By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
459,403 Members | 1,374 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 459,403 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

handling multi browser font sizes

P: n/a
J
I've run CSSCheck on my style sheets and I always get a warning
similar to this:

"font: bold 9pt/100% sans-serif

Warning: Absolute length units should not generally be used on the Web ..."

Yet if I use 'x-small' instead of 9pt, I get bigger type on IE6 and smaller
type on
Mozilla. My choices seem to be:

1. keep the absolute 9pt setting in order to maintain a much more consistent
display between browsers (and break the spirit of the stylesheets)

2. use 'x-small' and live with the different display results (yet be
compatible with
user defined stylesheets, and other output media).

Is that it?


Jul 20 '05
Share this Question
Share on Google+
115 Replies


P: n/a
Eric Bohlman <eb******@earthlink.net> wrote:
"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote in
news:bu************@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de:
I don't see that human beings' capabilities or tolerances for
variation suddenly change when they read something on the web instead
of on a printed page.
What you're forgetting is that the Web introduces several sources of
variation that simply don't exist in print. When you print a page on a
printing press (at least one that works correctly), several important
aspects of it are completely fixed: everyone will get the same page size.
Everyone will get the same physical size of letters. Everyone will get the
exact same typefaces.

On the Web, though, everything I just mentioned will be variable, not
fixed. Those aspects will be influenced by factors like monitor size,
computer type, user settings, and software environment. If, for some
reason, you truly wanted a Web page to display exactly the same for
everybody, the only way to achieve this would be to leave nearly every
aspect of its physical display unspecified and allow the users to adjust
the display until it conformed to your desired appearance.


I don't, and one shouldn't expect to be able to. That was my response
to the original poster.
Paradoxically,
the harder you try to fix those physical aspects, the more variation in
display you'll get.

The only way, for example, that any Web author could even remotely hope to
get his text displayed in the same physical size on my 21" desktop CRT and
my 13" laptop LCD is to let me control the sizing. If he tries to fix its
size in pixels, it will be much bigger (quite possibly too big) on my
desktop than on my laptop, which it will quite possibly be too small.

The simple fact is that in print, the appearance of your work is only
slightly affected by one's viewing situation (and good print designers know
how to minimize that variation). On the Web, however, the opposite is
true, and trying to use print-design techniques for it only increases the
variation. To paraphrase Neal's examples from another thread, the more a
jazz quintet tries to play like a symphony orchestra, the worse it will
sound. What works well in one medium often falls flat on its face in
another medium.
Some of the arguments others have been using are more like, "Because
it works in one medium, it won't work here." As though it is
implicitly impossible for a principle to apply to multiple media.
It matters not a bit that the techniques are long-
established in the first medium; they are in fact specific to that medium
and don't transfer well.


I'm am claiming that with the Web, *especially* given that people can
set their browsers to view text at a general size that works for them,
they haven't lost the ability that they have always possessed with
print media to deal comfortably with a small degree of *variation* in
text sizes. Normally sighted people deal with 8pt, 10pt, 12pt, 14pt
text in different contexts. The same people can deal with that degree
of variation on a computer screen, and *in addition*, people whose
readable range hovers around 36pt can handle variation around *that*.
Is there any reason not to think so? Talk here has been about people
setting their browsers for their "optimal" type size. I think it's
reasonable to suggest that a person's optimal type size is not also
the minimal type size he can work with.

--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
Jul 20 '05 #51

P: n/a
Eric Cartman wrote:
You guys just bitch about anything. If it's not yours then it's wrong.


charming fellow.

BTW,

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/dont.html#3

--
Brian (follow directions in my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

Jul 20 '05 #52

P: n/a
Eric Cartman wrote:
You guys just bitch about anything. If it's not yours then it's wrong.


Oh, one more thing: *plonk*.

--
Brian (follow directions in my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

Jul 20 '05 #53

P: n/a

"Eric Bohlman" <eb******@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Xn*******************************@130.133.1.4 ...
"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote in
news:bu************@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de:
I don't see that human beings' capabilities or tolerances for
variation suddenly change when they read something on the web instead
of on a printed page.
What you're forgetting is that the Web introduces several sources of
variation that simply don't exist in print. When you print a page on a
printing press (at least one that works correctly), several important
aspects of it are completely fixed: everyone will get the same page size.
Everyone will get the same physical size of letters. Everyone will get

the exact same typefaces.

On the Web, though, everything I just mentioned will be variable, not
fixed. Those aspects will be influenced by factors like monitor size,
computer type, user settings, and software environment. If, for some
reason, you truly wanted a Web page to display exactly the same for
everybody,


I don't. I said that I don't. My original contribution to this thread was
precisely to TELL THE ORIGINAL POSTER that this can't be accomplished. You
are the second person within a day to take off at me as though it was my
position that you *should* be able to do this, or that it's realistic to
think that you can. The least you folks can do is pay attention to what the
position is that 's being taken before you take issue with it.

Jul 20 '05 #54

P: n/a
Oops, I apologize. My previous response was from a different computer. On
this one, your message showed up as new, and for some reason I didn't
realize it was the one I'd already responded to. You are NOT the second
person to take off after me for this non-position of mine. Just the first.

Jul 20 '05 #55

P: n/a

"Tim" <Ti*@mail.localhost> wrote in message
news:89********************************@4ax.com...
"Noozer" <po********@127.0.0.1> wrote
Leave my fonts ALONE!

"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote:
I take it you refuse to read any book, magazine, or newspaper that is
printed in other than your one and only and immutable font size, without

any tolerance for even the most minute deviation.


You do realise, that if a book is published with fonts that are too
small for someone to read, that they're not likely to read it? Only
some people are willing to sit there with a magnifying glass.


I'm not going to repeat myself any more. You and others are obviously
responding without paying attention to the details of what I have said. One
would think that I had written something like "I like to set my body text in
fixed 4-point type"?

Jul 20 '05 #56

P: n/a

"Noozer" <po********@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:46_Pb.224113$JQ1.2262@pd7tw1no...

"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bu************@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de...

"Noozer" <po********@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:_kEPb.215223$ts4.14712@pd7tw3no...
> > >>>body { font-size: 100%; sans-serif; }
Why not just omit the 100% altogether?

Leave my fonts ALONE!
I take it you refuse to read any book, magazine, or newspaper that is
printed in other than your one and only and immutable font size, without

any
tolerance for even the most minute deviation.


Yup! If I can't read it then I can't read it.


