469,326 Members | 1,555 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,326 developers. It's quick & easy.

Browser survey

I have posted a quick survey at
<http://cfaj.freeshell.org/testing/width.shtml>.

There's only one question: select the widest line that fits
in your normal browser window.

Your assistance is appreciated.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Jun 28 '08
246 5575
In article
<ba**********************************@d45g2000hsc. googlegroups.com>,
Travis Newbury <Tr***********@hotmail.comwrote:
Blindly
stating that fluid design is always the best way is just flat out
wrong, and a disservice to your client.
Well, I have never stated this. And, frankly, I don't really know what
you in detail mean by fluid design.

--
dorayme
Jul 3 '08 #201
In article <48**************@news.freenetname.co.uk>, (Matt Probert)
wrote:
dorayme <do************@optusnet.com.auwrote:
Like arguing for or against the existence of God - quite irresolvable
because no one has a properly meaningful idea about what the hell they
are talking about.

Pun intended?

LOL
Put it this way, I noticed it after I created it in six seconds and I
looked upon my sentence and I was pleased. Then I rested for the seventh
second.

--
dorayme
Jul 3 '08 #202
In article <48**************@news.freenetname.co.uk>, (Matt Probert)
wrote:
Travis Newbury <Tr***********@hotmail.comwrote:
Do you truly believe that fox news did not spend hundreds of thousands
of dollars on research when they converted to their current design?

Indeed not. I suspect they paid some snake-oil salesman or his firm
lots of money to tell them what they wanted to hear, in complete
gibberish.
I know for a fact that where there is a lot of money to fund a website,
it is often the case that someone gets the job because of a corrupt
hiring process, people owe people favours, there are kickbacks, their
are deals made. Travis makes out that the big end of town, both
commercial and government, work in a principled way towards only one
goal, how to make the most money out of a website. It is simply untrue.
When lots of money is coming in, it is not critical that it be the very
most that can come in.

When pigs are eating at a trough, they don't mind their manners too
much. It is a rough affair and it is absurd to be talking delicate high
fallutin' things about fixed vs. fluid.

--
dorayme
Jul 4 '08 #203
On 03 Jul 2008, Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attglobal.netwrote:
>>>Layout. It has been said many times that a web page is not a book
page, and that works both ways. I believe web page authors have the
right to make an interesting layout and keep it integral to some
extent.

Exactly, a web page is not a book page. A book page is fixed. A web
page can be flexible.

If you want to control what the site looks like, generate PDF's.

So no Web author can/should control what his site looks like? Okay...

Nope, that's the nature of the web. They can RECOMMEND what it looks
like, but not CONTROL it.
Okay, I see where you're coming from. Anyway, I do my best to make my
recommendations as controlling as possible but usually within the auspices
of the fluid concept.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net/
Great sights and sounds
Jul 4 '08 #204
On 03 Jul 2008, Travis Newbury <Tr***********@hotmail.comwrote:
On Jul 3, 1:36*pm, Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/
fliam.phpwrote:
It is ONLY a solution if you make the assumptionnthat the visitor has
a clue about their browser. *I am not willing to make that
concession.
And I am not willing to concede your premise. *There are all kinds of t
hings
>in the world which the end-user was no clue about but still relies upon
heavily.

I wil conceed that there are many things that U sued does not know how
it works to be able to use it. Hell a toaster does that.

But can you give me an example where the the owner of a product needs
to know not only that the product has this "hidden" feature, but also
is required to learn a foreign language (special language) to make
that hidden feature work.
Most child-proof bottle caps fit that category, at least the ones not
labelled with English cheats. And how about the Windows OS; exactly how do
you shut it down? What about bicycles and lawnmowers; do they come with
instructions?

There're thousands more.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net/
Great sights and sounds
Jul 4 '08 #205
On 2008-07-03, Travis Newbury wrote:
On Jul 3, 3:55*pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@central.netwrote:
>Hmmm *Problem A with a solution that few know about is somehow less
desirable than Problem B that does not have a solution at all. Science
is not your strong suit may I guess?

