text normal smaller bigger

[Peter Kiederich]

Hello

i lok for a css rotinethats make over tree buttons normal bigger smaller
selected my text

how can help

sorry my isn#t the best sorry

the same in German

Hallo

ich suche eine rotine für css mit der ich eine bajerefreie Webseite
gestalten kann. Sie soll üner die buttons smaller normal bigger den Text
verändern.

Sie ist für ältere Menschen die sollen sich ihren text einstellen können.

Ich freue mich über eure hilfe und danke schon einmal in vorraus

Mfg Peter Kiederich

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

i lok for a css rotinethats make over tree buttons normal bigger smaller
selected my text

You want to make user-selectable "buttons" to increase or decrease text
size. Don't bother with that; it is always a bad idea.

Simply assign your text size as: 100%
and the visitor will see his chosen size.

body { font-size: 100%; }

http://tekrider.net/html/fontsize.php

 

[John Hosking]

i lok for a css rotinethats make over tree buttons normal bigger smaller
selected my text

how can help

sorry my isn#t the best sorry

ich suche eine rotine für css mit der ich eine bajerefreie Webseite
gestalten kann. Sie soll üner die buttons smaller normal bigger den Text
verändern.

Sie ist für ältere Menschen die sollen sich ihren text einstellen können.

Beauregard *is* an older person, and you can safely listen to his advice on
this matter. Here's a bit more, in my own flavor of German (also not the
best):

Es wäre eine grössere Barriere wenn auf deiner Website plötzlich irgendein
Mechanismus auftaucht, dass die Änderung der Schriftgösse berwirken soll.

Zuerst muss man merken, dass deine Kontollen überhaupt vorhanden sind.

Dann soll man verstehen was sie sind.

Dann muss man lernen, wie man sie verwendet.

Und was, wenn die Schriftgrössen die du programmiert hast nicht die
Bedürfnisse des Besuchers entsprechen?

Die meisten solchen Kontrollen, die ich gesehen habe, sind sowieso klein,
unerwartet, und haben selten eine Anleitung. Ältere Leute wissen schon, wie
sie die Textgrösse ändern können. Wer dies nicht weiss, wird auch dein ganz
eigene Kontrolle nicht verstehen.

Ausserdem braucht man üblicherweise JavaScript dafür, was nicht immer
verfügbar ist. Und all das, für etwas, dass der Browser schon machen lässt.
Lieber einen Hinweis (in riesigen Buchstaben) zu einer Anleitung zum Thema
Benutzen des Browsers.

Wenn du dein Text auf der Webseite auf 100% einstellst, denn erscheint dies
*bei jedem einzelnen Benutzer* in der jeweils ausgewählten Grösse. Menschen
überall auf der Welt kriegen die bevorzugte Grösse, ohne dass du etwas
besonderes machen musst. Es ist wie ein Wunder. ;-)

Last but not least: Ist es dir bekannt, es gibt noch viele aktive
Newsgroups auf Deutsch? Z.B. de.comm.infosystems.www.authoring.misc .

Viel Glück!

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

I had not bothered to translate that.

Beauregard *is* an older person, and you can safely listen to his
advice on this matter.

A former ISP of mine had text-size buttons on its web site;
unfortunately, the CSS for the three "A" buttons used percentage

Viel Glück!

And to you as well.

 

[John Hosking]

A former ISP of mine had text-size buttons on its web site;
unfortunately, the CSS for the three "A" buttons used percentage
font-sizes of 62%, 75%, and 81%. <slap!>

LOL!

I guess 81% would qualify as "biggest" then. Or at least "bigger," in
comparison to 75%. ;-)

I'm not a coffee drinker, but I understand there is a worldwide chain of
coffee shops which offer their customers a beverage in the teeniest cup
available and call the size "Grande." Then they can go up from there.

It's all relative.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

LOL!

I guess 81% would qualify as "biggest" then. Or at least "bigger," in
comparison to 75%. ;-)

I suppose I should publicly embarrass them. Here, for hours of your
amusement, is a newer version of the page in question. In the version I
mentioned, it was quite easier to find the CSS with the small
percentages. This newer version just boggles ...

http://my.att.net/

I'm not a coffee drinker, but I understand there is a worldwide chain
of coffee shops which offer their customers a beverage in the
teeniest cup available and call the size "Grande." Then they can go
up from there.

I refuse to shop there. <g>

 

[John Hosking]

I suppose I should publicly embarrass them. Here, for hours of your
amusement, is a newer version of the page in question. In the version I
mentioned, it was quite easier to find the CSS with the small
percentages. This newer version just boggles ...

http://my.att.net/

Oh. Oh, my. Huhhh. Huunnhhhhhhh. <hyperventilaates slightly> OMG.

That... That's just awful. Sad. Pathetic. Scary. I am indeed boggled.

Do they not know how to link to external stylesheets or JS files?