You really mean that your optimal reading size is also your minimal reading
size, and that you are incapable of reading anything that's one point off in
either direction? Fascinating. You should be on display in the Smithsonian.

Of course you're forgetting that newspapers don't come in different
resolutions. Would you buy a newspaper that was only readable if pressed
against your face or held 30 feet away?
Non sequitur. Try again without the premise that I've taken a position that
I haven't taken.

Tell me how it is that a website designed to be readable on an 800x600
monitor and isn't on a 1600x1200 monitor is a good design.


Non sequitur. Try again without the premise that I've taken a position that
I haven't taken.
Jul 20 '05 #57

P: n/a

"Neal" <ne*****@spamrcn.com> wrote in message
news:op**************@news.rcn.com...
On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 09:10:20 -0500, Harlan Messinger
<h.*********@comcast.net> wrote:
I take it you refuse to read any book, magazine, or newspaper that is
printed in other than your one and only and immutable font size, without
any
tolerance for even the most minute deviation.

Why do you think most major magazines and newspapers have large-print
editions?


Not because people don't have tolerances for deviations *within* a range.
Because some people can't read within the normal range *at all*. So versions
in a larger size are provided for those people. Suppose it's in 36-pt text.
That doesn't mean that *those* people can't read text in 34 or 38. Or am I
missing something?

Jul 20 '05 #58

P: n/a
Harlan Messinger wrote:
"Noozer" <po********@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:46_Pb.224113$JQ1.2262@pd7tw1no...
Of course you're forgetting that newspapers don't come in
different resolutions.
Non sequitur. Try again without the premise that I've taken a
position that I haven't taken.
how it is that a website designed to be readable on an 800x600
monitor and isn't on a 1600x1200 monitor is a good design.


Non sequitur. Try again without the premise that I've taken a
position that I haven't taken.


I detect a pattern. From earlier in the thread:

Harlan Messinger wrote: "Mikko Rantalainen" <mi**@st.jyu.fi> wrote in message
news:bu**********@mordred.cc.jyu.fi...
If the user isn't aware about the possibility, he doesn't care
enough to look for it.


Non sequitur.


You seem awfully fond of Latin deponents.

--
Brian (follow directions in my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

Jul 20 '05 #59

P: n/a

"Brian" <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid-remove-this-part> wrote in
message news:p2fQb.105001$Rc4.718436@attbi_s54...
Harlan Messinger wrote:
"Noozer" <po********@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:46_Pb.224113$JQ1.2262@pd7tw1no...
Of course you're forgetting that newspapers don't come in
different resolutions.


Non sequitur. Try again without the premise that I've taken a
position that I haven't taken.
how it is that a website designed to be readable on an 800x600
monitor and isn't on a 1600x1200 monitor is a good design.


Non sequitur. Try again without the premise that I've taken a
position that I haven't taken.


I detect a pattern. From earlier in the thread:

Harlan Messinger wrote:
"Mikko Rantalainen" <mi**@st.jyu.fi> wrote in message
news:bu**********@mordred.cc.jyu.fi...
If the user isn't aware about the possibility, he doesn't care
enough to look for it.


Non sequitur.


I learned it from my father when I was a boy. I'm rather fond of it. I
didn't know anything about deponents until years later, though. I like "res
ipsa loquitur" too but don't use it as much.

Jul 20 '05 #60

P: n/a
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Harlan Messinger wrote:
I'm not going to repeat myself any more. You and others are obviously
responding without paying attention to the details of what I have said.
When you keep trying to contradict fictional positions that no-one has
presented, we can't help worrying that you too are exhibiting a degree
of selective blindness to what others have posted.
One would think that I had written something like "I like to set my
body text in fixed 4-point type"?


No, one wouldn't.

I've had enough of this now. We're getting nowhere, you're just
inventing ever more-extreme positions for the other participants, it's
pointless to continue.
Jul 20 '05 #61

P: n/a

"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph. gla.ac.uk...
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Harlan Messinger wrote:
I'm not going to repeat myself any more. You and others are obviously
responding without paying attention to the details of what I have said.


When you keep trying to contradict fictional positions that no-one has
presented, we can't help worrying that you too are exhibiting a degree
of selective blindness to what others have posted.
One would think that I had written something like "I like to set my
body text in fixed 4-point type"?


No, one wouldn't.

I've had enough of this now. We're getting nowhere, you're just
inventing ever more-extreme positions for the other participants, it's
pointless to continue.


Other participants keep reacting to a broader, less focused position than
the one I am actually taking. I can't help it if they do that, and, yes, it
causes the discussion to go nowhere when they do that. The fact that I point
out to them that they are doing this is not the problem.

Jul 20 '05 #62

P: n/a
Tim
"Tim" <Ti*@mail.localhost> wrote
You do realise, that if a book is published with fonts that are too
small for someone to read, that they're not likely to read it? Only
some people are willing to sit there with a magnifying glass.


"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote:
I'm not going to repeat myself any more. You and others are obviously
responding without paying attention to the details of what I have said. One
would think that I had written something like "I like to set my body text in
fixed 4-point type"?


It doesn't have to be that extreme to be a problem. Merely using one
font size smaller than default, or just slightly smaller (if you're not
playing the change sizes in default steps game), can be enough to make a
page unreadable.

You're obviously typing without thinking what you're typing (now, and
before). You don't really think that everyone got wrong what you were
saying?

--
My "from" address is totally fake. The reply-to address is real, but
may be only temporary. Reply to usenet postings in the same place as
you read the message you're replying to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.
Jul 20 '05 #63

P: n/a
Tim
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 07:31:44 -0500,
Harlan Messinger <hm*******************@comcast.net> wrote:
I think it's reasonable to suggest that a person's optimal type size
is not also the minimal type size he can work with.


My experience says otherwise. On most browsers that I've played with,
the standard size has been what I'd call a normal font size, some even
too small. The next size down is typically too much smaller,
particularly when you consider the low resolution of many current visual
display units (not only is it below the threshold of good resolution,
it's also too small to read comfortably, even if the resolution was
high).

All I see in this argument, is someone in the corner desperately trying
not to change their point of view, against all evidence to the contrary.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^

--
My "from" address is totally fake. The reply-to address is real, but
may be only temporary. Reply to usenet postings in the same place as
you read the message you're replying to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.
Jul 20 '05 #64

P: n/a
Tim <Ti*@mail.localhost> wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 07:31:44 -0500,
Harlan Messinger <hm*******************@comcast.net> wrote:
I think it's reasonable to suggest that a person's optimal type size
is not also the minimal type size he can work with.