You do not dispute that it is a select few that find it to be a
solution.
But it is greater than zero.
But to the masses it is not a solution at all.
Certainly it is. All it takes is a little education. For the
reverse no amount of anything will make it greater than zero.
And the masses are what are important to corporations. Not the few
that frequent alt.html that might know how to implement user style
sheets.
But it doesn't exclude the masses. It reaches them AND others.
So, in the grand scheme of things, it is not a solution.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster <http://Woodbine-Gerrard.com>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Jul 4 '08 #206
Travis Newbury <Tr***********@hotmail.comwrote in message:
d0**********************************...oglegroups.com,
On Jul 3, 4:14 pm, "Red E. Kilowatt" <SPAMT...@aww-faq.orgwrote:
> A US automaker is a very bad example of a business catering to its
customer's needs/desires.

I completely disagree! The fact that they do cater to customers is
proven by what they offer as their product. American's asked for
SUVs, and they got SUVs. The american automakers give the public
exaclty what they ask for. And present gas prices show the need to be
careful what you ask for.
Yes, but the US automakers completely ignored the predictable
consequences of rising oil prices on their future sales of gas guzzling
SUVs. They never put any real effort into making their SUVs more
fuel-efficient, which is why they continued to lose market share to
imports prior to the runup in oil prices.

--
Red
Jul 4 '08 #207
William Gill <no*****@example.comwrote in message:
_V*******************@fe097.usenetserver.com,
Red E. Kilowatt wrote:
>A US automaker is a very bad example of a business catering to its
customer's needs/desires.
Why, because they coerced people to buy cars they couldn't afford or
didn't want? Or because they didn't foresee that oil that should be
$30 per barrel would spike to $140? Or maybe it's because they sold
the patents for 200 mpg carburetors to the oil companies so many
years ago.
It might be argued they are a prime example of catering too much to
customer desires.
Their problem has always been that they are too slow to respond to
changing tastes and market conditions.

--
Red
Jul 4 '08 #208
Travis Newbury wrote:
On Jul 3, 4:47 pm, William Gill <nore...@example.comwrote:
>Or maybe it's because they sold the
patents for 200 mpg carburetors to the oil companies so many years ago.

And Kenedy was assassinated by the Mafia... You do know that is just
an urban legend right? http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/carburetor.asp
No, Kennedy was assassinated by Johnson :-)

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

Jul 4 '08 #209
Neredbojias wrote:
On 03 Jul 2008, Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attglobal.netwrote:
>>>>Layout. It has been said many times that a web page is not a book
page, and that works both ways. I believe web page authors have the
right to make an interesting layout and keep it integral to some
extent.
>
Exactly, a web page is not a book page. A book page is fixed. A web
page can be flexible.

If you want to control what the site looks like, generate PDF's.

So no Web author can/should control what his site looks like? Okay...
Nope, that's the nature of the web. They can RECOMMEND what it looks
like, but not CONTROL it.

Okay, I see where you're coming from. Anyway, I do my best to make my
recommendations as controlling as possible but usually within the auspices
of the fluid concept.
Fluid is good. But anyone who thinks they can control the user's
browser is deluding himself. That's the nature of HTML - it suggests a
layout, but the user has final control.

OTOH, PDF's give you absolute control over the layout.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

Jul 4 '08 #210
Travis Newbury wrote:
On Jul 3, 4:14 pm, "Red E. Kilowatt" <SPAMT...@aww-faq.orgwrote:
> A US automaker is a very bad example of a business catering to its
customer's needs/desires.

I completely disagree! The fact that they do cater to customers is
proven by what they offer as their product. American's asked for
SUVs, and they got SUVs. The american automakers give the public
exaclty what they ask for. And present gas prices show the need to be
careful what you ask for.
If that were really the case, they wouldn't be in such dire straits -
and the overseas market making such big inroads.

It reminds me of the time back after WW II. Volkswagen tried to sell
their design of the Beetle to Ford. Ford wasn't interested - the
already had a "family car" on the drawing board, and didn't think the
Beetle would sell.

Of course, we all know how big the VW Beetle got back in the 50's and
60's. For you young'uns, they were all over the place. Along with
that, VW campers became somewhat of a cult item.

And Ford's great family car? The Edsel...

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

Jul 4 '08 #211
Red E. Kilowatt wrote:
Travis Newbury <Tr***********@hotmail.comwrote in message:
d0**********************************...oglegroups.com,
>On Jul 3, 4:14 pm, "Red E. Kilowatt" <SPAMT...@aww-faq.orgwrote:
>> A US automaker is a very bad example of a business catering to its
customer's needs/desires.
I completely disagree! The fact that they do cater to customers is
proven by what they offer as their product. American's asked for
SUVs, and they got SUVs. The american automakers give the public
exaclty what they ask for. And present gas prices show the need to be
careful what you ask for.