Connection Rate Download Time
14.4K 602.08 seconds
56K 162.84 seconds
ISDN 128K 57.36 seconds
T1 1.44Mbps 14.84 seconds


Markup: 848 Errors, 226 warning(s)
CSS2: 25 errors, 652 warnings (surprisingly good)

And the small-medium-large JS buttons do change the size of text, even
increasing it for me, but it affects only certain texts within the tabby
boxes. The menus and tab captions don't get changed, even though they are
real texts (not images) and are every bit as too-small as the other text.
When I zoom it all with my mouse wheel, of course, everything enlarges,
causing menu items and captions to spill out of their little cells...

But then, you knew all that, didn't you?

And I know that, during some NG discussion where best practices are being
discussed, some newbie is going to point to this site and say, "But look,
ATT does it this way, and they're a huge, successful company..."

When I look at the code, I keep thinking of Brando near the end of
Apocalypse Now.

 

[John Hosking]

Actually, Starbucks, the chain to which you refer (I'm leaping to an
assumption here),

How did you know? A very lucky guess, maybe. ;-)

is a place I go every morning, 364 days a year
(they're closed Christmas day).

Religious extremists, eh?

Their sizes are:

teeniest = Short (8 oz.)
smallest = Tall (12 oz.)
medium = Grande (16 oz.)
large = Venti (20 oz.)

Ooh, I was misinformed. Funny there isn't a medium in there, though. Only
one small and three big.

Pretentious? Perhaps. But I'm not about to argue with a successful
strategy. Besides, they see me coming across the parking lot and, more
often than not, have my drink waiting for me by the time I pay for it:

"Ed! Triple Grande Latte!".

And, yes, going on the old premise of "invest in what you know," I DO
own stock in Starbucks. And have been in their stores in four countries.

In that case, I'll have to retract my earlier post, and watch what I say
about that fine establishment. I'd hate to be responsible for negatively
impacting your financial returns.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Oh. Oh, my. Huhhh. Huunnhhhhhhh. <hyperventilaates slightly> OMG.

That... That's just awful. Sad. Pathetic. Scary. I am indeed boggled.

...and your comments are some of the more-restrained I've heard about the
site.

Do they not know how to link to external stylesheets or JS files?

Nope. After sbcglobal bought the (real) AT&T and fired the Worldnet web
team, they released this abomination. In their internal newsgroups, we
flailed them with a sharp knife. "Fell on deaf ears" is what happened.

But then, you knew all that, didn't you?

Ayup.

They next killed those internal newsgroups .. then all the binary groups
... and next week all of Usenet access. I left them over a year ago.

And I know that, during some NG discussion where best practices are
being discussed, some newbie is going to point to this site and say,
"But look, ATT does it this way, and they're a huge, successful
company..."

Oh yes. Hopefully, the site is too convoluted for said newbie to be
able to actually mimic any of it.

When I look at the code, I keep thinking of Brando near the end of
Apocalypse Now.

<lol!>

 

[John Hosking]

Say what? Am I missing some implied humor? I specifies four sizes.

No humor. I was just commenting on their sizing, which still is more
marketing than Dilberty engineering exactitude.

"Short" is sort of negative, at least in an all-you-can-get-for-the-price
world, while "tall", "grande" and (I presume) "venti" are all positive,
being three ways to represent the concept of "big".

Hmm, I just looked up "venti" on teh Interwebs, and apparently it's just
Italian for twenty, as in ounces. So that one's sort of neutral, as
"sedici" or "dodice" or "otto" would be. So my premise is partially blown,
and I'll have to give up on making any more criticisms, comments, sweeping
statements, snide remarks, or pithy observations. It's late here, anyway,
and I'm having trouble staying awake. So I guess I'll hit the hay now.

G'night.

 

[rf]

I suppose I should publicly embarrass them. Here, for hours of your
amusement, is a newer version of the page in question. In the version
I mentioned, it was quite easier to find the CSS with the small
percentages. This newer version just boggles ...

http://my.att.net/

And when one ignores those stupid "text size" buttons and uses the browsers
text size feature it takes only one mouse wheel increase in font size to
destroy the layout.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 15:10:10 -0400, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:


Oh. Oh, my. Huhhh. Huunnhhhhhhh. <hyperventilaates slightly> OMG.

That... That's just awful. Sad. Pathetic. Scary. I am indeed boggled.

Do they not know how to link to external stylesheets or JS files?

Apparently not. Good to know how well our major telecommunication
companies are handling technology! [1]

Connection Rate Download Time
14.4K 602.08 seconds
56K 162.84 seconds

^^^
If you are lucky! I am saddled with dialup as a the only option here [2]
I gave up after a few minutes watching the throbber.

[1] No mystery why the US lags in broadband coverage! I use to have
Worldnet back in the mid-90s. the subscription wasn't too bad but the
$.35/per minute long distance charges were a killer.

[2] I have railed often about my frustration over lack of broadband
coverage, especially since I remember the "promise" the
telecommunication companies made for a country-wide fiber network for
the "Information Superhighway" if that could get regulation breaks and
rate increases... Been paying significantly more over the years, but no
fiber, not even DSL... Interestingly Verizon (my ball & chain) and AT&T
have bought up all the 700MHz bandwidth licenses across the US recently.
700MHz more than the 2.xGHz is particularly suited for rural bandwidth
with greater range and less interference problems... I guess they plan
to sit on that as the did on fiber ;-(