My experience says otherwise. On most browsers that I've played with,
the standard size has been what I'd call a normal font size, some even
too small. The next size down is typically too much smaller,
particularly when you consider the low resolution of many current visual
display units (not only is it below the threshold of good resolution,
it's also too small to read comfortably, even if the resolution was
high).

All I see in this argument, is someone in the corner desperately trying
not to change their point of view, against all evidence to the contrary.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^


All the "evidence" presented has been:

1. A repetition of one orthodoxy or another without regard to the
specifics of what I'm claiming, or

2. A response that specifically addresses something that I *didn't*
say, or

3. A claim that is responsive but that is ludicrous (such as the
implication that some people can read at *only* one rigid text size
and not at any other).

In this light, to say that I'm desperately trying not to change my
point of view is about as descriptive of the situation as if I were in
a room full of hidebound Mormons or Hasids disagreeing with their
"evidence", and it's as much a case of the pot calling the kettle
black.

--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
Jul 20 '05 #65

P: n/a
Tim <Ti*@mail.localhost> wrote:
"Tim" <Ti*@mail.localhost> wrote
You do realise, that if a book is published with fonts that are too
small for someone to read, that they're not likely to read it? Only
some people are willing to sit there with a magnifying glass.

"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote:
I'm not going to repeat myself any more. You and others are obviously
responding without paying attention to the details of what I have said. One
would think that I had written something like "I like to set my body text in
fixed 4-point type"?


It doesn't have to be that extreme to be a problem. Merely using one
font size smaller than default, or just slightly smaller (if you're not
playing the change sizes in default steps game), can be enough to make a
page unreadable.

You're obviously typing without thinking what you're typing (now, and
before). You don't really think that everyone got wrong what you were
saying?


Yeah, I do, because your response is to a supposed stance on my part
that one point less than default is still readable by everyone, when
I'm talking about one point (for the sake of argument) below
*optimal*. Yes, it started off with my suggesting

body { font-size: 80% }

but since, as at least a couple of people here have insisted,
EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD RESETS HIS BROWSER FOR AN OPTIMAL DISPLAY, this
doesn't mean 80% of the factory default, it means 80% of the user's
optimal. And I absolutely don't believe anybody's *optimal* is the
same as his *minimal* because--well, a person's optimal type size is
simply not the one where he can barely make it out! Unless one doesn't
know what "optimal" means, that is. In summary, I believe that if
someone simply can't read 80% of the default, then that person isn't
*using* the default, he's set his browser for a larger display. (And
anyone who says I'm wrong is disagreeing with the person who--sorry,
I'm not keeping track of who's making which argument--I got this
from.)
--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
Jul 20 '05 #66

P: n/a
Harlan Messinger wrote:

body { font-size: 80% }

And I absolutely don't believe anybody's *optimal* is the
same as his *minimal*
You are generally correct, optimal is the size the user deems is best
for reading large amounts of text on screen, i.e. body text. Minimal is
the smallest tolerable font size. But what you have done with the above
rule is set body text to the smallest tolerable font size. This will
only cause me eyestrain, plus it will make any elements with an even
smaller font-size (and you *know* there will be some) unreadable. I
fail to see how this is good usability.
In summary, I believe that if
someone simply can't read 80% of the default, then that person isn't
*using* the default, he's set his browser for a larger display.


Huh? Tis true I don't use vendor default settings, but whether I have
set my optimal to larger or smaller than factory settings is irrelevant.
80% is suitable for copyright notices and the like, but not for body text.

--
To email a reply, remove (dash)un(dash). Mail sent to the un
address is considered spam and automatically deleted.
Jul 20 '05 #67

P: n/a
kchayka <kc*********@sihope.com> wrote:
Harlan Messinger wrote:

body { font-size: 80% }

And I absolutely don't believe anybody's *optimal* is the
same as his *minimal*


You are generally correct, optimal is the size the user deems is best
for reading large amounts of text on screen, i.e. body text. Minimal is
the smallest tolerable font size. But what you have done with the above
rule is set body text to the smallest tolerable font size.


Well, that's a reasonable possibility. But consider the following two
groups of people:

A. Users for whom 80% is at the threshold of comfort.

B. Users with normal vision who would find 100% for other than a
low-content casual web page to be off-putting. (With all the threats
of "I just won't look at your site if I'm not happy" coming from those
writing in defense of the visually impaired, I think it's fair to
bring into the equation such displeasure coming from the fully sighted
as well.)

Hypotheses:

1. Group A is smaller than group B. (Note that Group A is not "all
people with poor vision" or "all people who have adjusted their text
size upwards". It's the subset of those people who lie in the margin I
described above.)

2. Group A people probably know how to adjust the text to make it even
slightly larger (except, granted, for the subset of the subset who
already are on the "Largest" setting). Group B people probably don't
know to, or know how to, adjust the text size downward.

Then my 80% may be reasonable. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm not. Maybe
90% then. Or maybe not. It's a judgment call. In any event, I maintain
that considerations on one side are to be balanced against
considerations on the other side. I don't have any patience for the
attitude that the very existence of considerations on one side
eliminates the validity of considerations on the other. That attitude
is so prevalent here, that it is only now that you have been the first
person to address, in a reasoned manner, the specific position that I
was taking.
--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
Jul 20 '05 #68

P: n/a
Harlan Messinger wrote:
kchayka <kc*********@sihope.com> wrote:
Harlan Messinger wrote:
body { font-size: 80% }

And I absolutely don't believe anybody's *optimal* is the
same as his *minimal*


You are generally correct, optimal is the size the user deems is best
for reading large amounts of text on screen, i.e. body text. Minimal is
the smallest tolerable font size. But what you have done with the above
rule is set body text to the smallest tolerable font size.


Well, that's a reasonable possibility. But consider the following two
groups of people:

A. Users for whom 80% is at the threshold of comfort.

B. Users with normal vision who would find 100% for other than a
low-content casual web page to be off-putting. (With all the threats
of "I just won't look at your site if I'm not happy" coming from those
writing in defense of the visually impaired, I think it's fair to
bring into the equation such displeasure coming from the fully sighted
as well.)


A better approach, which would result in less harm to users already
set their preferred font size to something smaller than the default
(which you take as granted):

html { font: 8pt Verdana, Arial, sans-serif }
body { font-size: larger; line-height: 1.2 }

After all you want to enforce a particular font size but then
setting an absolute font size breaks the Text zoom feature in IE -
is this what you're trying to workaround? The above values would
result in equal target sizes in IE and Mozilla/Netscape.

