By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
435,474 Members | 3,139 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 435,474 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Fixed font sizes

P: n/a
I know this must have been asked elsewhere, but I cannot find it. There is a
piece of text on my web page that I don't want browsers to resize. IE won't
resize it if I specify the size in px, but everything else will. Is there any
way to prevent browsers from resizing text?

If you could just point me to where this has already been answered, that would
be great.
Paul
Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
98 Replies


P: n/a

"Pamel" <pa**@msn.com> wrote in message
news:4D*****************@fe1.texas.rr.com...
I know this must have been asked elsewhere, but I cannot find it. There is a piece of text on my web page that I don't want browsers to resize. IE won't resize it if I specify the size in px, but everything else will. Is there any way to prevent browsers from resizing text?


If you were preparing printed material, would you be asking for how to print
something in small type in such a way that people would be physically
prevented from reading it with a magnifying glass?

Is this something that you want to keep secret from people with weak vision?
How will you prevent people with good vision from telling them about it?

Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a

"Pamel" <pa**@msn.com> wrote in message
news:4D*****************@fe1.texas.rr.com...
I know this must have been asked elsewhere, but I cannot find it. There is a piece of text on my web page that I don't want browsers to resize. IE won't resize it if I specify the size in px, but everything else will. Is there any way to prevent browsers from resizing text?


If you were preparing printed material, would you be asking for how to print
something in small type in such a way that people would be physically
prevented from reading it with a magnifying glass?

Is this something that you want to keep secret from people with weak vision?
How will you prevent people with good vision from telling them about it?

Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
"Pamel" <pa**@msn.com> wrote:
I know this must have been asked elsewhere, but I cannot find it. There is a
piece of text on my web page that I don't want browsers to resize.
Why not? Don't you want users to be able to read it?
IE won't
resize it if I specify the size in px, but everything else will.
Yes, IE is broken.
Is there any way to prevent browsers from resizing text?


Make it a graphic. But Opera can still zoom the whole page, as can
some other browsers with various add-ons. And the user can always take
the graphic into another program to resize it. etc., etc.

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 #4

P: n/a
"Pamel" <pa**@msn.com> wrote:
I know this must have been asked elsewhere, but I cannot find it. There is a
piece of text on my web page that I don't want browsers to resize.
Why not? Don't you want users to be able to read it?
IE won't
resize it if I specify the size in px, but everything else will.
Yes, IE is broken.
Is there any way to prevent browsers from resizing text?


Make it a graphic. But Opera can still zoom the whole page, as can
some other browsers with various add-ons. And the user can always take
the graphic into another program to resize it. etc., etc.

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 #5

P: n/a
Pamel wrote:
I know this must have been asked elsewhere, but I cannot find it.
Did you try Google?
There is a piece of text on my web page that I don't want browsers to
resize. IE won't resize it if I specify the size in px, but
everything else will. Is there any way to prevent browsers from
resizing text?
No.
If you could just point me to where this has already been answered,
that would be great.


http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=f...ng.stylesheets

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #6

P: n/a
Pamel wrote:
I know this must have been asked elsewhere, but I cannot find it.
Did you try Google?
There is a piece of text on my web page that I don't want browsers to
resize. IE won't resize it if I specify the size in px, but
everything else will. Is there any way to prevent browsers from
resizing text?
No.
If you could just point me to where this has already been answered,
that would be great.


http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=f...ng.stylesheets

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #7

P: n/a
In message <4D*****************@fe1.texas.rr.com>, Pamel <pa**@msn.com>
writes
I know this must have been asked elsewhere, but I cannot find it. There is a
piece of text on my web page that I don't want browsers to resize.

IE won't
resize it if I specify the size in px, but everything else will.
IE *will* resize via "Tools --> Internet Options --> Accessibility
-->Ignore font sizes specified on Web pages" if the text is too small
for people to comfortably read it and you've set the size in px.

Is there any
way to prevent browsers from resizing text?
Why would you want to try and do something like that?
If you could just point me to where this has already been answered, that would
be great.
Paul


--
Jake
Jul 20 '05 #8

P: n/a
In message <4D*****************@fe1.texas.rr.com>, Pamel <pa**@msn.com>
writes
I know this must have been asked elsewhere, but I cannot find it. There is a
piece of text on my web page that I don't want browsers to resize.

IE won't
resize it if I specify the size in px, but everything else will.
IE *will* resize via "Tools --> Internet Options --> Accessibility
-->Ignore font sizes specified on Web pages" if the text is too small
for people to comfortably read it and you've set the size in px.

Is there any
way to prevent browsers from resizing text?
Why would you want to try and do something like that?
If you could just point me to where this has already been answered, that would
be great.
Paul


--
Jake
Jul 20 '05 #9

P: n/a
Thanks to everONE that answered with useful information instead of trying to
tell me I'm evil because I want to set some text to a fixed size. FYI, I know
many people that have vision problems and browse with larger than normal text,
my brother included. I also know people that have to use a software magnifier
on their PC to do anything as they are legally blind. Peaches.

I am trying to make a webpage with a some text as part of a graphical logo as to
save space as opposed to using a compressed image. All other text on the page
is designed to be resized to something useful for people with impaired vision.
The logo text would be easily readable for most as is being >1 inch high on my
1600x1200 display, and also readable to someone who needs to use a magnifier.

Instead wasting bits and time by criticizing my question, either don't post, or
post something useful.
Pamel

"Pamel" wrote...
I know this must have been asked elsewhere, but I cannot find it. There is a
piece of text on my web page that I don't want browsers to resize. IE won't
resize it if I specify the size in px, but everything else will. Is there any
way to prevent browsers from resizing text?