Yes, but the US automakers completely ignored the predictable
consequences of rising oil prices on their future sales of gas guzzling
SUVs. They never put any real effort into making their SUVs more
fuel-efficient, which is why they continued to lose market share to
imports prior to the runup in oil prices.
True. And never mind the fact SUV's and other large vehicles are much
more profitable to the car manufacturers than small cars are...

Despite all the hipe, it really doesn't cost *that* much more to build
an SUV than a subcompact. Some more, I agree. But not the difference
they are (were) charging.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

Jul 4 '08 #212
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>And Kenedy was assassinated by the Mafia... You do know that is just
an urban legend right?
http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/carburetor.asp

No, Kennedy was assassinated by Johnson :-)
Lyndon Baines or Lady Bird?
Jul 4 '08 #213
William Gill wrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>And Kenedy was assassinated by the Mafia... You do know that is just
an urban legend right?
http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/carburetor.asp

No, Kennedy was assassinated by Johnson :-)

Lyndon Baines or Lady Bird?
Walter :-)

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
js*******@attglobal.net
==================

Jul 4 '08 #214
Red E. Kilowatt wrote:
Their problem has always been that they are too slow to respond to
changing tastes and market conditions.
I'm sure that is at least one of their problems, but when design to
production typically takes 5 years it's hard to keep ahead of shorter
market vacillations. Of course there are those who say the automakers
should have had the foresight to not offer what people want, and instead
only offer what they (the automakers) knew their customer should have
wanted. I can't tell you how many times I have told my customers I
wouldn't accept their money because they wanted a fixed layout for their
website instead of a fluid one. (of course my design to production cycle
is a little less than 5 years) When someone in any industry guesses
right what the market is going to do, they are a genius, when they miss
the mark we all say they should have seen it coming.

Don't get me wrong, when large corporations frequently look at the short
term at the expense of the long term. A board frequently looks at the
impact on shares and therefore the shareholders who may fire them,
instead of the (long term) impact on the business. The logic being, if
I piss off the shareholder and get fired, it doesn't matter (to me) if
the company eventually does well, but if I make the shareholders happy I
may have time to avert the consequences, and even if I don't, I may be
ready to retire by the time they eventually fire me.
Jul 4 '08 #215
On 03 Jul 2008, Jerry Stuckle <js*******@attglobal.netwrote:
>>Nope, that's the nature of the web. They can RECOMMEND what it looks
like, but not CONTROL it.

Okay, I see where you're coming from. Anyway, I do my best to make my
recommendations as controlling as possible but usually within the auspices
of the fluid concept.

Fluid is good. But anyone who thinks they can control the user's
browser is deluding himself. That's the nature of HTML - it suggests a
layout, but the user has final control.

OTOH, PDF's give you absolute control over the layout.
I can't stand pdf's -(possibly for the very reason you state.)

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.net/
Great sights and sounds
Jul 4 '08 #216
Travis Newbury <Tr***********@hotmail.comwrote:
>On Jul 3, 1:37=A0pm, Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/
fliam.phpwrote:
>I was gonna say, "Cut it out!"

And you wold have won the best comeback award if there was a
competition between the two of you.
Oh that just sucks!

Matt
--
The Probert Encyclopaedia
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com
Jul 4 '08 #217
(Matt Probert) wrote:
>Travis Newbury <Tr***********@hotmail.comwrote:
>>On Jul 3, 1:37=A0pm, Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/
fliam.phpwrote:
>>I was gonna say, "Cut it out!"

And you wold have won the best comeback award if there was a
competition between the two of you.

Oh that just sucks!
You guys are a crack up.

--
Ed Jay (remove 'M' to reply by email)

Win the War Against Breast Cancer.
Knowing the facts could save your life.
http://www.breastthermography.info
Jul 4 '08 #218

"Scott Bryce" <sb****@scottbryce.comwrote in message
news:xq******************************@comcast.com. ..
Travis Newbury wrote:
>The american automakers give the public exactly what they ask for.