--
Stanimir
Jul 20 '05 #69

P: n/a
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 00:20:07 -0500, Harlan Messinger
<hm*******************@comcast.net> wrote:
but since, as at least a couple of people here have insisted,
EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD RESETS HIS BROWSER FOR AN OPTIMAL DISPLAY,
.... which is bullshit, but let's assume for the moment it's true...
this
doesn't mean 80% of the factory default, it means 80% of the user's
optimal. And I absolutely don't believe anybody's *optimal* is the
same as his *minimal* because--well, a person's optimal type size is
simply not the one where he can barely make it out!


Ok. You're absolutely correct. But consider this...

I can make out letters down to a particular size on the screen. I want to
maximize content in the viewport while being able to read the text, so it
would be sensible to assume the user's setting would be close to, but not
quite equal to, the smallest size they can read, no? For many users, it is
possible, even likely, that 80% of their chosen size is too small to read.

Besides, this setting is where they WANT to read text. They don't get that
choice so easily in books, magazines and newspapers. They can shell out
the sheqels for a big-screen TV so they can read the text on the
broadcasts. But what makes the Internet unique is that they can set the
text size to what they prefer.

Making an overall body text size adjustment countermands their preference
or need for their optimal size. The author has presumed that (s)he knows
better what the user's going to want in text size, and we all know that's
not the author's place.

It's one thing to set up a small amount of small text for a legitimate
purpose, to differentiate that text from surrounding text. But to set it
globally for a stylesheet with a body selector, that's overstepping the
boundary between the author's and the user's domains. The user must
compensate by changing their user settings for one site, or visiting a
different site whose author respects their role as the main judge of how
text is rendered.

Delivering the body text at the standard size eliminates the possibility
that the user will ever find a problem reading your page. As we are not in
the business of pissing off the users, choosing smaller sizes on the large
scale is foolish.
Jul 20 '05 #70

P: n/a
Stanimir Stamenkov / 2004-01-24 16:18:
A better approach, which would result in less harm to users already
set their preferred font size to something smaller than the default
(which you take as granted):

html { font: 8pt Verdana, Arial, sans-serif }
body { font-size: larger; line-height: 1.2 }

After all you want to enforce a particular font size but then
setting an absolute font size breaks the Text zoom feature in IE -
is this what you're trying to workaround? The above values would
result in equal target sizes in IE and Mozilla/Netscape.


Duh. If ALL you want is to set "correct" default font size for MSIE
without bothering other people, just use

body { font-size: 80%; } /* or whatever the "correct" value is */
html>body { font-size: 100%; } /* MSIE ignores this... */

(I still think that you shouldn't mess with user's default font
size. It might be that an MSIE user find his browsers default size
to be pretty much OK. He'd really prefer font size of 107% for the
default but the factory default 100% is so close he doesn't bother.
Now, you come with your uber style sheet and set the font size to
80%. Resulting text is nearly 1/3rd too small and the user has
trouble reading it. On the other hand, user it might be user really
preferred 94% but, again, the difference is small enough to warrant
the extra work to find out how to fix default font size. In that
case, your author style sheet font size of 80% would probably be ok.
The point is that YOU CANNOT KNOW which way the user really thinks
the font size should be adjusted. And IF YOU DON'T KNOW YOU
SHOULDN'T TRY TO FIX IT!)

--
Mikko
Jul 20 '05 #71

P: n/a
Brian / 2004-01-23 18:38:
Eric Cartman wrote:
You guys just bitch about anything. If it's not yours then it's wrong.


charming fellow.


The FROM was already a BIG hint <URL:http://www.cartman.org/>.

(Don't feed trolls)

--
Mikko
Jul 20 '05 #72

P: n/a
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:

[ warning bells set off by the comprehensive quoting, now snipped.]
A better approach, which would result in less harm to users already
set their preferred font size to something smaller than the default
(which you take as granted):

html { font: 8pt Verdana, Arial, sans-serif }
If you're going to make such a preposterous suggestion, then you're
going to have to show the readership how it relates to previous
discussions which have repeatedly showed it to be completely
inappropriate for screen display purposes.
body { font-size: larger; line-height: 1.2 }
That doesn't make it any better, though.
After all you want to enforce a particular font size
To which the only useful answer in a WWW context would be "stop
wanting that". With the supporting arguments:

1. It doesn't work

2. Even if it did work, it isn't what the WWW needs

3. All attempts to achieve it, while maybe producing the desired
effect in some subset of situations, make things a lot worse in other
situations.
The above values would result in equal target sizes in IE and
Mozilla/Netscape.


I don't believe you. "IE" is at least two different lines of browsers
(Win IE and Mac IE), and Mozilla comes for a wide range of different
platforms, with different models for display resolution, sizing etc.

Even if you consider only one version of one browser, when you come to
compare it between different OSes, different display sizes, different
user settings, the results vary widely. That's a fact, whether you
like it or not (I like it, because it reinforces the principle of
flexible design that lies at the heart of the web concept).

So the only realistic approach (disregarding those fools who say that
their "target audience" is defined by a version of Win MSIE on one
size of screen at one popular resolution and window size, and assuming
normal eyesight) is to toss aside any attempts at absolute sizing
(other than perhaps for print stylesheets - but here again you don't
get to control the paper size, so it ain't as simple as it seems)
Jul 20 '05 #73

P: n/a
Mikko Rantalainen wrote:
Duh. If ALL you want
It's not me. :-)
is to set "correct" default font size for MSIE
without bothering other people, just use

body { font-size: 80%; } /* or whatever the "correct" value is */
html>body { font-size: 100%; } /* MSIE ignores this... */


That would be no better because I've set my preffered font size
(which is smaller than the default) in MSIE through the user style
sheet.

--
Stanimir
Jul 20 '05 #74

P: n/a
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:
After all you want to enforce a particular font size
To which the only useful answer in a WWW context would be "stop
wanting that".


I won't and I don't argue about that one.
... so it ain't as simple as it seems.


Yes, it is not as simple and if one doesn't supply at least 1
alternative style, every style rule applied could be considered harmful.