If you could just point me to where this has already been answered, that would
be great.
Paul

Jul 20 '05 #10

P: n/a
Thanks to everONE that answered with useful information instead of trying to
tell me I'm evil because I want to set some text to a fixed size. FYI, I know
many people that have vision problems and browse with larger than normal text,
my brother included. I also know people that have to use a software magnifier
on their PC to do anything as they are legally blind. Peaches.

I am trying to make a webpage with a some text as part of a graphical logo as to
save space as opposed to using a compressed image. All other text on the page
is designed to be resized to something useful for people with impaired vision.
The logo text would be easily readable for most as is being >1 inch high on my
1600x1200 display, and also readable to someone who needs to use a magnifier.

Instead wasting bits and time by criticizing my question, either don't post, or
post something useful.
Pamel

"Pamel" wrote...
I know this must have been asked elsewhere, but I cannot find it. There is a
piece of text on my web page that I don't want browsers to resize. IE won't
resize it if I specify the size in px, but everything else will. Is there any
way to prevent browsers from resizing text?

If you could just point me to where this has already been answered, that would
be great.
Paul

Jul 20 '05 #11

P: n/a
How am I supposed to post my replies in a newsgroup?:
http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post

(But in your case, you might as well just continue to top-post, since
you won't be getting much help with that attitude.)

Pamel wrote:
Thanks to everONE
Spell-check broken?

(Sure, I could have let the spelling error go, but the post was rude, so
all bets are off.)
Instead wasting bits and time by criticizing my question, either
don't post, or post something useful.


And we'll send the helpdesk bill to...?

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #12

P: n/a
How am I supposed to post my replies in a newsgroup?:
http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post

(But in your case, you might as well just continue to top-post, since
you won't be getting much help with that attitude.)

Pamel wrote:
Thanks to everONE
Spell-check broken?

(Sure, I could have let the spelling error go, but the post was rude, so
all bets are off.)
Instead wasting bits and time by criticizing my question, either
don't post, or post something useful.


And we'll send the helpdesk bill to...?

--
Brian (remove "invalid" from my address to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Jul 20 '05 #13

P: n/a
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 04:21:13 GMT, Pamel wrote:
Instead wasting bits and time by criticizing my question,
Instead of asking lazy, stupid questions, you
might research the topic first and demonstrate
that knowledge in your question.

You chose not to.
..either don't post, or
post something useful.


Either don't post,
or don't ask idiotic questions.

Or ..post idiotic questions if you will,
then brace for the derision you deserve.

[ Your choice. ]

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology
Jul 20 '05 #14

P: n/a
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 04:21:13 GMT, Pamel wrote:
Instead wasting bits and time by criticizing my question,
Instead of asking lazy, stupid questions, you
might research the topic first and demonstrate
that knowledge in your question.

You chose not to.
..either don't post, or
post something useful.


Either don't post,
or don't ask idiotic questions.

Or ..post idiotic questions if you will,
then brace for the derision you deserve.

[ Your choice. ]

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology
Jul 20 '05 #15

P: n/a
"Pamel" <pa**@msn.com> wrote:
Thanks to everONE that answered with useful information instead of trying to
tell me I'm evil because I want to set some text to a fixed size.
Yawn. You were given useful advice. You can choose to ignore it. That
is your right. Don't blame us for giving you advice you don't like. We
didn't do it because we hate you, we did it because we believe, based
on our experience and knowledge, that it is good advice.
I am trying to make a webpage with a some text as part of a graphical logo as to
save space as opposed to using a compressed image.
What you want is impossible.
There is no way of presenting fixed size text in browsers other than
Netscape 4.x and Windows IE. You can keep on asking in stroppier and
stroppier tones but that won't change the facts.

Logos are best represented as images unless they are very simple and
can be rendered purely as styled text - in which case the whole logo
is scalable.

So I'll give you the same advice I gave before: either use an image or
stop trying to fix the size. Or sit there in a huff waiting for the
universe to change to suit your whim and never actually launch your
web site. Your choice.
Instead wasting bits and time by criticizing my question, either don't post, or
post something useful.


You seem to be under a misunderstanding as to what Usenet is. It's a
forum for discussion. You started a discussion with your post, you
have no control whatsoever over how the discussion procedes from that
point onwards. If you don't like a post, ignore it. If you
consistently don't like posts from a certain author, killfile him.

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 #16

P: n/a
"Pamel" <pa**@msn.com> wrote:
Thanks to everONE that answered with useful information instead of trying to
tell me I'm evil because I want to set some text to a fixed size.
Yawn. You were given useful advice. You can choose to ignore it. That
is your right. Don't blame us for giving you advice you don't like. We
didn't do it because we hate you, we did it because we believe, based
on our experience and knowledge, that it is good advice.
I am trying to make a webpage with a some text as part of a graphical logo as to
save space as opposed to using a compressed image.
What you want is impossible.
There is no way of presenting fixed size text in browsers other than
Netscape 4.x and Windows IE. You can keep on asking in stroppier and
stroppier tones but that won't change the facts.

Logos are best represented as images unless they are very simple and
can be rendered purely as styled text - in which case the whole logo
is scalable.

So I'll give you the same advice I gave before: either use an image or
stop trying to fix the size. Or sit there in a huff waiting for the
universe to change to suit your whim and never actually launch your
web site. Your choice.
Instead wasting bits and time by criticizing my question, either don't post, or
post something useful.


