By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
438,790 Members | 1,107 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 438,790 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Fonts display in Linux

P: n/a
Hello,

I have used CSS in HTML page (font-verdana size-8pt), looks fine in
windows but in linux the fonts are corrupt and its too small. Kindly
help me and tell what is the solution to correct this.

www.teledna.com

Regards,
Minchu
Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
10 Replies


P: n/a
minchu wrote:
I have used CSS in HTML page (font-verdana size-8pt), looks fine in
windows but in linux the fonts are corrupt and its too small. Kindly
help me and tell what is the solution to correct this.


The solution is not to specify fonts, certainly not so precisely.

Let's take a look at what you're asking for. Verdana is typically a
Windows-only font, and has some well-known irregularities regarding its
width to height ratio.

If the Verdana font is not supplied, what should the browser use? If you
really must specify your preferred font, do it with a preference list like
this:

font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif;

The browser will try Verdana if installed, fall back to Arial if installed,
and if it fails to find either, use the user-specified sans-serif font.

Now, font size. You say 8pt, but what does that mean? A pt is 1/72 of an
inch, so 8pt is asking for a character box 1/9in high. What if I'm viewing
on a 1.5" handheld device, or a 9' projection screen?

Don't use absolute physical measurements like pt, mm or in; and don't use
device-specific measurements like px.

Instead, assume that the user knows what they want: their default font
setting is defined as 100% or 1em, "relative units". Scale your font sizes
around that: keep your main text at 100%, but you may want "small print" in
footers of say 80% or 0.8em, and your main <h1> header to be perhaps 150%
or 1.5em.

I'm guessing that 8pt is intended to be small print, in which case try
something like:

font-family: verdana, arial, sans-serif;
font-size: 0.8em;

Take a look at my site (sig) which is all em-sized. You'll find that any
browser capable of resizing fonts has no problem making the whole lot
bigger or smaller as required.

My <h1> is 150%, my footer and menus are 80%. You can see the CSS here:

http://tranchant.plus.com/css/screen

--
Mark.
http://tranchant.plus.com/
Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a
Tim
On 29 Apr 2004 05:00:52 -0700,
mi********@yahoo.com (minchu) posted:
I have used CSS in HTML page (font-verdana size-8pt), looks fine in
windows but in linux the fonts are corrupt and its too small. Kindly
help me and tell what is the solution to correct this.


Well, congratulations. You now realise that many people will have a
problem with your page, even if you think it's only going to be Linux
users. I'll fill you in and let you know that MSIE users *will* have
problems, too. And people using other browsers.

The problem is specifying 8pt sized anything. It's inappropriate for a
webpage to specify anything in fixed sizes, for various reasons.

It's not a "fixed size" it's a proportional size to something that doesn't
have a consistent size on the medium. (What is 8pts on your screen, my
screen, his screen, screens at different sizes? There is no concrete
answer.)

Even if there was some way to determine that 8pts was always "yay big" on
every screen, 8pts is going to be "too small" for many people. And since
you'd fixed the size, there's no easy way for them to increase it to
something readable.

That's the font sizing problem in a nutshell (unavoidable inconsistency,
and problematic results).

Verdana's another problem in itself, that'll make things even worse. For
people without Verdana, they'll get an even smaller font as a substitute
(you'll have picked 8pt Verdana for it's size, and Verdana is bigger than
most other fonts, therefor a substitute will look even smaller than you
hoped).

There's plenty of pages giving masses of details about those issues, just
search for "what's wrong with fixed sizes," and "what's wrong with
Verdana," you're bound to find plenty of them.

The solutions are:

"Don't specify fixed sizes," especially small fixed sizes. Better not to
specify any sizes at all, unless you really really need to. You usually
don't "need" to, and trying to fit text to images (as a common reason for
thinking that), is fraught with its own problems because you can only test
your own system. There might be some use to making some text a bit bigger
on part of a page (e.g. "READ THIS" important type of comments), but
picking a smaller than usual font often means its too small to read (why
put something on a page if it's hard to read?). Let the browser display
things in its usual font size, the one the reader is comfortable with.

And, "don't use Verdana," at least not without due thought about the
problems it causes, and if you're use of it is going to be one (e.g.
Verdana in h1 elements probably isn't going to be a problem, because
they're already quite big, bigger than the body text, so they're hardly
going to look worse than some other font that's just a bit smaller but
still very big).

--
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary). But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.
Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
Hello Mark and Tim,

Thank you very much for your solutions and suggestions which helpes me
lot.
I have another query. How do I make my keywords work better?. I have
added some key words but when I search in Google my site is very far
in the results (key words are also registered with search engines).
Kindly tell me the solution for this. I want my page to appear in
first few result pages.