Which is why the Corolla is the best selling car in the world.
Technically correct, but a classic example of stats not telling the whole
truth. The Corolla has been sold for longer than nearly all 'mainstream'
vehicles (I'm counting designs like the 911 and Landy Defender's out), has
been sold in more markets, and has been through more incarnations than
Doctor Who. A more sensible calculation would be Cars Sold divided by
Potential Customers divided by (a given time period). Personally, I dont
think that the Corolla would figure so well using that formula, and cars
like the Model T, Beetle, 2CV, etc. would come back toward the top.
Jul 4 '08 #219
On Jul 4, 12:24*am, William Gill <nore...@example.comwrote:
Jerry Stuckle wrote:
And Kenedy was assassinated by the Mafia... *You do know that is just
an urban legend right? *
http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/carburetor.asp
No, Kennedy was assassinated by Johnson :-)

Lyndon Baines or Lady Bird?
Magic
Jul 4 '08 #220
On Jul 4, 12:05*am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
Of course, we all know how big the VW Beetle got back in the 50's and
60's. *For you young'uns, they were all over the place. *Along with
that, VW campers became somewhat of a cult item.
I had a blue bug in 75. Best car I ever owned. (with the exception of
the heater which was non existent in Bugs...)
Jul 4 '08 #221
On Jul 4, 12:06*am, Jerry Stuckle <jstuck...@attglobal.netwrote:
OTOH, PDF's give you absolute control over the layout.
Well, unless the user had Acrobat 8 then they can change it all they
like....
Jul 4 '08 #222
Travis Newbury wrote:
On Jul 4, 12:24 am, William Gill <nore...@example.comwrote:
>Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>And Kenedy was assassinated by the Mafia... You do know that is just
an urban legend right?
http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/carburetor.asp
No, Kennedy was assassinated by Johnson :-)
Lyndon Baines or Lady Bird?

Magic
Howard

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
Good health is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die.
Jul 4 '08 #223
Ed Jay <ed***@aes-intl.comwrote:
>(Matt Probert) wrote:
>>Travis Newbury <Tr***********@hotmail.comwrote:
>>>On Jul 3, 1:37=A0pm, Neredbojias <me@http://www.neredbojias.net/_eml/
fliam.phpwrote:
I was gonna say, "Cut it out!"

And you wold have won the best comeback award if there was a
competition between the two of you.

Oh that just sucks!
You guys are a crack up.
I really worried no one would get it. PHEW!

Matt

--
The Probert Encyclopaedia
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com
Jul 4 '08 #224
Jonathan N. Little wrote:
No they just quietly frustrated, and do not return.
I find non-intuitive navigation of a sight the main reason for never
coming back. I, and I suspect many others, will tolerate breaches of
style and layout as long as I can find what I came for, but if it's too
much work, or too confusing, to find things I'm gone. Then again, I'm a
big believer that content is king (or Queen, or whatever).
Jul 4 '08 #225
On Jul 4, 11:30*am, Ed Mullen <e...@edmullen.netwrote:
Lyndon Baines or Lady Bird?
Magic
Howard
My Huge
Jul 4 '08 #226
4 people with 300 ems....

How big is that in terms of screenres? Just wonder.

Ron
Jul 6 '08 #227
"Ronny" <an*******@discussions.microsoft.comwrites:
4 people with 300 ems....

How big is that in terms of screenres? Just wonder.
I would guess that's 3000+ pixels. Probably some jokers that have a
dual screen setup with their browser maximized over both screens.

A tiny font size combined with a 30" 2560 x 1600 screen (like the
apple cinema display) might just make it too.

--
Joost Diepenmaat | blog: http://joost.zeekat.nl/ | work: http://zeekat.nl/
Jul 6 '08 #228
That is what i thought ... but it says a little on how trustworthy the
results will be...
I would guess that's 3000+ pixels. Probably some jokers that have a
dual screen setup with their browser maximized over both screens.

Jul 6 '08 #229
"Ronny" <an*******@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:
>4 people with 300 ems....

How big is that in terms of screenres? Just wonder.


300 times the width of a letter m.

Which is slightly shorter than a piece of string.

The em is a relative size. Em being the width of the lowercase letter
m in that font. Thus it varies with typefaces, point sizes etc,

Matt
--
The Probert Encyclopaedia
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com
Jul 6 '08 #230
On 2008-07-06, (Matt Probert) <wrote:
"Ronny" <an*******@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:
>>4 people with 300 ems....

How big is that in terms of screenres? Just wonder.

300 times the width of a letter m.
An em isn't the width of a letter m, but the "height of the em square".