You seem to be under a misunderstanding as to what Usenet is. It's a
forum for discussion. You started a discussion with your post, you
have no control whatsoever over how the discussion procedes from that
point onwards. If you don't like a post, ignore it. If you
consistently don't like posts from a certain author, killfile him.

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 #17

P: n/a

"Pamel" <pa**@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ZK****************@fe1.texas.rr.com...
Thanks to everONE that answered with useful information instead of trying to tell me I'm evil because I want to set some text to a fixed size. FYI, I know many people that have vision problems and browse with larger than normal text, my brother included. I also know people that have to use a software magnifier on their PC to do anything as they are legally blind. Peaches.

I am trying to make a webpage with a some text as part of a graphical logo as to save space as opposed to using a compressed image. All other text on the page is designed to be resized to something useful for people with impaired vision. The logo text would be easily readable for most as is being >1 inch high on my 1600x1200 display, and also readable to someone who needs to use a magnifier.
Instead wasting bits and time by criticizing my question, either don't post, or post something useful.


The useful answer is that (a) you have no control over what browsers do with
the content you send to them, and (b) text is text and graphics are graphics
and there isn't any way to send one and expect it to be treated like the
other, and (c) sometimes a question implicitly indicates the possibility
that the person asking it is or may be looking in the wrong direction or
trying to solve the wrong problem or misinterpreting what the problem is or
unaware of the consequences of what he is trying to do, and therefore it is
potentially useful to provide the kinds of answers you were given. Whether
they are *actually* useful to the questioner will depend on the actual
circumstances behind the question and on the attitude of the questioner. And
even if they are ultimately not useful to the questioner, they may be useful
to thousands of others reading the thread.

Jul 20 '05 #18

P: n/a

"Pamel" <pa**@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ZK****************@fe1.texas.rr.com...
Thanks to everONE that answered with useful information instead of trying to tell me I'm evil because I want to set some text to a fixed size. FYI, I know many people that have vision problems and browse with larger than normal text, my brother included. I also know people that have to use a software magnifier on their PC to do anything as they are legally blind. Peaches.

I am trying to make a webpage with a some text as part of a graphical logo as to save space as opposed to using a compressed image. All other text on the page is designed to be resized to something useful for people with impaired vision. The logo text would be easily readable for most as is being >1 inch high on my 1600x1200 display, and also readable to someone who needs to use a magnifier.
Instead wasting bits and time by criticizing my question, either don't post, or post something useful.


The useful answer is that (a) you have no control over what browsers do with
the content you send to them, and (b) text is text and graphics are graphics
and there isn't any way to send one and expect it to be treated like the
other, and (c) sometimes a question implicitly indicates the possibility
that the person asking it is or may be looking in the wrong direction or
trying to solve the wrong problem or misinterpreting what the problem is or
unaware of the consequences of what he is trying to do, and therefore it is
potentially useful to provide the kinds of answers you were given. Whether
they are *actually* useful to the questioner will depend on the actual
circumstances behind the question and on the attitude of the questioner. And
even if they are ultimately not useful to the questioner, they may be useful
to thousands of others reading the thread.

Jul 20 '05 #19

P: n/a
In article <ZK****************@fe1.texas.rr.com>, Pamel <pa**@msn.com> wrote:
I am trying to make a webpage with a some text as part of a graphical
logo as to save space as opposed to using a compressed image. All other
text on the page is designed to be resized to something useful for people
with impaired vision. The logo text would be easily readable for most as
is being >1 inch high on my 1600x1200 display, and also readable to
someone who needs to use a magnifier.


So you don't really need a fixed font size: You need the font size and an
image to be sized in proportion to each other. You might have gotten more
"useful" replies if you'd asked about that in the first place.

When I've needed an image to be sized in proportion to the text, I've sized
the image in ems in my style sheet. But there are downsides to this
technique. If you make the image approximately the size that you expect it
to be displayed normally, then it may look ugly when resized slightly
(either larger or smaller), and it will be badly pixelated at large sizes.
If you make the image significantly larger than you expect it to be
displayed normally, then the result is better when your CSS is used, but
the file size goes up and the results when CSS is disabled/unsupported are
much worse.

But for a logo, it makes sense to make the whole thing an image, and to use
appropriate ALT text. Removing the text from the image won't decrease its
size that much.
--
Darin McGrew, da***@TheRallyeClub.org, http://www.TheRallyeClub.org/
A gimmick car rallye is not a race, but a fun puzzle testing your
ability to follow instructions. Upcoming gimmick car rallye in
Silicon Valley: Starsky & Hutch (Saturday, May 1)
Jul 20 '05 #20

P: n/a
In article <ZK****************@fe1.texas.rr.com>, Pamel <pa**@msn.com> wrote:
I am trying to make a webpage with a some text as part of a graphical
logo as to save space as opposed to using a compressed image. All other
text on the page is designed to be resized to something useful for people
with impaired vision. The logo text would be easily readable for most as
is being >1 inch high on my 1600x1200 display, and also readable to
someone who needs to use a magnifier.


So you don't really need a fixed font size: You need the font size and an
image to be sized in proportion to each other. You might have gotten more
"useful" replies if you'd asked about that in the first place.

When I've needed an image to be sized in proportion to the text, I've sized
the image in ems in my style sheet. But there are downsides to this
technique. If you make the image approximately the size that you expect it
to be displayed normally, then it may look ugly when resized slightly
(either larger or smaller), and it will be badly pixelated at large sizes.
If you make the image significantly larger than you expect it to be
displayed normally, then the result is better when your CSS is used, but
the file size goes up and the results when CSS is disabled/unsupported are
much worse.

