How can I stop XP 'Large Fonts' affecting web page?

[Chris Tomlinson]

Hi all,

Hope someone is able to help. I notice when I design a basic HTML page, it
is affected if a WinXP user has Large Fonts set in their Control Panel.
However some pages, e.g. www.bbc.co.uk/news are unaffected by this I think.
They are definitely not affected by changing the font size within the
browser.

Because I want to add tables, which will word-wrap incorrectly if the font
size is changed, how can I disable allowing the browser to do this?

Basically I want the font size to stay how I designed it. If they need it
bigger, they can use the zoom option in more recent browsers.

Thanks in advance for any helpful constructive replies :)
--
Thanks,
Me

I recommend www.Superhighstreet.com/home Finds anything or they pay for it!

[Janwillem Borleffs]

Chris Tomlinson wrote:

Thanks in advance for any helpful constructive replies :)

My 'constructive reply' consists of nothing else than encouraging you to
leave the ability to increase the font size alone and try to improve the
table layout for variable font sizes. This way, people with poor eye-sight
may also use your site...
JW

[Rik]

Janwillem Borleffs wrote:

Chris Tomlinson wrote:

Thanks in advance for any helpful constructive replies :)

My 'constructive reply' consists of nothing else than encouraging you
to leave the ability to increase the font size alone and try to
improve the table layout for variable font sizes. This way, people
with poor eye-sight may also use your site...

That's exactly right. There is a reason why people choose a large font-size.
Just use em instead of px in CSS if you're afraid it will compromise your
lay-out.

Grtz,
--
Rik Wasmus

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

In alt.html, Chris Tomlinson wrote:

Hope someone is able to help. I notice when I design a basic HTML
page, it is affected if a WinXP
...or any other version of any graphical OS..
user has Large Fonts set in their Control Panel. However some pages,
e.g. www.bbc.co.uk/news are unaffected by this I think. They are
definitely not affected by changing the font size within the browser.

When I increase the size in my browser, that bbc page conforms. You must
be using Internet Explorer, which will not resize fonts set in pixels or
points. Try it in, oh, say, Firefox, and press Control-Plus a couple of
times, or with Opera and pick 120% from the little sizer doodad.
Because I want to add tables, which will word-wrap incorrectly if the
font size is changed, how can I disable allowing the browser to do
this?
What will your visually impaired visitors do? And, unless the visitor is
using IE, they all can easily override your fixed font size. (So can IE,
but it is not apparently easy, therefore the masses don't know how.)
Basically I want the font size to stay how I designed it. If they
need it bigger, they can use the zoom option in more recent browsers.
Web pages used on the World Wide Web should be designed for the
visitors, not the author.
Thanks in advance for any helpful constructive replies :)

Set your body { font-size: 100%; } and use slightly larger for headings,
and slightly smaller for legalese. Then everyone should be able to read
it. Oh, and don't use Verdana like the bbc does.

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer

[Chris Tomlinson]

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:I_********************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

In alt.html, Chris Tomlinson wrote:

Hi, thanks for the feedback.

Because I want to add tables, which will word-wrap incorrectly if the
font size is changed, how can I disable allowing the browser to do
this?

What will your visually impaired visitors do? And, unless the visitor is
using IE, they all can easily override your fixed font size. (So can IE,
but it is not apparently easy, therefore the masses don't know how.)

I have thought about accessibility, and as I said, most new browsers use a
'zoom' feature which will allow them to read everything. The difference is
it also zooms the tables, so the formatting doesn't go wrong. However if
they just adjust the text size, then the text becomes too big for the table.

How is it supposed to be possible to use a table like that at
www.superhighstreet.com and yet have it viewable in different font sizes? I
can't see this is doable. :-S

Basically I want the font size to stay how I designed it. If they
need it bigger, they can use the zoom option in more recent browsers.

Web pages used on the World Wide Web should be designed for the
visitors, not the author.

If you can help show me how to do it, I am happy to take that on-board.

Thanks in advance for any helpful constructive replies :)

Set your body { font-size: 100%; } and use slightly larger for headings,
and slightly smaller for legalese. Then everyone should be able to read
it. Oh, and don't use Verdana like the bbc does.

Thanks, but what do you meant "Set your body { font-size: 100%; }"? Surely
this will still mean text becomes too big for tables if they increase their
font size?

And what's the problem with Verdana? Best to validate a "don't do this"
comment with a reason, then people can understand why not to. :D

Thanks for your guidance.

Chris

[Chris Tomlinson]

"Janwillem Borleffs" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:44***********************@news.euronet.nl...

Chris Tomlinson wrote:

Thanks in advance for any helpful constructive replies :)

My 'constructive reply' consists of nothing else than encouraging you to
leave the ability to increase the font size alone and try to improve the
table layout for variable font sizes. This way, people with poor eye-sight
may also use your site...

Thanks JW. In case you miss my other post, I have thought about
accessibility, and as I said, most new browsers use a
'zoom' feature which will allow them to read everything. The difference is
it also zooms the tables, so the formatting doesn't go wrong. However if
they just adjust the text size, then the text becomes too big for the table.

How is it supposed to be possible to use a table like that at
www.superhighstreet.com and yet have it viewable in different font sizes? I
can't see this is doable. :-S
--
Thanks,
Me

I recommend www.Superhighstreet.com/home Finds anything or they pay for it!

[Chris Tomlinson]

"Rik" <lu************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1b***************************@news1.tudelft.n l...

Janwillem Borleffs wrote:

Chris Tomlinson wrote:

Thanks in advance for any helpful constructive replies :)

My 'constructive reply' consists of nothing else than encouraging you
to leave the ability to increase the font size alone and try to
improve the table layout for variable font sizes. This way, people
with poor eye-sight may also use your site...

That's exactly right. There is a reason why people choose a large
font-size.
Just use em instead of px in CSS if you're afraid it will compromise your
lay-out.

Cheers Rik, can you elaborate as I'm new to this. How do I 'use em in CSS'?
In layman's terms, what should I swap with what? E.g. at the moment I have
something like <font size="2">
--
Thanks,
Me

I recommend www.Superhighstreet.com/home Finds anything or they pay for it!

[Ian Collins]

Chris Tomlinson wrote:

"Rik" <lu************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1b***************************@news1.tudelft.n l...