--
Stanimir
Jul 20 '05 #75

P: n/a
Stanimir Stamenkov <s7****@netscape.net> wrote:

A better approach, which would result in less harm to users already
set their preferred font size to something smaller than the default
(which you take as granted):

html { font: 8pt Verdana, Arial, sans-serif }
body { font-size: larger; line-height: 1.2 }

After all you want to enforce a particular font size


No, I don't, and you're the latest person to accuse me of that, which
is the antithesis of what I said in my initial contribution to this
thread. I really don't know how Alan Flavell can maintain that I'm the
one causing this discussion to go nowhere.
--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
Jul 20 '05 #76

P: n/a
Neal <ne*****@spamrcn.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 00:20:07 -0500, Harlan Messinger
<hm*******************@comcast.net> wrote:
but since, as at least a couple of people here have insisted,
EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD RESETS HIS BROWSER FOR AN OPTIMAL DISPLAY,
... which is bullshit, but let's assume for the moment it's true...
this
doesn't mean 80% of the factory default, it means 80% of the user's
optimal. And I absolutely don't believe anybody's *optimal* is the
same as his *minimal* because--well, a person's optimal type size is
simply not the one where he can barely make it out!


Ok. You're absolutely correct. But consider this...

I can make out letters down to a particular size on the screen. I want to
maximize content in the viewport while being able to read the text, so it
would be sensible to assume the user's setting would be close to, but not
quite equal to, the smallest size they can read, no?


Maybe. That's worth considering. Thanks.
For many users, it is
possible, even likely, that 80% of their chosen size is too small to read.

Besides, this setting is where they WANT to read text.
Well, again, as I said previously, it's normal for text size to vary
according to the type of material, and I think the vast majority of
people don't even notice consciously that kind of variation. In other
words, people effectively have a preferred *range*, not a preferred
*size*.
They don't get that
choice so easily in books, magazines and newspapers. They can shell out
the sheqels for a big-screen TV so they can read the text on the
broadcasts. But what makes the Internet unique is that they can set the
text size to what they prefer.

Making an overall body text size adjustment countermands their preference
or need for their optimal size. The author has presumed that (s)he knows
better what the user's going to want in text size, and we all know that's
not the author's place.

It's one thing to set up a small amount of small text for a legitimate
purpose, to differentiate that text from surrounding text. But to set it
globally for a stylesheet with a body selector, that's overstepping the
boundary between the author's and the user's domains. The user must
compensate by changing their user settings for one site, or visiting a
different site whose author respects their role as the main judge of how
text is rendered.

Delivering the body text at the standard size eliminates the possibility
that the user will ever find a problem reading your page. As we are not in
the business of pissing off the users, choosing smaller sizes on the large
scale is foolish.


Do you think that no users get frustrated with a site where the print
is too big? They bother me.

--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
Jul 20 '05 #77

P: n/a
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 12:54:49 -0500, Harlan Messinger
<hm*******************@comcast.net> wrote:
Neal <ne*****@spamrcn.com> wrote:
Besides, this setting is where they WANT to read text.


Well, again, as I said previously, it's normal for text size to vary
according to the type of material, and I think the vast majority of
people don't even notice consciously that kind of variation. In other
words, people effectively have a preferred *range*, not a preferred
*size*.


Yes, but as I said, we have to presume the size they use is at the bottom
end of the range. Not all people will have difficulty with 80%, but enough
users to merit rethinking this strategy. Remember, it's the old folks who
have all the money to spend ;) so best cater to them a little, eh?

Do you think that no users get frustrated with a site where the print
is too big? They bother me.


If I have a choice of making my site annoying for User A or unusable for
User B, I'll annoy User A.
Jul 20 '05 #78

P: n/a
Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:
After all you want to enforce a particular font size

it ain't as simple as it seems.


Yes, it is not as simple and if one doesn't supply at least 1
alternative style, every style rule applied could be considered
harmful.


bzzzzz.

img {float: left;} does not override a user preference in such a way
as to make things unreadable. I do not consider it harmful.

body {font-size: 80%} does. I consider it harmful.

--
Brian (follow directions in my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

Jul 20 '05 #79

P: n/a
Brian wrote:
Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:
Alan J. Flavell wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:

After all you want to enforce a particular font size

it ain't as simple as it seems.
Yes, it is not as simple and if one doesn't supply at least 1
alternative style, every style rule applied could be considered
harmful.


bzzzzz.

img {float: left;} does not override a user preference in such a way
as to make things unreadable. I do not consider it harmful.


Yeah, 'img { float: left }' may be, but:

<div class="nav"></div>
<div class="doc"></div>

..nav { float: left; width: 7em }
..doc { margin-left: 7.5em }

would be harmful for a small screen device.
body {font-size: 80%} does. I consider it harmful.


Yes, I it is harmful to me, too - read my reply to Mikko Rantalainen
above.

--
Stanimir
Jul 20 '05 #80

P: n/a
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004, Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:
Yes, it is not as simple and if one doesn't supply at least 1
alternative style, every style rule applied could be considered harmful.


Oh dear.

Fact is, the web comes with a practically infinite range of
alternative styles, implemented in the browser, optionally with
custom-designed user stylesheets that they can aquire if they need (or
if they simply want to).

Trying to convince readers that they get only one or two presentations
that have been designed for them by the author, is to impoverish them.

I'd rather encourage them to find out where their browser adjustments
are, than to pander to any widespread belief that this is just another
sort of TV show. Hell, even TVs have volume controls.
Jul 20 '05 #81

P: n/a
Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:

A better approach, which would result in less harm to users already
set their preferred font size to something smaller than the default
(which you take as granted):

html { font: 8pt Verdana, Arial, sans-serif }
This is indeed harmful, and exactly what you should *not* do.

8pt is unreadably small for me to begin with. I don't have Verdana, so
would end up with another font which is no doubt rendered smaller than
Verdana. You've just poured salt in the wound and rubbed it in. It's
painful. Please stop.
body { font-size: larger; line-height: 1.2 }
This is woefully inadequate for resolving the perceived problem.
The above values would
result in equal target sizes in IE and Mozilla/Netscape.


There is no reason why they need to be "equal" in the first place.

--
To email a reply, remove (dash)un(dash). Mail sent to the un
address is considered spam and automatically deleted.
Jul 20 '05 #82

P: n/a
Neal <ne*****@spamrcn.com> wrote:
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 12:54:49 -0500, Harlan Messinger
<hm*******************@comcast.net> wrote:
Neal <ne*****@spamrcn.com> wrote:

Besides, this setting is where they WANT to read text.