But for a logo, it makes sense to make the whole thing an image, and to use
appropriate ALT text. Removing the text from the image won't decrease its
size that much.
--
Darin McGrew, da***@TheRallyeClub.org, http://www.TheRallyeClub.org/
A gimmick car rallye is not a race, but a fun puzzle testing your
ability to follow instructions. Upcoming gimmick car rallye in
Silicon Valley: Starsky & Hutch (Saturday, May 1)
Jul 20 '05 #21

P: n/a
*Steve Pugh* <st***@pugh.net>:

Logos are best represented as images unless they are very simple and
can be rendered purely as styled text - in which case the whole logo
is scalable.


The crossover being vector graphics---sadly almost impossible to be used
well on the Web at the current.

--
"The scientific name for an animal that doesn't
either run from or fight its enemies is lunch."
Michael Friedman
Jul 20 '05 #22

P: n/a
*Steve Pugh* <st***@pugh.net>:

Logos are best represented as images unless they are very simple and
can be rendered purely as styled text - in which case the whole logo
is scalable.


The crossover being vector graphics---sadly almost impossible to be used
well on the Web at the current.

--
"The scientific name for an animal that doesn't
either run from or fight its enemies is lunch."
Michael Friedman
Jul 20 '05 #23

P: n/a
"Pamel" <pa**@msn.com> wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
Thanks to everONE that answered with useful information instead of trying to
tell me I'm evil because I want to set some text to a fixed size.


It _is_ useful information to tell you that setting fixed font sizes
is evil.

Too bad you're not ready to hear it.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
You need any friends you can get. The only thing standing
between you and a watery grave is your wits, and that's not
my idea of adequate protection. -- /Beat the Devil/ (1954)
Jul 20 '05 #24

P: n/a
"Pamel" <pa**@msn.com> wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
Thanks to everONE that answered with useful information instead of trying to
tell me I'm evil because I want to set some text to a fixed size.


It _is_ useful information to tell you that setting fixed font sizes
is evil.

Too bad you're not ready to hear it.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
You need any friends you can get. The only thing standing
between you and a watery grave is your wits, and that's not
my idea of adequate protection. -- /Beat the Devil/ (1954)
Jul 20 '05 #25

P: n/a
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Stan Brown wrote:
"Pamel" <pa**@msn.com> wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
Thanks to everONE that answered with useful information instead of trying to
tell me I'm evil because I want to set some text to a fixed size.
It _is_ useful information to tell you that setting fixed font sizes
is evil.


That too, but surely it's bad enough that it doesnt work?
Too bad you're not ready to hear it.


Plenty more room in the killfile.
Jul 20 '05 #26

P: n/a
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Stan Brown wrote:
"Pamel" <pa**@msn.com> wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
Thanks to everONE that answered with useful information instead of trying to
tell me I'm evil because I want to set some text to a fixed size.
It _is_ useful information to tell you that setting fixed font sizes
is evil.


That too, but surely it's bad enough that it doesnt work?
Too bad you're not ready to hear it.


Plenty more room in the killfile.
Jul 20 '05 #27

P: n/a
"Brian" wrote...
How am I supposed to post my replies in a newsgroup?:
http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post

(But in your case, you might as well just continue to top-post, since
you won't be getting much help with that attitude.)
In both my newsreader and google groups my post shows as a sub post to my own
post. Perhaps the header was corrupted on your new server? I never top post
unless there is a completely new issue. I will sometimes reply to a post that
is over a year old to ensure that it stays in the same thread. Anything else is
just barbaric. Or maybe I am misunderstanding your definition of "top post"?
Pamel wrote:
Thanks to everONE
Spell-check broken?


Nope, in fact it caught that error. The fault is mine by accidentaly clicking
on "ignore". I hate having spelling errors in posts. I think it would have
been much more dramatic had the actual post said "everyONE". The emphasis being
on the fact that only one person out of 4 actually answered the question.
(Incidentally, that was you.)

I asked for a link to some content that addressed my question. Yours is the
only one that did that. All of the other posts were just rather insulting.

I did in fact search (I can't believe I just typed "surch" before retyping that
word) on google, google groups, and asked people in IRC. The irony being that I
never actually searched for "fixed font" as the subject says, but rather all
sorts of other phrases. I guess that phrase didn't occur to me until typing the
post, at which point I didn't come to realize that I hadn't searched for that
specific phrase.
(Sure, I could have let the spelling error go, but the post was rude, so
all bets are off.)
It wasn't meant to be rude. More of an informative satiric piece. Contrast
"don't make web pages that won't resize" to "don't post off topic".
And we'll send the helpdesk bill to...?


Joseph Stalin. Careful though, he has a temper.
Pamel
Jul 20 '05 #28

P: n/a
"Brian" wrote...
How am I supposed to post my replies in a newsgroup?:
http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post

(But in your case, you might as well just continue to top-post, since
you won't be getting much help with that attitude.)
In both my newsreader and google groups my post shows as a sub post to my own
post. Perhaps the header was corrupted on your new server? I never top post
unless there is a completely new issue. I will sometimes reply to a post that
is over a year old to ensure that it stays in the same thread. Anything else is
just barbaric. Or maybe I am misunderstanding your definition of "top post"?
Pamel wrote:
Thanks to everONE
Spell-check broken?