The em square is some sort of rectangle (not necessarily actually a
square one...) into which the font designer is supposed to put glyphs.
He's not meant to go outside it although some do.

So an em is about the distance from the topmost part of the highest
glyph in the font to the bottommost part of the lowest one. That often
isn't the same dimension as the width of an M or an m.

If you set font-size: 100px then 1em should be 100px. Try this in a
browser:

<div style="font-size: 100px;
width: 1em; height: 1em;
background-color:green;
color: white">
m
</div>

The green box does measure 100px x 100px in Firefox.
Jul 6 '08 #231
>>>How big is that in terms of screenres? Just wonder.
>>
300 times the width of a letter m.

An em isn't the width of a letter m, but the "height of the em square".
Sorry people, I just asked my question to point out the unrealistic
screensize..... ;-)
Jul 6 '08 #232
On Jul 6, 3:16*pm, "Ronny" <anonym...@discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote:
300 times the width of a letter m.
An em isn't the width of a letter m, but the "height of the em square".
Sorry people, I just asked my question to point out the unrealistic
screensize..... ;-)
Makes no difference, Usenet lives and evolves. Just look at this
thread. 300+ posts and maybe 20% of them have anything to deal with
the OP's post...

Jul 6 '08 #233
In article <5e***************************@cache3.tilbu1.nb.ho me.nl>,
"Ronny" <an*******@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:
4 people with 300 ems....
I would advise anyone who came across a gang of four with that many ems,
to quietly slip into the shadows and just hope to God they do not see
you. Call the police as soon as possible.

--
dorayme
Jul 6 '08 #234
In article <sl*********************@bowser.marioworld>,
Ben C <sp******@spam.eggswrote:
On 2008-07-06, (Matt Probert) <wrote:
"Ronny" <an*******@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:
>4 people with 300 ems....

How big is that in terms of screenres? Just wonder.


300 times the width of a letter m.

An em isn't the width of a letter m, but the "height of the em square".

The em square is some sort of rectangle (not necessarily actually a
square one...) into which the font designer is supposed to put glyphs.
He's not meant to go outside it although some do.

So an em is about the distance from the topmost part of the highest
glyph in the font to the bottommost part of the lowest one. That often
isn't the same dimension as the width of an M or an m.

If you set font-size: 100px then 1em should be 100px. Try this in a
browser:

<div style="font-size: 100px;
width: 1em; height: 1em;
background-color:green;
color: white">
m
</div>

The green box does measure 100px x 100px in Firefox.
A few interesting things about this sort of thing, cross browser-wide:

<http://netweaver.com.au/alt/emBoxes.html>

--
dorayme
Jul 7 '08 #235
On 2008-07-07, dorayme <do************@optusnet.com.auwrote:
In article <sl*********************@bowser.marioworld>,
Ben C <sp******@spam.eggswrote:
>On 2008-07-06, (Matt Probert) <wrote:
"Ronny" <an*******@discussions.microsoft.comwrote:

4 people with 300 ems....

How big is that in terms of screenres? Just wonder.

300 times the width of a letter m.

An em isn't the width of a letter m, but the "height of the em square".

The em square is some sort of rectangle (not necessarily actually a
square one...) into which the font designer is supposed to put glyphs.
He's not meant to go outside it although some do.

So an em is about the distance from the topmost part of the highest
glyph in the font to the bottommost part of the lowest one. That often
isn't the same dimension as the width of an M or an m.

If you set font-size: 100px then 1em should be 100px. Try this in a
browser:

<div style="font-size: 100px;
width: 1em; height: 1em;
background-color:green;
color: white">
m
</div>

The green box does measure 100px x 100px in Firefox.

A few interesting things about this sort of thing, cross browser-wide:

<http://netweaver.com.au/alt/emBoxes.html>
A nice example. It would also help to add line-height: 1 to #monospace
div (and the others), because that puts the glyphs properly in their em-squares.
Otherwise they will be slightly or quite a bit too low (depending on how
much leading you get for that font in that browser with line-height:
normal).

In the majority of fonts none of the glyphs are quite as wide as the em
square, because they're all a bit taller than they are fat.

The black squares are the em-squares.

Quite a few glyphs still escape their em-squares, even with line-height:
1 in the browsers I tried.
Jul 7 '08 #236
In article <sl*********************@bowser.marioworld>,
Ben C <sp******@spam.eggswrote:
an em is about the distance from the topmost part of the highest
glyph in the font to the bottommost part of the lowest one. That often
isn't the same dimension as the width of an M or an m.