Janwillem Borleffs wrote:

Chris Tomlinson wrote:

Thanks in advance for any helpful constructive replies :)
My 'constructive reply' consists of nothing else than encouraging you
to leave the ability to increase the font size alone and try to
improve the table layout for variable font sizes. This way, people
with poor eye-sight may also use your site...

That's exactly right. There is a reason why people choose a large
font-size.
Just use em instead of px in CSS if you're afraid it will compromise your
lay-out.

Cheers Rik, can you elaborate as I'm new to this. How do I 'use em in CSS'?
In layman's terms, what should I swap with what? E.g. at the moment I have
something like <font size="2">

If you are using CSS, you can use "2px" or "2em", where px = pixels and
em = the value font-size for the element.

--
Ian Collins.

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

In alt.html, Chris Tomlinson wrote:

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote

In alt.html, Chris Tomlinson wrote:
Hi, thanks for the feedback.

Because I want to add tables, which will word-wrap incorrectly if
the font size is changed, how can I disable allowing the browser to
do this?
Forgot to ask: what do you want to use these tables for? True tabular
data?

What will your visually impaired visitors do? And, unless the
visitor is using IE, they all can easily override your fixed font
size. (So can IE, but it is not apparently easy, therefore the
masses don't know how.)

I have thought about accessibility, and as I said, most new browsers
use a 'zoom' feature which will allow them to read everything. The
difference is it also zooms the tables, so the formatting doesn't go
wrong. However if they just adjust the text size, then the text
becomes too big for the table.

Of the major browsers, the only one I know of with a 'zoom' feature is
Opera. The Firefox/Mozilla family uses Control-Plus to increase text
only.
How is it supposed to be possible to use a table like that at
www.superhighstreet.com and yet have it viewable in different font
sizes? I can't see this is doable. :-S
Oh, I see. You want to use tables for layout. Sorry, can't help you with
that. I've moved into the 21st century. <g>

The superhighstreet site is using ancient <font> elements, which I have
not used since .. probably 1998?

<font face="Verdana" size="2" color="#FFFFFF">
Basically I want the font size to stay how I designed it. If they
need it bigger, they can use the zoom option in more recent browsers.

Web pages used on the World Wide Web should be designed for the
visitors, not the author.

If you can help show me how to do it, I am happy to take that on-board.

Google the groups for creating design layouts using <div>s and CSS.

Thanks in advance for any helpful constructive replies :)

Set your body { font-size: 100%; } and use slightly larger for headings,
and slightly smaller for legalese. Then everyone should be able to read
it. Oh, and don't use Verdana like the bbc does.

Thanks, but what do you meant "Set your body { font-size: 100%; }"?

That would be the CSS to assign the main font to your visitors' default
size. Or ... are you not aware of what CSS is?

Rik suggested using 'em' for sizing; I would recommend percentages,
though, due to a bug in some versions of IE where a resize from say,
smaller to medium, with *double* the display size. Use em for widths of
columns and boxes, though; that's ok.
Surely this will still mean text becomes too big for tables if they
increase their font size?
As long as you don't assign fixed pixel sizes to the tables, they will
expand with the larger fonts.

http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign
And what's the problem with Verdana? Best to validate a "don't do this"
comment with a reason, then people can understand why not to. :D

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html

These points are all discussed here very frequently. Almost daily, it
seems. ;-)

Have a look at this one site of mine. The only tables you will find are
for, as expected, tabular data. The listings of motorcycles, the store
hours... and it pretty much doesn't care how wide your browser window
is, either.

http://countryrode.com/

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer

[Neredbojias]

To further the education of mankind, "Chris Tomlinson" <an**@anon.com>
vouchsafed:

My 'constructive reply' consists of nothing else than encouraging you
to leave the ability to increase the font size alone and try to
improve the table layout for variable font sizes. This way, people
with poor eye-sight may also use your site...

Thanks JW. In case you miss my other post, I have thought about
accessibility, and as I said, most new browsers use a
'zoom' feature which will allow them to read everything. The
difference is it also zooms the tables, so the formatting doesn't go
wrong. However if they just adjust the text size, then the text
becomes too big for the table.

How is it supposed to be possible to use a table like that at
www.superhighstreet.com and yet have it viewable in different font
sizes? I can't see this is doable. :-S

superhighstreet doesn't "zoom the tables"; they are fixed width and the
text flows, filling space vertically with size. Although the markup is
quite archaic, the site works fairly well for a dinosaur. (Opera may
"zoom-and-relign" the basic graphic buffer, but that isn't mainstream
browser behaviour. While a nice feature, it should be coupled with
straight font-resizing also.)

Incidentally, in something like <font size="4">text</font>, the font-size
_is_ relative, just like em units. But that type of markup was deprecated
years ago.

--
Neredbojias
Infinity has its limits.

[Toby Inkster]

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

Of the major browsers, the only one I know of with a 'zoom' feature is
Opera. The Firefox/Mozilla family uses Control-Plus to increase text
only.

The IE 7 beta does, and I think it's safe to assume that IE 7 final will
too, but I don't think it's wise to rely on visitors having that browser
installed -- after all, it's currently only available for WinXPsp2 (i.e.
not Win98, WinME, Win2K or the more modern Windows 2003).

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Now Playing ~ ./counting_crows/recovering_the_satellites/09_another_horsedreamers_blues.ogg

[Randy Webb]

Toby Inkster said the following on 5/28/2006 5:32 AM:

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

Of the major browsers, the only one I know of with a 'zoom' feature is
Opera. The Firefox/Mozilla family uses Control-Plus to increase text
only.

The IE 7 beta does, and I think it's safe to assume that IE 7 final will
too, but I don't think it's wise to rely on visitors having that browser
installed -- after all, it's currently only available for WinXPsp2 (i.e.
not Win98, WinME, Win2K or the more modern Windows 2003).

Who still supports outdated antiquated software other than IE6?

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

[Lasse Reichstein Nielsen]

"Chris Tomlinson" <an**@anon.com> writes:

How is it supposed to be possible to use a table like that at
www.superhighstreet.com and yet have it viewable in different font sizes? I
can't see this is doable. :-S

Looking at that page, I don't see anything that should be a table.
They do have a lot of *lists* though.