Nope, in fact it caught that error. The fault is mine by accidentaly clicking
on "ignore". I hate having spelling errors in posts. I think it would have
been much more dramatic had the actual post said "everyONE". The emphasis being
on the fact that only one person out of 4 actually answered the question.
(Incidentally, that was you.)

I asked for a link to some content that addressed my question. Yours is the
only one that did that. All of the other posts were just rather insulting.

I did in fact search (I can't believe I just typed "surch" before retyping that
word) on google, google groups, and asked people in IRC. The irony being that I
never actually searched for "fixed font" as the subject says, but rather all
sorts of other phrases. I guess that phrase didn't occur to me until typing the
post, at which point I didn't come to realize that I hadn't searched for that
specific phrase.
(Sure, I could have let the spelling error go, but the post was rude, so
all bets are off.)
It wasn't meant to be rude. More of an informative satiric piece. Contrast
"don't make web pages that won't resize" to "don't post off topic".
And we'll send the helpdesk bill to...?


Joseph Stalin. Careful though, he has a temper.
Pamel
Jul 20 '05 #29

P: n/a
"Christoph Paeper" wrote...
*Steve Pugh* <st***@pugh.net>:

Logos are best represented as images unless they are very simple and
can be rendered purely as styled text - in which case the whole logo
is scalable.


The crossover being vector graphics---sadly almost impossible to be used
well on the Web at the current.


I await good SVG support with great anticipation.
Pamel
Jul 20 '05 #30

P: n/a
"Christoph Paeper" wrote...
*Steve Pugh* <st***@pugh.net>:

Logos are best represented as images unless they are very simple and
can be rendered purely as styled text - in which case the whole logo
is scalable.


The crossover being vector graphics---sadly almost impossible to be used
well on the Web at the current.


I await good SVG support with great anticipation.
Pamel
Jul 20 '05 #31

P: n/a

"Steve Pugh" wrote...
"Pamel" wrote:
Thanks to everONE that answered with useful information instead of trying to
tell me I'm evil because I want to set some text to a fixed size.
Yawn. You were given useful advice. You can choose to ignore it.


No, I was given advice that I already knew, and that didn't answer the question
that I had. Good advice, just not relevant.
What you want is impossible.
There is no way of presenting fixed size text in browsers other than
Netscape 4.x and Windows IE. You can keep on asking in stroppier and
stroppier tones but that won't change the facts.
? I asked once and got my answer. I did not think that I asked in a belligerent
manner, but maybe? I meant it to be a quick plea for a quick direction, but
maybe it came off as more short than quick? I'm not sure, but it wouldn't
surprise me as I have seen more than one person offend at something that I say
innocently. What would have been a better way to ask?
Logos are best represented as images unless they are very simple and
can be rendered purely as styled text - in which case the whole logo
is scalable.
Its some simple text over graphics where the text extends far beyond the
graphics. So, it would take much less space to store the text as text. Its a
bit of a personal challenge to me sometimes to see if I can make something
smaller, or better, or whatnot.
So I'll give you the same advice I gave before: either use an image or
stop trying to fix the size. Or sit there in a huff waiting for the
universe to change to suit your whim and never actually launch your
web site. Your choice.
Well, as the answer was that I cannot fix the font size, I knew that I needed
another solution. In this case it looks like images are the only solution. Why
would I "sit there in a huff" waiting for anything? Did something I say make it
sound like I wouldn't accept that answer?
Instead wasting bits and time by criticizing my question, either don't post, orpost something useful.


You seem to be under a misunderstanding as to what Usenet is. It's a
forum for discussion. You started a discussion with your post, you
have no control whatsoever over how the discussion procedes from that
point onwards. If you don't like a post, ignore it. If you
consistently don't like posts from a certain author, killfile him.


I know, I just find it so hard to. I feel like I might miss out on something.
'What if' he says something useful? 'What if' I miss out on some excellent
discussion, or not understand another? I just can't bring myself to do it most
of the time. I admit it, I'm a habitual reader.
Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>


Pamel <Pa**@msn.com> <http://commo.de/>
Jul 20 '05 #32

P: n/a

"Steve Pugh" wrote...
"Pamel" wrote:
Thanks to everONE that answered with useful information instead of trying to
tell me I'm evil because I want to set some text to a fixed size.
Yawn. You were given useful advice. You can choose to ignore it.


No, I was given advice that I already knew, and that didn't answer the question
that I had. Good advice, just not relevant.
What you want is impossible.
There is no way of presenting fixed size text in browsers other than
Netscape 4.x and Windows IE. You can keep on asking in stroppier and
stroppier tones but that won't change the facts.
? I asked once and got my answer. I did not think that I asked in a belligerent
manner, but maybe? I meant it to be a quick plea for a quick direction, but
maybe it came off as more short than quick? I'm not sure, but it wouldn't
surprise me as I have seen more than one person offend at something that I say
innocently. What would have been a better way to ask?
Logos are best represented as images unless they are very simple and
can be rendered purely as styled text - in which case the whole logo
is scalable.
Its some simple text over graphics where the text extends far beyond the
graphics. So, it would take much less space to store the text as text. Its a
bit of a personal challenge to me sometimes to see if I can make something
smaller, or better, or whatnot.
So I'll give you the same advice I gave before: either use an image or
stop trying to fix the size. Or sit there in a huff waiting for the
universe to change to suit your whim and never actually launch your
web site. Your choice.
Well, as the answer was that I cannot fix the font size, I knew that I needed
another solution. In this case it looks like images are the only solution. Why
would I "sit there in a huff" waiting for anything? Did something I say make it
sound like I wouldn't accept that answer?
Instead wasting bits and time by criticizing my question, either don't post, orpost something useful.