Well, again, as I said previously, it's normal for text size to vary
according to the type of material, and I think the vast majority of
people don't even notice consciously that kind of variation. In other
words, people effectively have a preferred *range*, not a preferred
*size*.


Yes, but as I said, we have to presume the size they use is at the bottom
end of the range. Not all people will have difficulty with 80%, but enough
users to merit rethinking this strategy. Remember, it's the old folks who
have all the money to spend ;) so best cater to them a little, eh?

Do you think that no users get frustrated with a site where the print
is too big? They bother me.


If I have a choice of making my site annoying for User A or unusable for
User B, I'll annoy User A.


Your premise is that we're talking about people who have set the text
size to the bottom of their range. If that's the case, then my
hypothetical site is *not* unusable for User B, who can increase his
text size further just as capably as I can decrease mine.
--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
Jul 20 '05 #83

P: n/a
/kchayka/:
This is woefully inadequate for resolving the perceived problem.


O.k. What is adequate for resolving the perceived problem?

Graphical designers still will need setting particular font faces
and if one can't rely on a proper 'font-size-adjust' implementation
how one could know if the selected font face won't result in too big
or too small font compared to the default reader's font?

--
Stanimir
Jul 20 '05 #84

P: n/a
Tim
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 18:23:13 +0000,
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
Hell, even TVs have volume controls.


TV sets should come with intelligence controls. I've tried adjusting
the brilliance, but it didn't help...

--
My "from" address is totally fake. The reply-to address is real, but
may be only temporary. Reply to usenet postings in the same place as
you read the message you're replying to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.
Jul 20 '05 #85

P: n/a
Tim
/kchayka/:
This is woefully inadequate for resolving the perceived problem.


Stanimir Stamenkov <s7****@netscape.net> wrote:
O.k. What is adequate for resolving the perceived problem?

Graphical designers still will need setting particular font faces
and if one can't rely on a proper 'font-size-adjust' implementation
how one could know if the selected font face won't result in too big
or too small font compared to the default reader's font?


There's a difference between "need" and "want," and generally speaking,
I find that specifying font faces without also specifying any sizes
usually ends up with something that's quite readable. My defaults, and
the defaults of nearly every single browser that I've played with, are
quite fine.

Sure, there's some fonts that are a bit smaller or bigger, but I can
adjust around that, as needed, if the styling doesn't make that
incredibly difficult. And avoiding specifying the well known problem
fonts certainly helps. I'm sorely tempted to remove a couple of the
annoying ones from my Windows box, and they were never a part of my
Linux box.

Any author who messes with font sizes, for whatever reasons, is bound to
make things worse for me, and lots of other people, too. Don't do it
without good reason, and there rarely seems to be "good reason."

Thus far, the only significantly noticeable reduction in a font size,
renders such fonts too small for me to read. I can live with the
occasional bottom of the page copyright link being tiny, but not an
entire page being too small to read (yes, even 80% is too small). And
continuing along the same theme; ever so slightly smaller than normal
fonts are almost indistinguishable from no change to the sizing, that
it's just a waste of time.

--
My "from" address is totally fake. The reply-to address is real, but
may be only temporary. Reply to usenet postings in the same place as
you read the message you're replying to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.
Jul 20 '05 #86

P: n/a

Hi people,

I'm currently learning CSS and XHTML so I'm no expert but after readin
this interesting thread (well actually I got bored after the firs
couple of pages but really it did start off interesting) I decided t
change my fixed sized fonts to %.

Anyway glad I did but what I found was body font = 80% was best!

100% is too large. Now before you all jump at me let me explain.

I have my text size on 'default' (medium in IE, never adjusted i
Firebird) and so when I set the body text at 100% all of a sudden i
seemed too big in comparison to to all the other websites that
frequent. So adjusting it to 80% made it 'normal' again.
I tested it each with IE's text size settings and every setting wa
readable and didn't 'break' the website design.

I know I've left myself open to the 'Yeah it looks ok to you but wha
about everyone else' argument, but surely if the text size is inlin
with most other websites then that'll be equally true for everyone els
who prefers to adjust their text-size.

To summurise: I found 80% works great and 100% too big (in compariso
with most other websites).

Regards,
CW

Unregistered
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via http://www.forum4designers.co
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
View this thread: http://www.forum4designers.com/message35065.htm

Jul 20 '05 #87

P: n/a
Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:
Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:
html { font: 8pt Verdana, Arial, sans-serif }
body { font-size: larger; line-height: 1.2 }
/kchayka/:
This is woefully inadequate for resolving the perceived problem.


O.k. What is adequate for resolving the perceived problem?


I guess you don't see that there isn't any real problem to begin with,
only a perceived one. Thus, these rules you suggested are not a
solution to anything. They actually create a problem that wasn't there
before.
Graphical designers still will need setting particular font faces
Noone *needs* to set particular font faces for body text, nor can the
author's choice be forced on anyone. The best anyone can do is suggest.
Authors may *want* to set a particular font family, but they cannot
rely on the users having that font installed.
and if one can't rely on a proper 'font-size-adjust' implementation
Um, this property has already been dropped from the next CSS spec due to
lack of browser support. You weren't seriously thinking it would
salvage anything, were you?
how one could know if the selected font face won't result in too big
or too small font compared to the default reader's font?


This is a potential issue any time a particular font family is
specified. The author cannot know that a font is the same as a font of
the same name on someone else's system. The font face is only part of
the problem with your style suggestions, anyway. The crux is setting an
absolute font-size. Eliminate that and you have to wonder less about
the size the visitor gets, at least compared to their default font.

But then there's that Verdana thing again. The evils of Verdana have
been discussed numerous times. I already wrote about the problem I have
with it. Search google for more on the subject.

--
To email a reply, remove (dash)un(dash). Mail sent to the un
address is considered spam and automatically deleted.
Jul 20 '05 #88

P: n/a
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, kchayka wrote:
Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:
and if one can't rely on a proper 'font-size-adjust' implementation
Um, this property has already been dropped from the next CSS spec due to
lack of browser support.


It has, yes; I think that's unfortunate.
You weren't seriously thinking it would salvage anything, were you?
In the originally proposed form, it had some shortcomings, in as much
as it was designed to compensate for fonts' objective em/ex ratios;
but the reason that Verdana is such a problem is that it looks
subjectively even larger, at a given nominal em size, than other fonts
which have a similar objective em/ex ratio. So it may be that
font-size-adjust ought to apply some kind of perceptual adjustment
factor, rather than a mere objective value.
how one could know if the selected font face won't result in too big
or too small font compared to the default reader's font?


