helevetica.
Of
course, there's some variation depending on implementation of font and
method used to estimate its x-height.

The visible differences are bigger, since the impression is also
affected by stroke width, aperture, and other properties of the font.
The visible differences between Helvetica and Verdana are far less
than between Helvetica and Times.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Nov 24 '07 #34

P: n/a
On Nov 23, 2:07 pm, Bergamot <berga...@visi.comwrote:
VK wrote:
Each Web author gives you an *image of the whole page*, not a
particular font-size for Verdana, Times New Roman etc. Think of a
vector graphics image: if it is too small for you, then make it all
bigger; if it is to big then make it all smaller.

If I wanted page zoom, I'd use Opera. BTW, this particular feature is
one reason why I *don't* use Opera. I much prefer just text zoom. I
could care less about preserving some pixel-perfect design, or even most
graphics in general.
BTW, IE7 now offers either page zoom or text zoom (the default ctrl +
mousewheel action seems to do page zoom on my system). It's still not
enough to get me to switch, however. I might reconsider, though, if
Firefox takes text (only) zoom away (assuming there's no plug in to
replace it).

Nick

--
Nick Theodorakis
ni**************@hotmail.com
contact form:
http://theodorakis.net/contact.html
Nov 25 '07 #35

P: n/a
VK
On Nov 25, 10:40 pm, Nick Theodorakis <nick_theodora...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
It's still not
enough to get me to switch, however. I might reconsider, though, if
Firefox takes text (only) zoom away (assuming there's no plug in to
replace it).
AFAIK no one is planning to take away from you CSS rules overrides so
just make some
html * {font-size: 2em !important;}
in it

Also there are Greasemonkey (FF) or magicFunction (Opera) to screw up
any given page completely in any desired way including but not limited
by font-size.

For a really conceptual approach one may use custom TTF fonts with
patched font metrics in them but with the same names (say Times,
Helvetica etc.)

So please anyone do not feel as pushed to some corner. The idea is:
stop making some very particular individual preferences as something
what community should/must care about.
Nov 25 '07 #36

P: n/a
VK wrote:
>
Also there are Greasemonkey (FF) or magicFunction (Opera) to screw up
any given page completely in any desired way including but not limited
by font-size.
If the page is screwed up because the designer expects to control the
visitor's browser, then the designer is to blame for not accepting the
media for what it is.

--
Berg
Nov 26 '07 #37

P: n/a
Nick Theodorakis wrote:
>
BTW, IE7 now offers either page zoom or text zoom (the default ctrl +
mousewheel action seems to do page zoom on my system). It's still not
enough to get me to switch, however. I might reconsider, though, if
Firefox takes text (only) zoom away (assuming there's no plug in to
replace it).
Seamonkey should still have both. They're working on how to handle the
UI for text/page zoom now.

BTW, text zoom will be just one more feature I use regularly that
Firefox dropped, and one more reason why I don't use Fx. What IE does
isn't relevant, since I'd never use it by choice anyway.

--
Berg
Nov 26 '07 #38

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.