The rounded boxes scale badly because the images define the width.
You can do that with CSS and a lot of nested divs, also so that it
scales:
<URL:http://www.sovavsiti.cz/css/corners.html>

The two-column design in the lower box is a classic CSS "problem".
Just google for "CSS" and "columns" and you'll find lots and lots.

/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen - lr*@hotpop.com
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Sun, 28 May 2006, Randy Webb wrote:

Who still supports outdated antiquated software other than IE6?

Many older browser/versions are still quite capable of browsing the
content of decently-made web pages, even if they don't produce the
cosmetic results which modern browsers could achieve. Better to
"support" proper web design techniques, than to "support" specific
browser brands and versions.[1]

But what on Earth do you think that question has got to do with the
topic of this thread - the appropriate choice of text size units for
web pages?

[1] See e.g http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/essence.html

[Chris Tomlinson]

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:8O********************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

Oh, I see. You want to use tables for layout. Sorry, can't help you with
that. I've moved into the 21st century. <g>

The superhighstreet site is using ancient <font> elements, which I have
not used since .. probably 1998?
<font face="Verdana" size="2" color="#FFFFFF">

Thanks all of you for your advice so far. It is true, I am new to web
design and building Superhighstreet has been a learning experience, however
I have mainly used FrontPage 2003 which by default has inserted that usage
of fonts.

I am keen to make my browser more compatible, however I still think it is
too much to redo those tables with corner shadow images - there still seems
to be debate as to whether nested divs are a better option. So many sites
use what I am using, so for now if that's good enough for them it's good
enough for me.

But I do agree that users without IE7 or Opera should be able to enlarge the
text if they don't have a page zoom option.

So, next question: Is there an easy way to convert my page to use CSS? I
have to say I don't know much about CSS as yet, but are there by any chance
any 'converter' pieces of software or web pages? Doubt it but worth asking
:D
--
Thanks,
Me

I recommend www.Superhighstreet.com/home Finds anything or they pay for it!

[Randy Webb]

Alan J. Flavell said the following on 5/28/2006 6:48 AM:

On Sun, 28 May 2006, Randy Webb wrote:

Who still supports outdated antiquated software other than IE6?
Many older browser/versions are still quite capable of browsing the
content of decently-made web pages, even if they don't produce the
cosmetic results which modern browsers could achieve.

Plain text has that effect...

Let me ask you this though, do you still support Netscape 4? And if so -
why. If not, why not?

Technology evolves and those who choose to stay in the dark ages deserve
to stay in the dark.
Better to "support" proper web design techniques, than to "support"
specific browser brands and versions.[1]
True. And if even half, no make that a quarter, of the current "web
developers" understood that, this conversation would never have been
started to begin with.
But what on Earth do you think that question has got to do with the
topic of this thread - the appropriate choice of text size units for
web pages?

The same thing that topic has to do with Javascript and
comp.lang.javascript where I am reading it from.

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

[Chris Tomlinson]

"Neredbojias" <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html> wrote in
message news:Xn**********************************@208.49.8 0.251...

Incidentally, in something like <font size="4">text</font>, the font-size
_is_ relative, just like em units. But that type of markup was deprecated
years ago.

Thanks for the feedback. I feel if it's good enough for the BBC to fix
their font size, it may be good enough for me. Do you have any simple line
I can add to the HTML to emulate the fact that theirs doesn't change size
(at least in IE6/7)?
--
Thanks,
Me

I recommend www.Superhighstreet.com/home Finds anything or they pay for it!

[David Dorward]

Randy Webb wrote:

Let me ask you this though, do you still support Netscape 4?
For a definition of "support" that comes to "entirely accessible, even if it
doesn't look all that pretty".
And if so - why.
Why not? It doesn't take any extra effort on my part.
Technology evolves and those who choose to stay in the dark ages deserve
to stay in the dark.

What about those who have no choice?

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

[David Dorward]

Chris Tomlinson wrote:

Thanks for the feedback. I feel if it's good enough for the BBC to fix
their font size

I've just skimmed the style sheets of the BBC homepage, font-size appears to
be defined in ems throughout.

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Chris Tomlinson <an**@anon.com> scripsit:

<font face="Verdana" size="2" color="#FFFFFF">

- - I have mainly used FrontPage 2003 which by default has
inserted that usage of fonts.
No, it hasn't. You have used FrontPage's font-oriented formatting instead of
the menus and buttons that operate on more logical constructs.

Contrary to widespread belief, it is possible to create well-designed,
structurally sound pages using FrontPage. It isn't even difficult. Most
people who use FrontPage don't use such options, but that's a different
issue.

If you use font formatting commands, FrontPage converts them to
font-oriented markup. It needs to, more or less.

FrontPage even has tools for constructing a style sheet via menus. However,
it might be easier to type in CSS code by hand.
But I do agree that users without IE7 or Opera should be able to
enlarge the text if they don't have a page zoom option.
Page zooming and font resizability are _not_ two alternative ways to achieve
the same thing. They are two different features, and the existence of one of
them is no excuse for making your best to prevent the other from working.
So, next question: Is there an easy way to convert my page to use
CSS?

No. You should probably redesign it from scratch, if you have now used
FrontPage's presentational features.

Follow-ups trimmed. This thread has nothing to do with JavaScript-

[Stephen Poley]

On Sun, 28 May 2006 11:32:14 GMT, "Chris Tomlinson" <an**@anon.com>
wrote:

"Neredbojias" <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html> wrote in
message news:Xn**********************************@208.49.8 0.251...

Incidentally, in something like <font size="4">text</font>, the font-size
_is_ relative, just like em units. But that type of markup was deprecated
years ago.

Thanks for the feedback. I feel if it's good enough for the BBC to fix
their font size, it may be good enough for me.

It's rather the other way around. If ones content is sufficiently
important / well-known, one can more easily get away with inferior
layout.

In fact I've just tried out the BBC site in IE: it's a bit weird. The
index pages and side-bars seem to have fixed size text, but the main
article text and some other components are resizable.