You seem to be under a misunderstanding as to what Usenet is. It's a
forum for discussion. You started a discussion with your post, you
have no control whatsoever over how the discussion procedes from that
point onwards. If you don't like a post, ignore it. If you
consistently don't like posts from a certain author, killfile him.


I know, I just find it so hard to. I feel like I might miss out on something.
'What if' he says something useful? 'What if' I miss out on some excellent
discussion, or not understand another? I just can't bring myself to do it most
of the time. I admit it, I'm a habitual reader.
Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>


Pamel <Pa**@msn.com> <http://commo.de/>
Jul 20 '05 #33

P: n/a
"Harlan Messinger" wrote...
(c) sometimes a question implicitly indicates the possibility
that the person asking it is or may be looking in the wrong direction or
trying to solve the wrong problem or misinterpreting what the problem is or
unaware of the consequences of what he is trying to do, and therefore it is
potentially useful to provide the kinds of answers you were given. Whether
they are *actually* useful to the questioner will depend on the actual
circumstances behind the question and on the attitude of the questioner. And
even if they are ultimately not useful to the questioner, they may be useful
to thousands of others reading the thread.


I am a firm believer in ensuring that the person understands what they are
asking. But I am also a believer in answering the question. My personal belief
is that it would have been much more useful to say:

"This is why this should usually not be done:"
"Here is the answer:"

Instead I got:

"Trying to do that is like trying to do <insert silly situation here>"

The one way informs the person and answers their question in case they
understood what was happening. The other is somewhat insulting.
Pamel
Jul 20 '05 #34

P: n/a
"Harlan Messinger" wrote...
(c) sometimes a question implicitly indicates the possibility
that the person asking it is or may be looking in the wrong direction or
trying to solve the wrong problem or misinterpreting what the problem is or
unaware of the consequences of what he is trying to do, and therefore it is
potentially useful to provide the kinds of answers you were given. Whether
they are *actually* useful to the questioner will depend on the actual
circumstances behind the question and on the attitude of the questioner. And
even if they are ultimately not useful to the questioner, they may be useful
to thousands of others reading the thread.


I am a firm believer in ensuring that the person understands what they are
asking. But I am also a believer in answering the question. My personal belief
is that it would have been much more useful to say:

"This is why this should usually not be done:"
"Here is the answer:"

Instead I got:

"Trying to do that is like trying to do <insert silly situation here>"

The one way informs the person and answers their question in case they
understood what was happening. The other is somewhat insulting.
Pamel
Jul 20 '05 #35

P: n/a
"Darin McGrew" wrote...
When I've needed an image to be sized in proportion to the text, I've sized
the image in ems in my style sheet. But there are downsides to this
technique. If you make the image approximately the size that you expect it
to be displayed normally, then it may look ugly when resized slightly
(either larger or smaller), and it will be badly pixelated at large sizes.
If you make the image significantly larger than you expect it to be
displayed normally, then the result is better when your CSS is used, but
the file size goes up and the results when CSS is disabled/unsupported are
much worse.
I have been less than satisfied with the quality of browser image resizers. In
this case it will be more convenient to make it one fixed size anyway, so I
don't plan on resizing it. However, I may actually set a different image to
dynamically resize.
But for a logo, it makes sense to make the whole thing an image, and to use
appropriate ALT text.


Yes, I learned the evils of forgetting the ALT text long ago. Is there any way
to specify the ALT text within the CSS?
Pamel
Jul 20 '05 #36

P: n/a
"Darin McGrew" wrote...
When I've needed an image to be sized in proportion to the text, I've sized
the image in ems in my style sheet. But there are downsides to this
technique. If you make the image approximately the size that you expect it
to be displayed normally, then it may look ugly when resized slightly
(either larger or smaller), and it will be badly pixelated at large sizes.
If you make the image significantly larger than you expect it to be
displayed normally, then the result is better when your CSS is used, but
the file size goes up and the results when CSS is disabled/unsupported are
much worse.
I have been less than satisfied with the quality of browser image resizers. In
this case it will be more convenient to make it one fixed size anyway, so I
don't plan on resizing it. However, I may actually set a different image to
dynamically resize.
But for a logo, it makes sense to make the whole thing an image, and to use
appropriate ALT text.


Yes, I learned the evils of forgetting the ALT text long ago. Is there any way
to specify the ALT text within the CSS?
Pamel
Jul 20 '05 #37

P: n/a
"Stan Brown" wrote...
It _is_ useful information to tell you that setting fixed font sizes
is evil.
Unless I already know it.
Too bad you're not ready to hear it.


I feel like I point and ask someone if a car works, and they turn to me and tell
me its purple. Useful information, but I already knew it, and it wasn't what I
asked.

I wish my room mate would get out of the bathroom, I really have to pee.
Pamel
Jul 20 '05 #38

P: n/a
"Stan Brown" wrote...
It _is_ useful information to tell you that setting fixed font sizes
is evil.
Unless I already know it.
Too bad you're not ready to hear it.


I feel like I point and ask someone if a car works, and they turn to me and tell
me its purple. Useful information, but I already knew it, and it wasn't what I
asked.

I wish my room mate would get out of the bathroom, I really have to pee.
Pamel
Jul 20 '05 #39

P: n/a
"Alan J. Flavell" wrote...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Stan Brown wrote:
It _is_ useful information to tell you that setting fixed font sizes
is evil.