This is a potential issue any time a particular font family is
specified.


Indeed. If the user selected Verdana as their default, with a size
that suits them, then they're liable to find Times Roman too small for
comfort; conversely, if they left the vendor's initial choice of an
over-large Times Roman, then they will find Verdana looking absurdly
large. But the author cannot know which way the reader's choice has
fallen, so there is no way that they can compensate for it in their
font-size proposals.

I think it's a great shame that something like font-size-adjust
hasn't been implemented.
But then there's that Verdana thing again. The evils of Verdana have
been discussed numerous times. I already wrote about the problem I have
with it. Search google for more on the subject.


It's well presented and demonstrated at:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html

There's nothing wrong with Verdana for its purpose (namely, getting
high legibility when font size is restricted, e.g on low-definition
displays): it's just not an appropriate choice for web use, due to
this sizing issue. Oh, and it's not very attractive at _large_ font
sizes, such as headings etc.

Jul 20 '05 #89

P: n/a
Unregistered wrote:

I'm currently learning CSS and XHTML so I'm no expert what I found was body font = 80% was best!
Is this supposed to be some sort of revelation?
100% is too large. Now before you all jump at me let me explain.
What for? What could you, a self-described newcomer to web design,
possibly add to the long discussion that had already taken place?
I have my text size on 'default' (medium in IE, never adjusted in
Firebird) and so when I set the body text at 100% all of a sudden it
seemed too big in comparison to to all the other websites that I
frequent.
Then change the settings in your browser, as you've already learned if
you really have read this thread.
So adjusting it to 80% made it 'normal' again.
In *your* browser. In *my* browser, adjusting it to 80% makes it 20%
too small.
Posted via http://www.forum4designers.com


Your're posting to usenet group comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets

Please learn the proper quoting and replying style. For a good primer, see

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/dont.html

--
Brian (follow directions in my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

Jul 20 '05 #90

P: n/a
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 15:08:24 +0000, "Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk>
wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, kchayka wrote:
Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:
> and if one can't rely on a proper 'font-size-adjust' implementation
Um, this property has already been dropped from the next CSS spec due to
lack of browser support.


It has, yes; I think that's unfortunate.
You weren't seriously thinking it would salvage anything, were you?


In the originally proposed form, it had some shortcomings, in as much
as it was designed to compensate for fonts' objective em/ex ratios;
but the reason that Verdana is such a problem is that it looks
subjectively even larger, at a given nominal em size, than other fonts
which have a similar objective em/ex ratio. So it may be that
font-size-adjust ought to apply some kind of perceptual adjustment
factor, rather than a mere objective value.
> how one could know if the selected font face won't result in too big
> or too small font compared to the default reader's font?


This is a potential issue any time a particular font family is
specified.


Indeed. If the user selected Verdana as their default, with a size
that suits them, then they're liable to find Times Roman too small for
comfort; conversely, if they left the vendor's initial choice of an
over-large Times Roman, then they will find Verdana looking absurdly
large. But the author cannot know which way the reader's choice has
fallen, so there is no way that they can compensate for it in their
font-size proposals.

I think it's a great shame that something like font-size-adjust
hasn't been implemented.
But then there's that Verdana thing again. The evils of Verdana have
been discussed numerous times. I already wrote about the problem I have
with it. Search google for more on the subject.


It's well presented and demonstrated at:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html

Which, on my IE6 browser demonstrates the error of using
CSS for page layout. The bottom of the main text is cropped
when I set the font size to anything *less* than "Largest."

How much is lost with "Largest" I'll never know.

Mason C

There's nothing wrong with Verdana for its purpose (namely, getting
high legibility when font size is restricted, e.g on low-definition
displays): it's just not an appropriate choice for web use, due to
this sizing issue. Oh, and it's not very attractive at _large_ font
sizes, such as headings etc.


Jul 20 '05 #91

P: n/a
Mason A. Clark <ma*******@THISix.netcom.comQ> wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 15:08:24 +0000, "Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk>
wrote:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html


Which, on my IE6 browser demonstrates the error of using
CSS for page layout. The bottom of the main text is cropped
when I set the font size to anything *less* than "Largest."

How much is lost with "Largest" I'll never know.


The 'cropping' has nothing to do with the font size. It looks like the
peekaboo bug and is a bug in Internet Explorer.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
Jul 20 '05 #92

P: n/a
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004, Mason A. Clark wrote:

[snip-o-rama -1- ]

[AJF;]
It's well presented and demonstrated at:
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html
Which, on my IE6 browser demonstrates the error of using
CSS for page layout.


Odd: it works great on Win IE6 as far as I can see. (Though I
normally use Mozilla).
The bottom of the main text is cropped
when I set the font size to anything *less* than "Largest."


It's displayed fine at any of IE's 5 settings on mine.

How very curious. Steve Pugh apparently has an explanation (and there
are several known fixes for this bug, out there on the web); so now
I'm curious why I don't see it on mine.

Have fun

-1- Is there any chance of persuading you to tidy-up the quotage
yourself, so that it highlights the specific issues you're commenting
on? thanks.
Jul 20 '05 #93

P: n/a
Tim
On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 06:32:24 -0600,
Unregistered <Gu**********@mail.forum4designers.com> wrote:
I'm currently learning CSS and XHTML so I'm no expert but after reading ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Don't stop learning. It's too easy to come to a conclusion too early,
and that's what you're doing.
Anyway glad I did but what I found was body font = 80% was best!

100% is too large. Now before you all jump at me let me explain.
That's your browser, not mine. Adjust your *browser* to suit you.
I have my text size on 'default' (medium in IE, never adjusted in
Firebird) and so when I set the body text at 100% all of a sudden it
seemed too big in comparison to all the other websites that I
frequent. So adjusting it to 80% made it 'normal' again.
No, you haven't. Two wrongs don't make a right. I hate analogies, but
here goes: If your car is driving too fast, you take your foot off the
accelerator, you don't drive with the brakes applied. Surely people see
the faulty reasoning in that scenario? Kludging one WWW thing in one
direction, to accommodate something else adjusted in the other
direction, is just plain wrong. Somehow people just don't seem to
understand the same scenario in a different situation. It forces
everyone else to have to maladjust their equipment like you. Then the
next twit decides that things are still too big/small and further
kludges things.