Regards,
Minchu

Tim <ti*@mail.localhost.invalid> wrote in message news:<1i****************************@40tude.net>.. .
On 29 Apr 2004 05:00:52 -0700,
mi********@yahoo.com (minchu) posted:
I have used CSS in HTML page (font-verdana size-8pt), looks fine in
windows but in linux the fonts are corrupt and its too small. Kindly
help me and tell what is the solution to correct this.


Well, congratulations. You now realise that many people will have a
problem with your page, even if you think it's only going to be Linux
users. I'll fill you in and let you know that MSIE users *will* have
problems, too. And people using other browsers.

The problem is specifying 8pt sized anything. It's inappropriate for a
webpage to specify anything in fixed sizes, for various reasons.

It's not a "fixed size" it's a proportional size to something that doesn't
have a consistent size on the medium. (What is 8pts on your screen, my
screen, his screen, screens at different sizes? There is no concrete
answer.)

Even if there was some way to determine that 8pts was always "yay big" on
every screen, 8pts is going to be "too small" for many people. And since
you'd fixed the size, there's no easy way for them to increase it to
something readable.

That's the font sizing problem in a nutshell (unavoidable inconsistency,
and problematic results).

Verdana's another problem in itself, that'll make things even worse. For
people without Verdana, they'll get an even smaller font as a substitute
(you'll have picked 8pt Verdana for it's size, and Verdana is bigger than
most other fonts, therefor a substitute will look even smaller than you
hoped).

There's plenty of pages giving masses of details about those issues, just
search for "what's wrong with fixed sizes," and "what's wrong with
Verdana," you're bound to find plenty of them.

The solutions are:

"Don't specify fixed sizes," especially small fixed sizes. Better not to
specify any sizes at all, unless you really really need to. You usually
don't "need" to, and trying to fit text to images (as a common reason for
thinking that), is fraught with its own problems because you can only test
your own system. There might be some use to making some text a bit bigger
on part of a page (e.g. "READ THIS" important type of comments), but
picking a smaller than usual font often means its too small to read (why
put something on a page if it's hard to read?). Let the browser display
things in its usual font size, the one the reader is comfortable with.

And, "don't use Verdana," at least not without due thought about the
problems it causes, and if you're use of it is going to be one (e.g.
Verdana in h1 elements probably isn't going to be a problem, because
they're already quite big, bigger than the body text, so they're hardly
going to look worse than some other font that's just a bit smaller but
still very big).

Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
minchu wrote:
I have another query. How do I make my keywords work better?. I have
added some key words but when I search in Google my site is very far
in the results (key words are also registered with search engines).
Kindly tell me the solution for this. I want my page to appear in
first few result pages.


You mean adding keywords in a meta tag? That does virtually nothing: I
believe most search engines ignore them.

View the source of your page - that's what the crawler sees. For
www.teledna.com, there is a very low content to "noise" ratio. Also
remember that crawlers don't use Javascript...

There's no guaranteed method. Take a look at the recent thread in which
Brian bemoans his inability to make his new TS McHugh's site outrank the
old site for some pointers.

Key facts:

* Google's indexing is not stable, your site may jump around
* Content is most important: deserve your ranking!
* Meaningful and relevant title and even URL seem to help
* Inbound links from other reputable sites help
* Site age and stability seem to play a part

As a pair of examples:

1) I recently put up a page about using PHP and MultiViews together. There
is lots of content on the web about both subjects, yet within a week of
writing it, I'm first for "php multiviews" and second only to Apache for
"multiviews"; although I don't appear in the first 400 for just "php".
http://tranchant.plus.com/notes/multiviews

2) My church site (http://billericaybaptist.net/) is currently fourth or
fifth in a search for "billericay church". I've tried every trick in the
book to move it up, but have failed dismally, recently slipping a place due
to St Giles, which isn't even in Billericay!

Best of luck - you'll need it. Where is your site?

--
Mark.
Jul 20 '05 #5

P: n/a
minchu wrote:
I have another query. How do I make my keywords work better?. I have
added some key words but when I search in Google my site is very far
in the results (key words are also registered with search engines).
Kindly tell me the solution for this. I want my page to appear in
first few result pages.


Skip the keywords and make sure the words are in the content. Some
search facilities will penalize for "stuffing" keywords. Especially if
you use a lot of them.

--
Stan McCann
Tularosa Basin chapter ABATE of NM Cooordinator, Alamogordo, NM
'94 1500 Vulcan (now wrecked) :(
http://surecann.com/Dcp_2068c.jpg
Jul 20 '05 #6

P: n/a
Mark Tranchant wrote:
2) My church site (http://billericaybaptist.net/) is currently fourth or
fifth in a search for "billericay church". I've tried every trick in the
book to move it up, but have failed dismally, recently slipping a place
due to St Giles, which isn't even in Billericay!


