By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
437,648 Members | 1,190 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 437,648 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

cross-platform CSS

P: n/a
I use a PC almost exclusively, and I was recently very surprised at the
difference in my page when viewed in IE for the Mac (sorry, I couldn't
figure out how to get the version...it was OS9 if that helps). Is there
any tool out there that offers some kind of Mac browser emulation? Or a
list of rules-of-thumb to keep in mind? I've been checking through the
compatibilty lists, and found them only semi-helpful.

-=-
Ryan W Sims
Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
15 Replies


P: n/a
Ryan W Sims <ry**@ryanwsims.com> wrote:
my page


Give URL!

--
Top-posting.
What's the most irritating thing on Usenet?
Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a
Andreas Prilop wrote:
Give URL!


very sorry! forgot. mea culpa.

http://www.ryanwsims.com
--
Ryan W Sims
http://www.ryanwsims.com
Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
Ryan W Sims <ry**@ryanwsims.com> wrote:
http://www.ryanwsims.com


I wouldn't be surprised if Macintosh Internet Explorer doesn't apply
your stylesheet since you write

| <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="style.css">
| <html>
| <head>
| <title>RyanWSims.com</title>
| </head>
| <body>

Put <link> inside <head>...</head> and correct also the other errors:
<http://uk.htmlhelp.com/cgi-bin/validate.cgi?url=http://www.ryanwsims.com>

--
Top-posting.
What's the most irritating thing on Usenet?
Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
Ryan W Sims <ry**@ryanwsims.com> wrote:
I use a PC almost exclusively, and I was recently very surprised at the
difference in my page when viewed in IE for the Mac (sorry, I couldn't
figure out how to get the version...it was OS9 if that helps). Is there
any tool out there that offers some kind of Mac browser emulation? Or a
list of rules-of-thumb to keep in mind? I've been checking through the
compatibilty lists, and found them only semi-helpful.
http://www.ryanwsims.com


Well, for starters, you're using microfonts (e.g., "font-size: 60%" for
text content). My browser on MS Windows (Opera) allows me to enforce a
minimum font size, so your content is legible. But my browser on Mac OS X
(Safari) doesn't, so your content is illegible.
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"Good teachers are costly. Bad teachers cost more." - Bob Talbert
Jul 20 '05 #5

P: n/a
Darin McGrew wrote:

you're using microfonts (e.g., "font-size: 60%" for
text content). My browser on MS Windows (Opera) allows me to enforce a
minimum font size, so your content is legible. But my browser on Mac OS X
(Safari) doesn't, so your content is illegible.


How small would you consider legible?
--
Ryan W Sims
http://www.ryanwsims.com
Jul 20 '05 #6

P: n/a
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Ryan W Sims wrote:
How small would you consider legible?


How frequently does a frequently discussed issue have to be discussed
until you read it?

usenet groups aren't a question and answer desk: you're supposed to
participate a bit so that you know what gets discussed and what the
standard replies are.

The only logical answer for regular text is 1.0em. But admittedly
others will consider that logical answer to be impractical until the
major vendor teaches its lusers to adjust their browser for
themselves.
Jul 20 '05 #7

P: n/a
Quoth the raven named Ryan W Sims:
Darin McGrew wrote:

you're using microfonts (e.g., "font-size: 60%" for
text content). My browser on MS Windows (Opera) allows me to enforce a
minimum font size, so your content is legible. But my browser on Mac OS X
(Safari) doesn't, so your content is illegible.


How small would you consider legible?


100%. That is your visitor's default size. Your visitors are
important; we don't care how it looks in /your/ browser.

You're young, and probably have excellent vision. I'm an old guy with
bifocals and I turned away from your page the second I found I
couldn't read it. [Well, not really, but you get the idea.]

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
Jul 20 '05 #8

P: n/a
It seems "Alan J. Flavell" wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Ryan W Sims wrote:
How small would you consider legible?


How frequently does a frequently discussed issue have to be discussed
until you read it?

The only logical answer for regular text is 1.0em.


Should that be 100% to avoid the MSIE bug?

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Jul 20 '05 #9

P: n/a
I wrote:
you're using microfonts (e.g., "font-size: 60%" for text content). My
browser on MS Windows (Opera) allows me to enforce a minimum font size,
so your content is legible. But my browser on Mac OS X (Safari)
doesn't, so your content is illegible.