--
Stephen Poley

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Sun, 28 May 2006, Randy Webb wrote:

Alan J. Flavell said the following on 5/28/2006 6:48 AM:

On Sun, 28 May 2006, Randy Webb wrote:

Who still supports outdated antiquated software other than IE6?
Many older browser/versions are still quite capable of browsing
the content of decently-made web pages, even if they don't produce
the cosmetic results which modern browsers could achieve.

Plain text has that effect...

Congratulations, you've just produced yet another slight variation on
the HTML Straw Man Arguments, that have been refuted repeatedly over
the years. Do *try* to get up to speed before arguing, please.
Let me ask you this though, do you still support Netscape 4?
I've still got a copy installed, and I would fire it up if someone
complained about the results on an otherwise non-challenging page.
Haven't *needed* to do that for quite some time.

I hide my stylesheet from it, so it doesn't get a chance to mess up
the CSS. If I was "supporting" it, I could feed it a custom
stylesheet to improve its cosmetics, but I don't - its users still get
the content (text, images, and other media) as intended, i.e using its
default styling. Is that "support", or isn't it? You decide.

My demonstration page of "simple Ruby annotation", which is meant to
be a significant challenge to browsers, does exactly what it's
designed to do on non-capable browsers, which includes NN4. We call
that sort of thing "graceful fallback".

NN4's support for i18n forms submission is miserable, and I make no
effort to work-around its bugs in that regard. But if folks submit
us-ascii data, it'll be processed correctly, and that's all that the
formal specifications say you're entitled to rely on.

Does that answer your question?
Technology evolves and those who choose to stay in the dark ages
deserve to stay in the dark.

Graceful fallback is there for other reasons, but it does have the
useful consequence of appearing to support these older browsers, even
though it doesn't normally need extra work.

At least, NN4, shielded from CSS, will display all of my content in a
way that anyone can access it. IE6, if allowed to process CSS, is
quite likely to prevent the reader from accessing all of the content
(you'll know for example about the "peekaboo bug"?).

But what on Earth do you think that question has got to do with
the topic of this thread - the appropriate choice of text size
units for web pages?

The same thing that topic has to do with Javascript and
comp.lang.javascript where I am reading it from.

So you had enough wit to complain about a cross-posted article, but
not enough to set narrowed followups? I guess that figures.

[Alan J. Flavell]

[f'ups narrowed]

On Sun, 28 May 2006, Chris Tomlinson wrote:

I feel if it's good enough for the BBC to fix
their font size, it may be good enough for me.
The BBC has rather an unfortunate history of web design.

As I remember their web pages in the early days, they were
inflexible, brittle, inaccessible.

Then they made a Big Thing of server-side accessibility features,
which would deliver a number of different variants based on the same
underlying content. Each variant was inflexible, but meant to be
usable by some particular subset of users. And the technique was
specific to their site(s).

This earned them some entirely unjustified bonus points in the
accessibility field, relative to sites that were offering a single,
flexible, design that adapted *itself*, calmly and quietly, reasonably
well to a range of client needs. A technique that can work, and work
in the *same* way, across the many web sites that a user will need to
deal with.

Remember, your readers spend most of their time on *other* web sites:
they don't want or need some viewing technique that works for your
site and only your site.

As time has progressed, however, and as the web has become (as it
seems to me) a more significant part of the BBC's overall media
dissemination strategy - rather than being a mere sideline of little
importance - they have been moving towards a more appropriate
flexibility of design.

It would be unwise to take your cue from one of their earlier
mistakes, rather than moving ahead of them as they move towards more
appropriate web design techniques.
Do you have any simple line I can add to the HTML to emulate the
fact that theirs doesn't change size (at least in IE6/7)?

I'm not sure that I exactly understand what you're asking for, but
whatever you manage to find, I have a user stylesheet waiting to
outvote you. But that doesn't excuse using authoring techniques which
a large proportion of users don't yet understand how to outvote.

Aim at flexible design - it works: work *with* it - stop hankering for
something that is badly supported, and only produces a good result
when it isn't working as you intend.

[petermichaux]

Chris Tomlinson wrote:

CSS

Hi Chris,

I haven't read all of this thread but if you are interested in learning
about CSS I recommend you read CSS: The Definitive Guide by Meyer from
O'Reilly. For specific examples or tutorial type books see Bullet Proof
Web Design by Dan Cedarholm. It is a really great book and easy to
read. For inspiration, CSS Zen Garden is a great book and website too
(http://www.csszengarden.com/). One of the design examples is fully
elastic and would be great for visually impared. The mailing list you
can join at http://css-discuss.org/ is the best place for help with
CSS.

Peter

[John G Harris]

In article <Rt********************@comcast.com>, Randy Webb
<Hi************@aol.com> writes

<snip>

Who still supports outdated antiquated software other than IE6?

So some of your customers can't read your Terms and Conditions. Have you
discussed this with your lawyer ?

John
--
Downloading this news article indicates that you agree to these terms and
conditions.

[Chris Tomlinson]

<pe**********@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@j55g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...

Chris Tomlinson wrote:

CSS

Hi Chris,

I haven't read all of this thread but if you are interested in learning
about CSS I recommend you read CSS: The Definitive Guide by Meyer from
O'Reilly. For specific examples or tutorial type books see Bullet Proof
Web Design by Dan Cedarholm. It is a really great book and easy to
read. For inspiration, CSS Zen Garden is a great book and website too
(http://www.csszengarden.com/). One of the design examples is fully
elastic and would be great for visually impared. The mailing list you
can join at http://css-discuss.org/ is the best place for help with
CSS.

Peter

Thanks Peter, that's very helpful.

I wonder, do you know of any converters either available now or in
development, that will take current HTML code, and convert (find & replace
basically) the appropriate tags, for CSS placed in the header?

It can't be that hard to do, and I'd be surprised if someone hadn't had a
crack at it. Would really help those of us with sites ready designed.
--
Thanks,
Me

I recommend www.Superhighstreet.com/home Finds anything or they pay for it!

[VK]

Chris Tomlinson wrote:

I wonder, do you know of any converters either available now or in
development, that will take current HTML code, and convert (find & replace
basically) the appropriate tags, for CSS placed in the header?

Guys, it is a honnor to see c.l.j. as a place to discuss burning
questions of any web-related kinds. Still all this thread would be much
better suited for say <comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets>
Not a Usenet cop, just curious trespasser.