When learning something, actually learn what you're doing. That doesn't
just mean what you're typing, but the technologies involved.
Particularly the interactions of interrelated things.
I know I've left myself open to the 'Yeah it looks ok to you but what
about everyone else' argument, but surely if the text size is inline
with most other websites then that'll be equally true for everyone else
who prefers to adjust their text-size.

To summarise: I found 80% works great and 100% too big (in comparison
with most other websites).


I find most websites, that I look at, don't specify font sizes, and they
look okay. I find many newbie websites that do play with fonts, and
they're too damn small. Particularly all those PHP toy forums that
people like to play with, without knowing what they're doing (typically
putting their data, into someone else's template).

One of the best features included on newer browsers is a threshold where
the browser will not let font sizes go below. It's only thanks to that
feature that some pages are readable. And, no, web twits shouldn't rely
on that sort of feature to make their site readable, they should be making
it readable in the first place. *Don't* rely on anything that should not
be relied on (it seems common sense doesn't exist these days).

--
My "from" address is totally fake. The reply-to address is real, but
may be only temporary. Reply to usenet postings in the same place as
you read the message you're replying to.

This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.
Jul 20 '05 #94

P: n/a
CW.

Brian wrote:
Is this supposed to be some sort of revelation?

Yes.

What for? What could you, a self-described newcomer to web design,
possibly add to the long discussion that had already taken place?

My point of view, just like everyone else.

Then change the settings in your browser, as you've already learne
if
you really have read this thread.


Why should I if all the other websites I visit look fine - which wil
be the same attitude as most other visiters to my or any site.

That's my whole point. What is 100%? What is normal? What is default?

Fact is if I set it to 100% it looks too big. When I set it to 80% i
looks 'normal'.

If it looks normal in my default setting my guess is it'll loo
'normal' for whatever setting the user is accustomed to.

At the end of the day, upsetting as it may seem to some of you, th
crunch is that you have to go with the majority of the websites ou
there - weither they do it 'right' or 'wrong' because the user wil
adjust their browser to the common website.

C.

CW.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via http://www.forum4designers.co
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
View this thread: http://www.forum4designers.com/message35065.htm

Jul 20 '05 #95

P: n/a
"CW." ...
....
| At the end of the day, ....the
| crunch is that you have to go with the majority of the websites out
| there

BaaaH! BaaaAAaah!

Gee I do not like being crushed into this
race with all the other sheep.. But I'll
keep walking, 'coz they all are..

...What's that smell of blood?

--
Andrew Thompson
* http://www.PhySci.org/ PhySci software suite
* http://www.1point1C.org/ 1.1C - Superluminal!
* http://www.AThompson.info/andrew/ personal site
Jul 20 '05 #96

P: n/a
CW.

Andrew Thompson wrote:
*

Gee I do not like being crushed into this
race with all the other sheep.. But I'll
keep walking, 'coz they all are..

...What's that smell of blood?
*


Er ok so given your analogy I guess you don't drive (if of course yo
can drive) on the same side of the road as everyone else since tha
would be following the 'sheep' right!

The masses have dictated that 80% seems to be the right size fo
'normal' therefore since I'm catering for the masses I will take 80% a
'normal'.

If you want to make the average user adjust their browser to view you
site correctly that's up to you.

Adios.

CW

CW.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via http://www.forum4designers.co
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
View this thread: http://www.forum4designers.com/message35065.htm

Jul 20 '05 #97

P: n/a
Stanimir Stamenkov / 2004-01-24 17:56:
Mikko Rantalainen wrote:
Duh. If ALL you want


It's not me. :-)
is to set "correct" default font size for MSIE
without bothering other people, just use

body { font-size: 80%; } /* or whatever the "correct" value is */
html>body { font-size: 100%; } /* MSIE ignores this... */


That would be no better because I've set my preffered font size
(which is smaller than the default) in MSIE through the user style
sheet.


IMO, if you really use MSIE and use an user style sheet to change
base font size, the best way is to say body { font-size: xy%
!important; }. That's because so many pages set really stupid
font-sizes for body element.

Notice that I said "without bothering /other/ people". I'm aware
that [almost] all users of MSIE would see the change. It's just that
the MSIE is the only reason to change base font size because it's
the only browser where it's too hard to change that for a casual user.

I think that a page author shouldn't mess with font sizes at all but
I'm aware that sometimes the client has different thoughts and for
those cases, the workaround I wrote earlier (quoted above) does the
least damage. Of course, I tell the client about the thing but
sometimes I cannot get him to agree that MSIE users should adjust
their font size by theirself.

--
Mikko
Jul 20 '05 #98

P: n/a

"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bu************@ID-114100.news.uni-berlin.de...

"Tim" <Ti*@mail.localhost> wrote in message
news:89********************************@4ax.com...
"Noozer" <po********@127.0.0.1> wrote
> Leave my fonts ALONE!

"Harlan Messinger" <h.*********@comcast.net> wrote:
I take it you refuse to read any book, magazine, or newspaper that is
printed in other than your one and only and immutable font size,
without any tolerance for even the most minute deviation.
You do realise, that if a book is published with fonts that are too
small for someone to read, that they're not likely to read it? Only
some people are willing to sit there with a magnifying glass.


I'm not going to repeat myself any more. You and others are obviously
responding without paying attention to the details of what I have said.

One would think that I had written something like "I like to set my body text in fixed 4-point type"?


And you do know that I can't read 8 point fonts on my system either, right?
Jul 20 '05 #99

P: n/a
> Yeah, I do, because your response is to a supposed stance on my part
that one point less than default is still readable by everyone, when
I'm talking about one point (for the sake of argument) below
*optimal*. Yes, it started off with my suggesting

body { font-size: 80% }
Too small for me. A web page at 100% is the size that I can maximize the
usable space on my desktop AND be readable.
but since, as at least a couple of people here have insisted,
EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD RESETS HIS BROWSER FOR AN OPTIMAL DISPLAY, this
doesn't mean 80% of the factory default, it means 80% of the user's
optimal. And I absolutely don't believe anybody's *optimal* is the
same as his *minimal* because--well, a person's optimal type size is
simply not the one where he can barely make it out! Unless one doesn't
know what "optimal" means, that is. In summary, I believe that if
someone simply can't read 80% of the default, then that person isn't
*using* the default, he's set his browser for a larger display. (And
anyone who says I'm wrong is disagreeing with the person who--sorry,
I'm not keeping track of who's making which argument--I got this
from.)


Optimal to ME is the smallest font I can use while the page is still
readable.
Jul 20 '05 #100

115 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.