That too, but surely it's bad enough that it doesnt work?


Was it intended by the W3 to make a font size setting that wouldn't be resized?
Most of the display specifics seem to be pretty vague in their docs.
Pamel
Jul 20 '05 #40

P: n/a
"Alan J. Flavell" wrote...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Stan Brown wrote:
It _is_ useful information to tell you that setting fixed font sizes
is evil.


That too, but surely it's bad enough that it doesnt work?


Was it intended by the W3 to make a font size setting that wouldn't be resized?
Most of the display specifics seem to be pretty vague in their docs.
Pamel
Jul 20 '05 #41

P: n/a
"Pamel" <pa**@msn.com> wrote:
Yes, I learned the evils of forgetting the ALT text long ago. Is there any way
to specify the ALT text within the CSS?


CSS is for decoration, if an image has alt content then it's not
decoration and should be placed in the html.

--
Spartanicus
Jul 20 '05 #42

P: n/a
"Pamel" <pa**@msn.com> wrote:
Yes, I learned the evils of forgetting the ALT text long ago. Is there any way
to specify the ALT text within the CSS?


CSS is for decoration, if an image has alt content then it's not
decoration and should be placed in the html.

--
Spartanicus
Jul 20 '05 #43

P: n/a
"Pamel" <pa**@msn.com> wrote:
"Harlan Messinger" wrote...
(c) sometimes a question implicitly indicates the possibility
that the person asking it is or may be looking in the wrong direction or
trying to solve the wrong problem or misinterpreting what the problem is or
unaware of the consequences of what he is trying to do, and therefore it is
potentially useful to provide the kinds of answers you were given. Whether
they are *actually* useful to the questioner will depend on the actual
circumstances behind the question and on the attitude of the questioner. And
even if they are ultimately not useful to the questioner, they may be useful
to thousands of others reading the thread.


I am a firm believer in ensuring that the person understands what they are
asking. But I am also a believer in answering the question. My personal belief
is that it would have been much more useful to say:

"This is why this should usually not be done:"
"Here is the answer:"


Since part of the answer was, "It can't be done", why are you still
insisting that people should have told you how it can be done?
--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
Jul 20 '05 #44

P: n/a
"Pamel" <pa**@msn.com> wrote:
"Harlan Messinger" wrote...
(c) sometimes a question implicitly indicates the possibility
that the person asking it is or may be looking in the wrong direction or
trying to solve the wrong problem or misinterpreting what the problem is or
unaware of the consequences of what he is trying to do, and therefore it is
potentially useful to provide the kinds of answers you were given. Whether
they are *actually* useful to the questioner will depend on the actual
circumstances behind the question and on the attitude of the questioner. And
even if they are ultimately not useful to the questioner, they may be useful
to thousands of others reading the thread.


I am a firm believer in ensuring that the person understands what they are
asking. But I am also a believer in answering the question. My personal belief
is that it would have been much more useful to say:

"This is why this should usually not be done:"
"Here is the answer:"


Since part of the answer was, "It can't be done", why are you still
insisting that people should have told you how it can be done?
--
Harlan Messinger
Remove the first dot from my e-mail address.
Veuillez ôter le premier point de mon adresse de courriel.
Jul 20 '05 #45

P: n/a
On Sat, 24 Apr 2004, Pamel wrote:
"Alan J. Flavell" wrote...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Stan Brown wrote:
It _is_ useful information to tell you that setting fixed font sizes
is evil.
That too, but surely it's bad enough that it doesnt work?


Was it intended by the W3 to make a font size setting that wouldn't
be resized?


CSS is not only for screen display. pt units (or other absolute
length units) are just the thing for a "print" media stylesheet where
you know the size of paper that will be used.

CSS px units are defined in a way that also makes them usable for a
laser projector throwing your web page onto a cloud, or a tiny
head-mounted display for a wearable computer, neither of which would
benefit from characters being, say, exactly 1/6th of an inch high
(12pt) on the display surface. But em units would be fine for that
too, and CSS px units are hardly anywhere implemented as defined, so
they're probably best avoided (matching text size to an accompanying
image is something of a special case, see recent discussion of that
topic, not that it was anything particularly new).

But as the CSS specification warns us (or those of us who hadn't
already worked it out for themselves):

http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/syndata.html#length-units

| Absolute length units are only useful when the physical properties
| of the output medium are known.

In a WWW situation, you have no real idea about the physical
properties of the output medium. Putting it in broad-brush terms: as
a designer, you can either choose the display situation that you
expect, design for that, and aim to exclude the rest; or you can
choose a design approach that rates to work well enough for all of
them, and can -still- produce the results that you aimed for in the
display situation that you mostly expected. I'd say the latter is the
win/win choice.
Most of the display specifics seem to be pretty vague in their docs.


Defined "resized". To my way of thinking, *all* popular browsers will
resize CSS px and pt units in various ways, depending on how little
they know about the display's effective dpi settings and (in the case
of CSS px units) the viewer's nominal viewing distance. See the CSS
specification of px units, if this isn't already obvious.