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Sun, 28 May 2006, Stephen Poley wrote:

In fact I've just tried out the BBC site in IE: it's a bit weird.
The index pages and side-bars seem to have fixed size text, but the
main article text and some other components are resizable.

Could you be more specific about where you saw that? When I look at
www.bbc.co.uk, the texts, where they are sized at all, seem to be
sized in em units, which is good, and IE seems happy to re-size them
at my choice. My complaint would be that it's refusing to fit in the
window width that I gave it, and forcing a left/right scroll bar,
without any evident content-related need to.

On the other hand news.bbc.co.uk seems to do all(?) of its text sizing
in px units, with the expected negative consequences in IE. Of course
that too refuses to fit in my chosen window width...

Neither of them seem capable of making up their mind whether they are
HTML/4.01 or XHTML/1.0 Appendix C, which at least partly accounts for
their many syntax errors. It's kind of pathetic that they have a load
of kinky browser-specific adjustments in their stylesheet, including
the notorious "Tantek hack", and yet they seem incapable of producing
elementary HTML with halfways accurate syntax. But I digress.

[Toby Inkster]

Chris Tomlinson wrote:

It can't be that hard to do, and I'd be surprised if someone hadn't had a
crack at it.

Using presentation HTML (e.g. FONT elements, table-based layout) and using
semantic HTML plus CSS are two totally different processes.

A semantically marked up document has more information in it than a
presentationally marked up document. For example:

<h1>Foo</h1>

tells us that "Foo" is a heading for the content below it. "Foo" will
probably continue to be the general topic of all other text until another
H1 element is encountered. Any H2, H3, etc elements further down the page
are probably sub-topics of "Foo".

On the other hand:

<font size=6><b>Foo</b></font><br><br>

tells us far less. It just says that the author wanted the browser to
display "Foo" in some big, bold text; but with no explanation of why this
was desired.

So going from semantic HTML to presentational HTML means that you're
losing information. Conversely, to go from presentational HTML to semantic
HTML means you have to add in some information -- e.g. specify in the
document which parts are headings, which parts are paragraphs, etc. Adding
in that information requires human input; which might be why there are no
tools that can simply transform presentation markup to semantic markup.

Going the other way -- converting semantic markup with CSS into
presentational markup -- might be possible to automate with some tool like
what you describe, but it's not clear why anyone would want to do so.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

[Warren Sarle]

In article <I_********************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> writes:

...
What will your visually impaired visitors do? And, unless the visitor is
using IE, they all can easily override your fixed font size. (So can IE,
but it is not apparently easy, therefore the masses don't know how.)

In IE6, click on Tools>Internet Options.
Then on the General tab, click on Accessibility.
You can override font size, font style, or both.
To change font size, click on View>Text size.
Not terribly difficult by Microsoft standards, but
Firefox certainly makes it easier.

--

Warren S. Sarle SAS Institute Inc. The opinions expressed here
sa****@unx.sas.com SAS Campus Drive are mine and not necessarily
[phone] Cary, NC 27513, USA those of SAS Institute.

[Alan J. Flavell]

[f'ups narrowed]

On Sun, 28 May 2006, Chris Tomlinson wrote:

I wonder, do you know of any converters either available now or in
development, that will take current HTML code, and convert (find &
replace basically) the appropriate tags, for CSS placed in the
header?
That doesn't really make much sense. Browser support for HTML/3.2-ish
stuff isn't going to go away any time soon, so if you've got a
quantity of that legacy stuff you might as well leave it that way. At
least until you're ready to radically rebuild it.

Properly-engineered HTML "Strict", marked up for its logical content
(such markup will mostly be missing from presentationally-composed
HTML/3.2) really should be built from the ground up. Trying to hack
existing presentational stuff into some kind of "equivalent" with CSS
isn't going to produce an improved product, really.

As spotted in another place recently:

|| Momentan leidet Dein Code arg an Divitis und verkapptem
|| Präsentationalismus...

(approx) "Currently your code is suffering seriously from divitis
and disguised presentationalism".

And that would be what you'd get, from any automated conversion.

It needs additional information input to supply the logical structure,
and get substantial benefit out of the separation.
It can't be that hard to do,

On the contrary: I'd be inclined to compare it with trying to turn
cheese into fresh whipped cream. Both of them are milk products, it's
true: but if you want whipped cream then I'd suggest using fresh
starting materials, not trying to start from another end-product.
That's not so far from what you'd be trying in the attempt to turn
presentational HTML/3.2 into logical "strict" HTML with CSS
presentation(s).

[Neredbojias]

To further the education of mankind, "Chris Tomlinson" <an**@anon.com>
vouchsafed:

Incidentally, in something like <font size="4">text</font>, the
font-size _is_ relative, just like em units. But that type of markup
was deprecated years ago.

Thanks for the feedback. I feel if it's good enough for the BBC to
fix their font size, it may be good enough for me. Do you have any
simple line I can add to the HTML to emulate the fact that theirs
doesn't change size (at least in IE6/7)?

Actually, in the link you listed that I visited, the font size _did_
change, and the page didn't look too page in the doing. What specific
page-url are you referring to?

In any event, it's impossible to stop font-resizing in most browsers.
Opera (et al) even resizes images. And with IE's dwindling market-share,
other browsers are a force to be considered.

--
Neredbojias
Infinity has its limits.

[Chris Tomlinson]

"Lasse Reichstein Nielsen" <lr*@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:sl**********@hotpop.com...

"Chris Tomlinson" <an**@anon.com> writes:

How is it supposed to be possible to use a table like that at
www.superhighstreet.com and yet have it viewable in different font sizes?
I
can't see this is doable. :-S
Looking at that page, I don't see anything that should be a table.
They do have a lot of *lists* though.

The rounded boxes scale badly because the images define the width.
You can do that with CSS and a lot of nested divs, also so that it
scales:
<URL:http://www.sovavsiti.cz/css/corners.html>

Thanks - I like the way that's done. Will hope to get round to it when I
have some more time.
The two-column design in the lower box is a classic CSS "problem".
Just google for "CSS" and "columns" and you'll find lots and lots.
Thanks for the feedback.
--
Thanks,
Me

I recommend www.Superhighstreet.com/home Finds anything or they pay for it!