If you set font-size: 100px then 1em should be 100px. Try this in a
browser:

<div style="font-size: 100px;
width: 1em; height: 1em;
background-color:green;
color: white">
m
</div>

The green box does measure 100px x 100px in Firefox.
A few interesting things about this sort of thing, cross browser-wide:

<http://netweaver.com.au/alt/emBoxes.html>

A nice example. It would also help to add line-height: 1 to #monospace
div (and the others), because that puts the glyphs properly in their
em-squares.
Yes, I guess. My aim was to simply make sure the em squares were clear
and all else was more or less normal. But come to think of it, it is a
good idea to set line-height to see what might then be any browser
variations. Let me do this right now. And simplify the css while at it.
Otherwise they will be slightly or quite a bit too low (depending on how
much leading you get for that font in that browser with line-height:
normal).
....
Quite a few glyphs still escape their em-squares, even with line-height:
1 in the browsers I tried.
Yes. The p, q, j, y and all brackets, and divider all protrude a touch
out of their boxes in monospace. The underscore is logically enough
interestingly and bravely quite outside.

In fact, in all my set fonts, there are some protrusions, all very
beautiful to see - especially cursive and fantasy where, obviously,
their designers were not to be constrained.

--
dorayme
Jul 7 '08 #237
dorayme <do************@optusnet.com.auwrote:
>In article <sl*********************@bowser.marioworld>,
Ben C <sp******@spam.eggswrote:
>an em is about the distance from the topmost part of the highest
>glyph in the font to the bottommost part of the lowest one. That often
isn't the same dimension as the width of an M or an m.

If you set font-size: 100px then 1em should be 100px. Try this in a
browser:

<div style="font-size: 100px;
width: 1em; height: 1em;
background-color:green;
color: white">
m
</div>

The green box does measure 100px x 100px in Firefox.

A few interesting things about this sort of thing, cross browser-wide:

<http://netweaver.com.au/alt/emBoxes.html>

A nice example. It would also help to add line-height: 1 to #monospace
div (and the others), because that puts the glyphs properly in their
em-squares.

Yes, I guess. My aim was to simply make sure the em squares were clear
and all else was more or less normal. But come to think of it, it is a
good idea to set line-height to see what might then be any browser
variations. Let me do this right now. And simplify the css while at it.
>Otherwise they will be slightly or quite a bit too low (depending on how
much leading you get for that font in that browser with line-height:
normal).
...
>Quite a few glyphs still escape their em-squares, even with line-height:
1 in the browsers I tried.

Yes. The p, q, j, y and all brackets, and divider all protrude a touch
out of their boxes in monospace. The underscore is logically enough
interestingly and bravely quite outside.

In fact, in all my set fonts, there are some protrusions, all very
beautiful to see - especially cursive and fantasy where, obviously,
their designers were not to be constrained.

--
dorayme
Some of you still don't get what an em is do you?

Still, I guess the ones arguing are children who don't remember hot
metal.

An em is a relative measurement. It's not a square, it has no vertical
element. It is is purely a relative width, relative to the space
occupied horizontally by a capital (sorry did I say lowercase before?)
M (or em as it is known, hence the name of the 'em').

Incidentally, in standard printing 12 points was the benchmark
typeface vertical size, and an em was then usually the width of the
capital M at 12 points vertical height, varying with the style of the
typeface.

Try widely varying your typeface and see what happens, even if you
retain the same vertical point size.....

Matt
--
The Probert Encyclopaedia
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com
Jul 7 '08 #238
On Jul 7, 6:30*am, (Matt Probert) wrote:
Some of you still don't get what an em is do you?
Actually most of us stopped caring what an "em" is about 258 posts
ago...
Jul 7 '08 #239
On 2008-07-07, (Matt Probert) <wrote:
dorayme <do************@optusnet.com.auwrote:
>>In article <sl*********************@bowser.marioworld>,
Ben C <sp******@spam.eggswrote:
>>an em is about the distance from the topmost part of the highest
glyph in the font to the bottommost part of the lowest one. That often
isn't the same dimension as the width of an M or an m.

If you set font-size: 100px then 1em should be 100px. Try this in a
browser:

<div style="font-size: 100px;
width: 1em; height: 1em;
background-color:green;
color: white">
m
</div>

The green box does measure 100px x 100px in Firefox.