Ryan W Sims wrote: How small would you consider legible?

Beauregard T. Shagnasty <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote: 100%. That is your visitor's default size. Your visitors are
important; we don't care how it looks in /your/ browser.


Bingo.

You can go smaller with legalese and similar fine print that the average
reader can ignore. But I wouldn't go smaller than about 85% even then.

But it's a mistake to reduce the font size for normal text content.
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"Always remember that you are unique. Just like everybody else."
Jul 20 '05 #10

P: n/a
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Stan Brown wrote:
It seems "Alan J. Flavell" wrote in

The only logical answer for regular text is 1.0em.


Should that be 100% to avoid the MSIE bug?


It's true that the logical answer sometimes has to be avoided in the
face of sufficiently crass bugs. But my main point was that repeating
the whole of the previous discussions for the benefit of those who
decline to read them is not an efficient way to utilise the usenet
resource.

h.t.h
Jul 20 '05 #11

P: n/a
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
Quoth the raven named Ryan W Sims:
Darin McGrew wrote:
you're using microfonts (e.g., "font-size: 60%" for


How small would you consider legible?


100%. That is your visitor's default size.


I'd suggest not setting any size at all, except for select parts like
copyright notices and headings. Those should be set in % units, nothing
smaller than 80% if you expect anyone to actually read it.

--
To email a reply, remove (dash)un(dash). Mail sent to the un
address is considered spam and automatically deleted.
Jul 20 '05 #12

P: n/a
Quoth the raven named kchayka:
Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
Quoth the raven named Ryan W Sims:
How small would you consider legible?
100%. That is your visitor's default size.


I'd suggest not setting any size at all,


Agreed, it's not normally necessary, though in some of the zillions of
threads on the subject, it's been mentioned that some versions of some
browsers can't figure it out if omitted. Then too, body { font-size:
100%; } is a reinforcement that the author understands. <g>
except for select parts
like copyright notices and headings. Those should be set in %
units, nothing smaller than 80% if you expect anyone to actually
read it.


Personally, I use no less than 85%, for small amounts of legalese, or
perhaps a footer.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.
Jul 20 '05 #13

P: n/a
It seems "Alan J. Flavell" wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
But my main point was that repeating
the whole of the previous discussions for the benefit of those who
decline to read them is not an efficient way to utilise the usenet
resource.


Sorry -- it seemed so obviously true to me that I felt it was
unnecessary to repost it or explicitly agree with it. But for the
record, I do agree. I just wondered why you said "1.0em" instead of
"100%".

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Jul 20 '05 #14

P: n/a
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Stan Brown wrote:
Sorry -- it seemed so obviously true to me that I felt it was
unnecessary to repost it or explicitly agree with it. But for the
record, I do agree. I just wondered why you said "1.0em" instead of
"100%".


(I've seen others proposing 101% to circumvent one or other browser
bug.)

In principle, we could discuss three options in regard to normal font
size - the size used for normal blocks of text such as paragraphs:

- explicitly 1.0em
- explicitly 100%
- no explicit specification

and then sizing special pieces of text relative to that normal base.

All three _should_ produce the same result. Due to browser bugs,
the results can come out differently.

I didn't have any special reason for posting 1.0em rather than either
of the other two, sorry. Apologies for the fragmented answer.
Jul 20 '05 #15

P: n/a
On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 08:53:03 +0000 (UTC), Darin McGrew
<mc****@stanfordalumni.org> wrote:
Ryan W Sims wrote:
How small would you consider legible?

Beauregard T. Shagnasty <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote:
100%. That is your visitor's default size. Your visitors are
important; we don't care how it looks in /your/ browser.


Bingo.

You can go smaller with legalese and similar fine print that the average
reader can ignore. But I wouldn't go smaller than about 85% even then.


Rather than considering whether it's legalese etc, I'd concentrate on
the amount of text. Small fragments of text set off from each other
(e.g. a menu, a five-word copyright statement, or a table where all
entries are brief) are OK at 90%, probably 80%. I don't really think
full paragraphs of text should be less than 100% even if they are
legalese.
But it's a mistake to reduce the font size for normal text content.


--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
Jul 20 '05 #16

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.