/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen - lr*@hotpop.com
DHTML Death Colors:
<URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'

[Chris Tomlinson]

"Neredbojias" <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html> wrote in
message news:Xn**********************************@208.49.8 0.251...

To further the education of mankind, "Chris Tomlinson" <an**@anon.com>
vouchsafed:

Incidentally, in something like <font size="4">text</font>, the
font-size _is_ relative, just like em units. But that type of markup
was deprecated years ago.
Thanks for the feedback. I feel if it's good enough for the BBC to
fix their font size, it may be good enough for me. Do you have any
simple line I can add to the HTML to emulate the fact that theirs
doesn't change size (at least in IE6/7)?

Actually, in the link you listed that I visited, the font size _did_
change, and the page didn't look too page in the doing. What specific
page-url are you referring to?

Not sure what you thought u typed there, but if you mean the BBC link, it's
http://news.bbc.co.uk that doesn't resize fonts in IE.

If you mean my site, I have changed www.superhighstreet.com to use px since
I started this thread, so it shouldn't change size in IE and shouldn't look
too bad in other browsers.
--
Thanks,
Me

I recommend www.Superhighstreet.com/home Finds anything or they pay for it!

In any event, it's impossible to stop font-resizing in most browsers.
Opera (et al) even resizes images. And with IE's dwindling market-share,
other browsers are a force to be considered.

--
Neredbojias
Infinity has its limits.

[Chaddy2222]

Chris Tomlinson wrote:

"Neredbojias" <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html> wrote in
message news:Xn**********************************@208.49.8 0.251...

To further the education of mankind, "Chris Tomlinson" <an**@anon.com>
vouchsafed:

Incidentally, in something like <font size="4">text</font>, the
font-size _is_ relative, just like em units. But that type of markup
was deprecated years ago.

Thanks for the feedback. I feel if it's good enough for the BBC to
fix their font size, it may be good enough for me. Do you have any
simple line I can add to the HTML to emulate the fact that theirs
doesn't change size (at least in IE6/7)?

No and you can't do that. People who want to increase font size will be
able to regardless of whatever messures you put in place.

Actually, in the link you listed that I visited, the font size _did_
change, and the page didn't look too page in the doing. What specific
page-url are you referring to?
Not sure what you thought u typed there, but if you mean the BBC link, it's
http://news.bbc.co.uk that doesn't resize fonts in IE.

If you mean my site, I have changed www.superhighstreet.com to use px since
I started this thread, so it shouldn't change size in IE and shouldn't look
too bad in other browsers.

Yeah, but it does not look that good eather, try increasing the font
three or four times.
Take a look at http://www.deakin.edu.au to notice what can be done with
CSS.
I myself are still looking in to the use of CSS but are planning a
re-design useing it shortly.
I should mention that you need to use alt text on all your images.
http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc/design-tips2.html
also read, http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc/design-tips7.html
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc --
Thanks,
Me

I recommend www.Superhighstreet.com/home Finds anything or they pay for it!

In any event, it's impossible to stop font-resizing in most browsers.
Opera (et al) even resizes images. And with IE's dwindling market-share,
other browsers are a force to be considered.

--
Neredbojias
Infinity has its limits.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Chris Tomlinson wrote:

Hope someone is able to help. I notice when I design a basic HTML page,
it is affected if a WinXP user has Large Fonts set in their Control Panel.
However some pages, e.g. www.bbc.co.uk/news are unaffected by this I
think.
Without looking at the source code, the most likely reason is that the BBC
people know what they do, and therefore they do not use `pt' as unit of
length for displaying fonts on the screen. Because that unit, designed
for printouts instead of the screen, is dependent on the font resolution;
with "Large Fonts" on Windows it is 120 ppi instead of the (1024x786)
default 96 ppi. And the (default) font resolution differs on display
resolutions and window frameworks (Macs have a default of 72 ppi, for
example).

With regard to the source code, I simply trust David Dorward's observation
and see this confirmed (they use `em' instead).
They are definitely not affected by changing the font size within the
browser.

"The browser" must be Microsoft Internet Explorer 6 or older, because these
UAs are the only ones (to my knowledge) that are unable to scale _px_-sized
fonts. (In that case, it should be possible to scale the fonts on the BBC
Web site because they do not use `px'. Another possibility is to use `%'
instead of `em'.) IE 7 is going to fix at least this issue by allowing for
an Opera-style zoom of the display of Web resources.

This has nothing to do with client-side scripting. Please stop crossposting
from alt.* into Usenet, and please stop crossposting off topic.
F'up2 alt.html

PointedEars
--
When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then
whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
-- Sherlock Holmes in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's
"The Blanched Soldier"

[Randy Webb]

David Dorward said the following on 5/28/2006 7:39 AM in
news:comp.lang.javascript:

Randy Webb wrote:

Let me ask you this though, do you still support Netscape 4?

For a definition of "support" that comes to "entirely accessible, even if it
doesn't look all that pretty".

For scripting support, the word support has a different meaning.

And if so - why.

Why not? It doesn't take any extra effort on my part.

It does when scripting the UA. And as I am reading this from c.l.j then
it would clearly apply to scripting the browser and supporting NN4 with
script does take an extra effort.

Technology evolves and those who choose to stay in the dark ages deserve
to stay in the dark.

What about those who have no choice?

That argument gets old David. Especially with regards to NN4.

User1: Uses Mozilla 0.9.xxx where it is an outdated Mozilla
User2: Uses Netscape 4

User1 gets told to update to the latest Mozilla/Firefox
User2 gets the benefit of the doubt and is presumed to not have a choice?

What category encompasses the "users who have no choice"?

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

[Randy Webb]

Alan J. Flavell said the following on 5/28/2006 9:54 AM in
news:comp.lang.javascript:

On Sun, 28 May 2006, Randy Webb wrote:

Alan J. Flavell said the following on 5/28/2006 6:48 AM:

On Sun, 28 May 2006, Randy Webb wrote:

Who still supports outdated antiquated software other than IE6?
Many older browser/versions are still quite capable of browsing
the content of decently-made web pages, even if they don't produce
the cosmetic results which modern browsers could achieve. Plain text has that effect...