A few interesting things about this sort of thing, cross browser-wide:

<http://netweaver.com.au/alt/emBoxes.html>
[...]
Some of you still don't get what an em is do you?

Still, I guess the ones arguing are children who don't remember hot
metal.

An em is a relative measurement. It's not a square, it has no vertical
element. It is is purely a relative width, relative to the space
occupied horizontally by a capital (sorry did I say lowercase before?)
M (or em as it is known, hence the name of the 'em').
That's not what it means in CSS (although perhaps it did mean that in
the names of hot metal).

Look at dorayme's example. The 1em box is quite bit wider than the
capital M (for most fonts and browsers).
Jul 7 '08 #240
Travis Newbury <Tr***********@hotmail.comwrote:
>On Jul 7, 6:30=A0am, (Matt Probert) wrote:
>Some of you still don't get what an em is do you?

Actually most of us stopped caring what an "em" is about 258 posts
ago...
Feeling the need to belong to a large group is indicative of feelings
of inferiority. Hence the use of the term "us".

Pity you don't care about ems, but then you're obviously not involved
in print, design, or web sites.

Matt
--
The Probert Encyclopaedia
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com
Jul 7 '08 #241
On Jul 7, 12:34*pm, (Matt Probert) wrote:
Actually most of us stopped caring what an "em" is about 258 posts
ago...
Feeling the need to belong to a large group is indicative of feelings
of inferiority. Hence the use of the term "us".
If you were following this thread you would have noticed that "most of
us" (the people that have been participating in the thread) stopped
caring about EM and moved on to more important things like Flash, and
Guy's resume, and Jerry's, well his bullshit. Then there was the
occasional side pun, and a few dick jokes mixed in. So the use of the
term "us" was completely appropriate.
Pity you don't care about ems, but then you're obviously not involved
in print, design, or web sites.
Why is it a pity?
Jul 7 '08 #242
Travis Newbury wrote:
On Jul 7, 12:34 pm, (Matt Probert) wrote:
>>Actually most of us stopped caring what an "em" is about 258 posts
ago...
Feeling the need to belong to a large group is indicative of feelings
of inferiority. Hence the use of the term "us".

If you were following this thread you would have noticed that "most of
us" (the people that have been participating in the thread) stopped
caring about EM
I just really wish you all would stop abusing my initials and move on to
another topic.
--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
Deja Fu: The feeling that somehow, somewhere, you've been kicked in the
head like this before.
Jul 8 '08 #243

Matt Probert wrote:
>
An em is a relative measurement. It's not a square, it has no vertical
element. It is is purely a relative width
Not in CSS terms, it isn't. It's a measurement of height, not width.
There is no CSS unit relative to character width, though I wish there were.

--
Berg
Jul 8 '08 #244
On Jul 7, 8:53*pm, Ed Mullen <e...@edmullen.netwrote:
If you were following this thread you would have noticed that "most of
us" (the people that have been participating in the thread) stopped
caring about EM
I just really wish you all would stop abusing my initials and move on to
another topic.
As a thoughtful and benevolent member of this group I plead with all
of you to honor Mr Mullen's request. I mean, that would be like if we
made fun of Guy Macon's initials by demonstrating how GM rhymes with
BM which is another name for poop.

Thank you.
Travis (I care about your feelings) Newbury
Jul 8 '08 #245
"Travis Newbury" <Tr***********@hotmail.comdribbled:
As a thoughtful and benevolent member of this group
I plead with all of you to ...
Enough already.

Join Mr Probert - *plonk*
Jul 9 '08 #246
On Jul 8, 8:12*pm, "Andrew Heenan" <f...@will.comwrote:
As a thoughtful and benevolent member of this group
I plead with all of you to ...
Enough already.
Join Mr Probert - *plonk*
Man, no sense of humor at all...
Jul 9 '08 #247

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

1 post views Thread by GTF | last post: by
8 posts views Thread by S.Marion | last post: by
reply views Thread by Kenzo Fong | last post: by
1 post views Thread by Nico Baumgarten | last post: by
16 posts views Thread by Java script Dude | last post: by
13 posts views Thread by Seth Grimes | last post: by
1 post views Thread by CARIGAR | last post: by
reply views Thread by zhoujie | last post: by
reply views Thread by suresh191 | last post: by
reply views Thread by mdpf | last post: by
reply views Thread by harlem98 | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.