Now that is strange. The word "billericay" doesn't even appear on the
St. Giles site, nor apparently on any links to it.

= Eric

Jul 20 '05 #7

P: n/a
Eric Bustad wrote in
<Kt********************@comcast.com>
Mark Tranchant wrote:
2) My church site (http://billericaybaptist.net/) is currently
fourth or fifth in a search for "billericay church". I've tried
every trick in the book to move it up, but have failed dismally,
recently slipping a place due to St Giles, which isn't even in
Billericay!


Now that is strange. The word "billericay" doesn't even appear on the
St. Giles site, nor apparently on any links to it.

There's a forcefully argued discussion on alt.internet.search-engines at the
moment over what may be the solution to this puzzle.

Google has, for some time, highlighted the search terms on the results page
but only recently has started to highlight search terms within the URL. It
has been previously established that Google "sees" search terms in URLs when
the words are delimited by hyphens.

The new highlighting picks out terms in un-hyphenated URLs. In the search
results for billericay baptist church, there's a listing for
www.findachurch.co.uk with the word "church" highlighted in the URL even
though it's part of a longer, un-delimited, string.

The discussion is currently stuck on the question of whether Google has seen
the term in the URL and used that in its results algorithm or whether the
term has been highlighted, post hoc, by the process that formats the results
page.

What you are seeing *may* establish that a search term that appears in the
URL but which isn't delimited by hyphens is recognised by Google and taken
into account in the SERPs. Ideally, I'd like to see the site turning up in
results for "bill", "eric", "cay", bap" and "apt" - AFAIKS it doesn't :(

Oh, spit - I should have checked your assertions more thoroughly before
spending quarter of an hour on this. Try the "Find Us" page, you should see
"St Giles is situated between Billericay and Mountnessing". And there are
inbound links to the site that include "billericay". Examples:
http://www.ubooty.co.uk/html/essex_links.html and
http://www.chelmsford.anglican.org/links/parishes.html Those are two of the
first four that I checked - didn't bother looking any further.

--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

Jul 20 '05 #8

P: n/a
PeterMcC wrote in
<5N*********************@wards.force9.net>
Eric Bustad wrote in
<Kt********************@comcast.com>
Mark Tranchant wrote:
2) My church site (http://billericaybaptist.net/) is currently
fourth or fifth in a search for "billericay church". I've tried
every trick in the book to move it up, but have failed dismally,
recently slipping a place due to St Giles, which isn't even in
Billericay!
Now that is strange. The word "billericay" doesn't even appear on
the St. Giles site, nor apparently on any links to it.

Oh, spit - I should have checked your assertions more thoroughly
before spending quarter of an hour on this. Try the "Find Us" page,
you should see "St Giles is situated between Billericay and
Mountnessing". And there are inbound links to the site that include
"billericay". Examples: http://www.ubooty.co.uk/html/essex_links.html
and http://www.chelmsford.anglican.org/links/parishes.html Those are
two of the first four that I checked - didn't bother looking any
further.


And, to compound it - the example that I used was for the highlighting was
that of billericaybaptist.net and not
http://www.gregpotts.clara.net/stgilesmountnessing.html

Same stuff applies though.

--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

Jul 20 '05 #9

P: n/a
PeterMcC wrote:
Oh, spit - I should have checked your assertions more thoroughly before
spending quarter of an hour on this. Try the "Find Us" page, you should see
"St Giles is situated between Billericay and Mountnessing". And there are
inbound links to the site that include "billericay". Examples:
http://www.ubooty.co.uk/html/essex_links.html and
http://www.chelmsford.anglican.org/links/parishes.html Those are two of the
first four that I checked - didn't bother looking any further.


My apologies. I should have said "page" instead of "site".

= Eric

Jul 20 '05 #10

P: n/a
Eric Bustad wrote in
<yv********************@comcast.com>
PeterMcC wrote:
Oh, spit - I should have checked your assertions more thoroughly
before spending quarter of an hour on this. Try the "Find Us" page,
you should see "St Giles is situated between Billericay and
Mountnessing". And there are inbound links to the site that include
"billericay". Examples:
http://www.ubooty.co.uk/html/essex_links.html and
http://www.chelmsford.anglican.org/links/parishes.html Those are two
of the first four that I checked - didn't bother looking any
further.


My apologies. I should have said "page" instead of "site".


No problem Eric - I should have just not sent the reply instead of
complaining at you - have a reciprocal apology :)

--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

Jul 20 '05 #11

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.