Congratulations, you've just produced yet another slight variation on
the HTML Straw Man Arguments, that have been refuted repeatedly over
the years. Do *try* to get up to speed before arguing, please.

Please try to read and comprehend what I write before you make
accusations Alan. It wasn't a Straw Man Argument (based on the
definition on your own pages). It was irony and nothing more. I guessed
you missed that though.

Let me ask you this though, do you still support Netscape 4?

I've still got a copy installed, and I would fire it up if someone
complained about the results on an otherwise non-challenging page.
Haven't *needed* to do that for quite some time.

Do you keep NN2/3 and IE3/4 around for testing as well? The same
argument could be made for keeping them around for the same reason. But
there is no need to.

People who choose to stay in the dark deserve to stump there toe on the
furniture.
I hide my stylesheet from it, so it doesn't get a chance to mess up
the CSS. If I was "supporting" it, I could feed it a custom
stylesheet to improve its cosmetics, but I don't - its users still get
the content (text, images, and other media) as intended, i.e using its
default styling. Is that "support", or isn't it? You decide.
I read and replied to this in comp.lang.javascript where it is not that
simple and "support" of NN4 is a long way from simply hiding a script or
CSS from it.

<snip>
So you had enough wit to complain about a cross-posted article, but
not enough to set narrowed followups? I guess that figures.

I complained? You amaze me. Since my replies were based on a post seen
in comp.lang.javascript and my point is very valid there, I left the
cross-post. I am setting the followup back to comp.lang.javascript and
if you want to discuss the implications of support Netscape 4 with
regards to scripting then you are welcome to post in clj for that reason.

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

[Randy Webb]

John G Harris said the following on 5/28/2006 1:24 PM:

In article <Rt********************@comcast.com>, Randy Webb
<Hi************@aol.com> writes

<snip>

Who still supports outdated antiquated software other than IE6?

So some of your customers can't read your Terms and Conditions. Have you
discussed this with your lawyer ?

Nah, I read about it in the following two places:
ECMA Specification version 15.43.24.5 section 5, paragraph 4
HTML Specification version 22.47.13.2 section 28, paragraph 9

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

[Alan J. Flavell]

On Mon, 29 May 2006, Randy Webb wrote:

[I'm not overriding your f'up, even though I don't normally read clj]

People who choose to stay in the dark deserve to stump there toe on
the furniture.
My recollection of the clj FAQ was that it took a rather more
enlightened attitude to coping with the variations that a script will
encounter in the WWW situation.
I read and replied to this in comp.lang.javascript where it is not
that simple and "support" of NN4 is a long way from simply hiding a
script or CSS from it.
In a web context (which is where I entered this discussion), you don't
get to *rely* on there being /any/ support for javascript. Whereas
earlier browsers got a simple switch to turn it off, more modern
browsers can be selective about what they accept and where they accept
it from. Then there are corporate firewall/proxies which may be
filtering it for security reasons.

Merely looking at a browser version string, as your repeated
references to "NN4" suggest, is not going to be much use in that kind
of situation. Like your group's FAQ says, you'd do better to use
object detection.
I am setting the followup back to comp.lang.javascript and if you
want to discuss the implications of support Netscape 4 with regards
to scripting then you are welcome to post in clj for that reason.

In a web context, I would treat javascript as an optional extra - by
design. As such, I'd aim for principles of graceful fallback, using
methods such as are described in the FAQ at http://jibbering.com/faq/
, and in more detail at http://www.quirksmode.org/js/support.html

http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_not...t.html#bdDesPb
has some helpful remarks, I would say.

Seems to me to be not so -very- different from what I was saying about
CSS, but you don't have to agree. If you can't be bothered to
implement the objects and methods that you'd need for a particular
obsolete browser, that's no big deal - you can just treat that in the
same way as you would any js-disabled client.

[And if you're not dealing with a web situation, but something where
the client situation is under your own control, then you won't need to
cope with NN4 anyway.]

Hope that helps.

--

[Neredbojias]

To further the education of mankind, "Chris Tomlinson" <an**@anon.com>
vouchsafed:

Actually, in the link you listed that I visited, the font size _did_
change, and the page didn't look too page in the doing. What
specific page-url are you referring to?

Not sure what you thought u typed there, but if you mean the BBC link,
it's http://news.bbc.co.uk that doesn't resize fonts in IE.

If you mean my site, I have changed www.superhighstreet.com to use px
since I started this thread, so it shouldn't change size in IE and
shouldn't look too bad in other browsers.

It was superhighstreet. That didn't look bad at all with relative fonts
and still doesn't look bad in Firefox. I suspect your insistence on
changing it relates to a somewhat primitive notion of what does and does
not look good in a web page. The best pages I've seen readjust the
placement of their content with elegant facility. superhighstreet almost
fits/did fit in that category now/then, and with just a little more effort
on your part, would. Of course not everyone seeks perfection in the
perfect way.

--
Neredbojias
Infinity has its limits.

[Neredbojias]

To further the education of mankind, Randy Webb <Hi************@aol.com>
vouchsafed:

User1: Uses Mozilla 0.9.xxx where it is an outdated Mozilla
User2: Uses Netscape 4

User1 gets told to update to the latest Mozilla/Firefox
User2 gets the benefit of the doubt and is presumed to not have a
choice?

What category encompasses the "users who have no choice"?

Users in establishments like a library or in the workplace who can only use
what a possibly-less-than-interested provider offers.

--
Neredbojias
Infinity has its limits.

[Neredbojias]

To further the education of mankind, Randy Webb <Hi************@aol.com>
vouchsafed:

People who choose to stay in the dark deserve to stump there toe on the
furniture.

When I go into the dark, my toe isn't quite what I'm worried about
stumping.

--
Neredbojias
Infinity has its limits.

[David Dorward]

Randy Webb wrote:

For a definition of "support" that comes to "entirely accessible, even if
it doesn't look all that pretty".
For scripting support, the word support has a different meaning.

Feature detection and sane fallback. No problem.
It does when scripting the UA. And as I am reading this from c.l.j
The joy of people cross posting.
User1 gets told to update to the latest Mozilla/Firefox
Really? By whom?
What category encompasses the "users who have no choice"?

People using operating systems for which "The latest Mozilla/Firefox" is not
available.