The only text size units that don't get resized are em and percent
units: discounting a few bugs in older browser versions (which
probably would be best shielded from any serious CSS anyway), you
-can- rely on those to produce a size referenced to the browser's
configured default size. I.e the user's choice (if they made one) or
their vendor's choice (if they didn't). See "the amazing em unit" by
Todd Fahrner:

The font size chosen by the user as a comfortable default (1 em)
provides more truly useful information about the rendering
environment than all the resolution-sniffing, window-querying,
"open-this-wide" logic you can throw at the problem.

and http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/css2em.htm

have fun
Jul 20 '05 #46

P: n/a
On Sat, 24 Apr 2004, Pamel wrote:
"Alan J. Flavell" wrote...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Stan Brown wrote:
It _is_ useful information to tell you that setting fixed font sizes
is evil.
That too, but surely it's bad enough that it doesnt work?


Was it intended by the W3 to make a font size setting that wouldn't
be resized?


CSS is not only for screen display. pt units (or other absolute
length units) are just the thing for a "print" media stylesheet where
you know the size of paper that will be used.

CSS px units are defined in a way that also makes them usable for a
laser projector throwing your web page onto a cloud, or a tiny
head-mounted display for a wearable computer, neither of which would
benefit from characters being, say, exactly 1/6th of an inch high
(12pt) on the display surface. But em units would be fine for that
too, and CSS px units are hardly anywhere implemented as defined, so
they're probably best avoided (matching text size to an accompanying
image is something of a special case, see recent discussion of that
topic, not that it was anything particularly new).

But as the CSS specification warns us (or those of us who hadn't
already worked it out for themselves):

http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/syndata.html#length-units

| Absolute length units are only useful when the physical properties
| of the output medium are known.

In a WWW situation, you have no real idea about the physical
properties of the output medium. Putting it in broad-brush terms: as
a designer, you can either choose the display situation that you
expect, design for that, and aim to exclude the rest; or you can
choose a design approach that rates to work well enough for all of
them, and can -still- produce the results that you aimed for in the
display situation that you mostly expected. I'd say the latter is the
win/win choice.
Most of the display specifics seem to be pretty vague in their docs.


Defined "resized". To my way of thinking, *all* popular browsers will
resize CSS px and pt units in various ways, depending on how little
they know about the display's effective dpi settings and (in the case
of CSS px units) the viewer's nominal viewing distance. See the CSS
specification of px units, if this isn't already obvious.

The only text size units that don't get resized are em and percent
units: discounting a few bugs in older browser versions (which
probably would be best shielded from any serious CSS anyway), you
-can- rely on those to produce a size referenced to the browser's
configured default size. I.e the user's choice (if they made one) or
their vendor's choice (if they didn't). See "the amazing em unit" by
Todd Fahrner:

The font size chosen by the user as a comfortable default (1 em)
provides more truly useful information about the rendering
environment than all the resolution-sniffing, window-querying,
"open-this-wide" logic you can throw at the problem.

and http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/css2em.htm

have fun
Jul 20 '05 #47

P: n/a
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
CSS is not only for screen display. pt units (or other absolute
length units) are just the thing for a "print" media stylesheet where
you know the size of paper that will be used.


I've always been nervous about "pt" in print style sheets. I figure
that someone may be visually impaired and need to see e.g. 24-point
body text.

Am I worrying too much? Should I go ahead and use pt in the print
styles, and leave it to users to override that with a user style
sheet if they need to?

--
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 #48

P: n/a
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
CSS is not only for screen display. pt units (or other absolute
length units) are just the thing for a "print" media stylesheet where
you know the size of paper that will be used.


I've always been nervous about "pt" in print style sheets. I figure
that someone may be visually impaired and need to see e.g. 24-point
body text.

Am I worrying too much? Should I go ahead and use pt in the print
styles, and leave it to users to override that with a user style
sheet if they need to?

--
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 #49

P: n/a
On Sat, 24 Apr 2004, Stan Brown wrote:
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
CSS is not only for screen display. pt units (or other absolute
length units) are just the thing for a "print" media stylesheet where
you know the size of paper that will be used.
I've always been nervous about "pt" in print style sheets.


Well, print style sheets are probably best selected and applied by the
recipient. I'm sick of getting PDF files that were designed for US
Letter paper, and are too wide for A4; and I'm sure US recipients are
sick of getting faxes from this University (the address and phone
number on the corporate A4 fax sheet, designed for the University at
considerable expense by design consultants, were at the very foot of
the page, and got completely chopped off by US letter-size faxes. So
much for design consultants...)
I figure that someone may be visually impaired and need to see e.g.
24-point body text.


Fair comment, but I figure that the place to fix that, when it's
needed, is in the recipient's client agent. Once they've previewed it
at a size which they can cope with, they're pretty much free to do
whatever they want with it. The author's print-mode stylesheet is
more in the nature of a proposal or suggestion, than a specification.

In most scenarios, printed copies are produced afterwards, after
previewing by their normal means of browsing. I'll do what's in my
power to help them browse the pages initially (e.g by using em units
to accord with their choice of font size), that's my priority.

In a situation where web pages were printed off, e.g in a village
computer point, and then circulated to the villagers on paper, it
would be for whoever operated the computer point to determine what
size was appropriate for their readership. Once the printouts are
made, every reader in -that- scenario has to make do with the same
size of text, right? So we're back to the dilemma of paper
publishing.

TBH I'm not currently offering a print media stylesheet, so I'm really
in no position to be dogmatic, I'm only doing my best to respond to
your question.

What had I tried to say was that there did seem to be *some* logic in
using pt sizes in a stylesheet that was -for- a known paper size.
But as I can only guess what paper size you like to use (quite apart
from knowing about your eyesight), that isn't necessarily a
recommendation from me for actually using pt sizes in a WWW context.
Does that make some kind of sense?
Jul 20 '05 #50

98 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.