Roedy please respect the netiquette

[Steve R. Burrus]

John Charlois wrote:

First, it's quite amazing that this particular thread is still active
after John Charlois first originated this thread LAST THURSDAY!!! And as
to what the term "netiquette" means, I believe that it must mean--if you
think about it--a combination of the "InterNET" and "etiquette"!!
Understood??! But, you didn't respond back to the most "caustic" thing
that Charlois said of Roedy Green, ande that was that he wishes that he
were dead now!! Any comments about that?

 

[Bryce]

Actually.. *not* good that you have problems
with them, ..good that I could *guess* they might
be a problem from looking at the original page.
[ ..besides, they are *horrid* color combos!
Monochrome is an improvement, aesthetically. ;-) ]

They are. But realize too that a lot of people have dark backgrounds,
and the visited links, by default are colored a darker color too. This
makes seeing visited links very difficult.

 

[Roedy Green]

But, you didn't respond back to the most "caustic" thing
that Charlois said of Roedy Green, ande that was that he wishes that he
were dead now!! Any comments about that?

I don't think he meant to say that. He expressed worry that links
would be useless if I died and my website died or moved to a new name.

He also made mention of my HIV status. I talk about that at
http://mindprod.com/ggloss/copingwithhiv.html

The relevance is I have always figured I did not have much longer to
live, so I had better get on with something useful to justify my
existence. Yet at the same time it discouraged me from taking on big
projects.

At this very moment I am doing great. I have been off all meds for a
month and my energy is zooming without the drug-induced nausea and
fatigue. Sooner or later I will have to go back on though, hopefully
to less nasty chemotherapy. The plan is that I will get genetic
testing of my HIV strains to find out just which drugs will be most
effective once they has bounced back enough to measure.

 

[Steve R. Burrus]

He also made mention of my HIV status. I talk about that at
http://mindprod.com/ggloss/copingwithhiv.html

Roedy, I didn't know at all, before I posted earlier about your possible
death, that you now/have had HIV!! I am really so sorry to hear about
that! How did you get AIDS anyway, if it's any of my personal
business??? How long have you had it?

 

[Jezuch]

U¿ytkownik Roedy Green napisa³:

That looks pretty easy. Now I need to check up on how you cascade
cascading style sheets so you can do theme and variations. The biggie
would be different styles for different size monitors. People with
smaller monitors complain my type is too big (..)

That's because you use font sizes in pixels. Pixel is always pixel, maybe
you should consider typographical points (don't know what's the term in
english; the unit in css is 'pt') that take screen resolution into account.

 

[Roedy Green]

Roedy, I didn't know at all, before I posted earlier about your possible
death, that you now/have had HIV!! I am really so sorry to hear about
that! How did you get AIDS anyway, if it's any of my personal
business??? How long have you had it?

Its rather old news. It happened in 1985. I tell the gory details
somewhere on my website, Try http://mindprod.com/ggloss/safesex.html
for a likely starting point.

 

[Steven J Sobol]

That's because you use font sizes in pixels. Pixel is always pixel, maybe
you should consider typographical points (don't know what's the term in
english; the unit in css is 'pt') that take screen resolution into account.

The typographical term in English is also "points." I think this is an
excellent suggestion.

 

[Guest]

What's the problem with the visuals? I have been working to get
everything controlled by a single style sheet so those problems should
be easier to correct.

It has some trouble sizing text correctly - for example I use Mozilla
and frequently magnify fonts on web pages - I have had some problems
doing that on your site.

Not a complaint - just an observation.

 

[Roedy Green]

It has some trouble sizing text correctly - for example I use Mozilla
and frequently magnify fonts on web pages - I have had some problems
doing that on your site.

Hmm. I specify font sizes is in %s in mindprod.css Perhaps most
other people use absolute sizes and Mozilla has a bug around %??

 

[Steven J Sobol]

Hmm. I specify font sizes is in %s in mindprod.css Perhaps most
other people use absolute sizes and Mozilla has a bug around %??

More likely, people are using different base font sizes in their browsers
and the percentage is dependent on whatever they've chosen...

 

[Andrew Thompson]

The typographical term in English is also "points." I think this is an
excellent suggestion.

Check that, most web-designers avoid 'pt'
scaling for 'em', as I think em scales with
user text size. I am not sure which is most
appropriate here...

 

[Andrew Thompson]

...
(Moz)
It has some trouble sizing text correctly...