People who use systems under the control of administrators who won't upgrade
the browser.

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

[Randy Webb]

Neredbojias said the following on 5/29/2006 5:11 PM:

To further the education of mankind, Randy Webb <Hi************@aol.com>
vouchsafed:

User1: Uses Mozilla 0.9.xxx where it is an outdated Mozilla
User2: Uses Netscape 4

User1 gets told to update to the latest Mozilla/Firefox
User2 gets the benefit of the doubt and is presumed to not have a
choice?

What category encompasses the "users who have no choice"?

Users in establishments like a library or in the workplace who can only use
what a possibly-less-than-interested provider offers.

I have read so many places that people might not have a choice that it
makes me tired of reading them. Most of them are from server side
programmers that are scared of client side technologies endangering
there jobs though.

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

[Randy Webb]

David Dorward said the following on 5/29/2006 6:00 PM:

Randy Webb wrote:

For a definition of "support" that comes to "entirely accessible, even if
it doesn't look all that pretty". For scripting support, the word support has a different meaning.

Feature detection and sane fallback. No problem.

There is not always a "sane fallback" with client side scripting.

It does when scripting the UA. And as I am reading this from c.l.j

The joy of people cross posting.

Absolutely. So, why did you cross post your reply?

User1 gets told to update to the latest Mozilla/Firefox

Really? By whom?

Hmmm. Anybody that reads it generally. If you can run Firefox 0.9.xx
then you can run 1.5.xx and the only two reasons for not upgrading it
are laziness and stupidity.

What category encompasses the "users who have no choice"?

People using operating systems for which "The latest Mozilla/Firefox" is not
available.

Such as? Other than my cellphone. I am talking desktop OS'es.
People who use systems under the control of administrators who won't upgrade
the browser.

See my other reply.
--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

[Randy Webb]

Alan J. Flavell said the following on 5/29/2006 1:26 PM:

On Mon, 29 May 2006, Randy Webb wrote:

[I'm not overriding your f'up, even though I don't normally read clj]
Fair enough.

People who choose to stay in the dark deserve to stump there toe on
the furniture.

My recollection of the clj FAQ was that it took a rather more
enlightened attitude to coping with the variations that a script will
encounter in the WWW situation.

With regards to Netscape 4, no. It does have one specific place where it
deals with an IE4 issue.
Merely looking at a browser version string, as your repeated
references to "NN4" suggest, is not going to be much use in that kind
of situation. Like your group's FAQ says, you'd do better to use
object detection.
Substitute "browsers that implement document.layers" in place of the
term "Netscape 4" then. And no, I don't use the UA string to identify
any browser.

I am setting the followup back to comp.lang.javascript and if you
want to discuss the implications of support Netscape 4 with regards
to scripting then you are welcome to post in clj for that reason.

In a web context, I would treat javascript as an optional extra - by
design. As such, I'd aim for principles of graceful fallback, using
methods such as are described in the FAQ at http://jibbering.com/faq/
, and in more detail at http://www.quirksmode.org/js/support.html

http://www.jibbering.com/faq/faq_not...t.html#bdDesPb
has some helpful remarks, I would say.

Again, I don't "browser detect" but document.layers is almost
specifically unique to Netscape 4 series browsers. (There are a few
others that implement it but the problems are the same for the most part).

As for JS being optional. Sure it is. But the trend on the web is
towards a dependency on Javascript, not away from it.
Seems to me to be not so -very- different from what I was saying about
CSS, but you don't have to agree. If you can't be bothered to
implement the objects and methods that you'd need for a particular
obsolete browser, that's no big deal - you can just treat that in the
same way as you would any js-disabled client.

Very true.
--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

[Neredbojias]

To further the education of mankind, Randy Webb <Hi************@aol.com>
vouchsafed:

Neredbojias said the following on 5/29/2006 5:11 PM:

To further the education of mankind, Randy Webb
<Hi************@aol.com> vouchsafed:

User1: Uses Mozilla 0.9.xxx where it is an outdated Mozilla
User2: Uses Netscape 4

User1 gets told to update to the latest Mozilla/Firefox
User2 gets the benefit of the doubt and is presumed to not have a
choice?

What category encompasses the "users who have no choice"?

Users in establishments like a library or in the workplace who can
only use what a possibly-less-than-interested provider offers.

I have read so many places that people might not have a choice that it
makes me tired of reading them. Most of them are from server side
programmers that are scared of client side technologies endangering
there jobs though.

Yep, I know what you mean. I feel the same way about the anti-porn
propaganda which is mostly promulgated by ersatz religious ayatollahs in
fear of losing their acolytes' contributions (-and possible private
services within those cults which are so enlightened.) Hey, women want it,
anyway, so let's do it to them!

--
Neredbojias
Infinity has its limits.

[David Dorward]

Randy Webb wrote:

Feature detection and sane fallback. No problem.

There is not always a "sane fallback" with client side scripting.
There should be.
If you can run Firefox 0.9.xx

You said Mozilla 0.9.xx, not Firefox.
People using operating systems for which "The latest Mozilla/Firefox" is
not available.

Such as?

Classic Mac. OS/2. (and I know users of both).

--
David Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/>
Home is where the ~/.bashrc is

[Chris Tomlinson]

"Neredbojias" <http://www.neredbojias.com/fliam.php?cat=alt.html> wrote in
message news:Xn**********************************@208.49.8 0.251...

If you mean my site, I have changed www.superhighstreet.com to use px
since I started this thread, so it shouldn't change size in IE and
shouldn't look too bad in other browsers.

It was superhighstreet. That didn't look bad at all with relative fonts
and still doesn't look bad in Firefox. I suspect your insistence on
changing it relates to a somewhat primitive notion of what does and does
not look good in a web page. The best pages I've seen readjust the
placement of their content with elegant facility. superhighstreet almost
fits/did fit in that category now/then, and with just a little more effort
on your part, would. Of course not everyone seeks perfection in the
perfect way.

Thanks, I appreciate your feedback. I tweaked the shadows so they don't
break when the tables are enlarged, and I can live with the bullet point
lines wrapping over to 2 lines if someone wants large fonts in Firefox (a
rare combination I think).

Thanks again!
--
Me

I recommend www.Superhighstreet.com/home Finds anything or they pay for it!