Which pages? I just tried a couple of Roedy's
pages in Moz 1.3.
<http://mindprod.com/jgloss/o.html>
<http://mindprod.com/jgloss/eol.html>
<http://mindprod.com/jgloss/e.html>
all scaled to %150 fairly smoothly..

The pages ended up with a tiny 'horizontal
scroll' aspect to them, but not so much I
actually had to scroll right/left..

Not a complaint - just an observation.

(Example) URLs?

 

[Sam]

(e-mail address removed) (John Charlois) wrote in message
(snip)

So, Roedy, thanks for respecting the Netiquette,

John

I've always been amazed at Roedy's site - the amount of work that's
gone into it, and the amount of knowledge contained therein. I've
actually found a solution to a question I've had on several occasions.

The one thing I do find vaguely annoying is the blanket reference
mindprod.com. If there was a link pointing to a specific part of the
site - that would be enormously useful. I realize it's probably too
much to ask.

Regards,
Sam90

 

[Steven J Sobol]

Check that, most web-designers avoid 'pt'
scaling for 'em', as I think em scales with
user text size. I am not sure which is most
appropriate here...

It depends. I personally use pt; I used to use px but that's not a good idea
as the actual display size of the typeface depends on your screen resolution.
I'll try playing around with em and report back here. pt is an absolute
measurement; em is not. (The actual space used by one em depends on the size
of the type)

 

[Steven J Sobol]

The one thing I do find vaguely annoying is the blanket reference
mindprod.com. If there was a link pointing to a specific part of the
site - that would be enormously useful. I realize it's probably too
much to ask.

Huh?

When Roedy posts here he always does point to a specific part of the site.

 

[Andrew Thompson]

It depends. ...pt is an absolute
measurement; em is not. (The actual space used by one em depends on the size
of the type)

[ whispers conspiratorially ] I've actually
migrated to '%' (100% for body text, of course)
as there is some wierd bug (..in IE IIRC) that
can cause styles with 'em' through-out to become
progressively smaller as they cascade [ :-O ]

I'd say stick with 'pt' or use '%'..

 

[Roedy Green]

(The actual space used by one em depends on the size
of the type)

It is the width of the letter "m", similar to en, the width of an "n".
These have to be relative to some particular font family/style/size.


A point is in PostScript 1/72 inch. A printer's point is 1/72.27
inch.

A Java point is one pixel.

Windows has dialog units which takes some measure of psychological
size into account.

At some point we are going to have to pick some sort of psychological
measure that takes into account the fineness of the screen resolution,
the size of the display and the visual acuity of the viewer.

You might define 100 mt = number of pixels leading that type can be
and still be read.

 

[Roedy Green]

Huh?

When Roedy posts here he always does point to a specific part of the site.

I think he was referring to broadside complaints about the site being
ugly, inaccurate, bloated etc. without picking out egregious examples.

 

[Guest]

On 08 Jun 2004 00:36:45 GMT, (e-mail address removed) wrote:
Which pages? I just tried a couple of Roedy's
pages in Moz 1.3.
<http://mindprod.com/jgloss/o.html>
<http://mindprod.com/jgloss/eol.html>
<http://mindprod.com/jgloss/e.html>
all scaled to %150 fairly smoothly..

The pages ended up with a tiny 'horizontal
scroll' aspect to them, but not so much I
actually had to scroll right/left..


(Example) URLs?

The first one you listed ( http://mindprod.com/jgloss/o.html ) displays
with problems at 100% in Mozilla (1.5). The problem could be related to
the fact that I have the Windows DPI setting at Large size (120 DPI)
which I believe is 125% normal size.

The actual problem is a little graphic that says, "Made with cascading
style sheets" and "CSE HTML validator" and "Labelled with ICRA" display
over the right hand side of the text block that says "Canadian Mind
Products" and the mindprod.com IP address and my IP address and my visitor
number.

I just tested with IE, without the problem...so perhaps it is a Mozilla
issue and not related to the Windows DPI setting... Hard to say. I'll
try upgrading to a newer version of Mozilla and see what happens.

I just ran another quick test (Mozilla 1.5) and sized from 100% to 120%
back to 100% and it fixed the problem! How bizarre. Looking more and
more like a Mozilla issue.

 

[Andrew Thompson]

On 08 Jun 2004 17:14:18 GMT, (e-mail address removed) wrote:
...

..How bizarre. Looking more and
more like a Mozilla issue.

Aaah yes.. As a web-designer, you do all
you can, but there is simply no accounting
for some browser quirks / bugs.. :-(