Type sizs on Mac and PC

[SpaceGirl]

Hardly. No matter how hard you try, I can override your font size
settings. The ultimate power always rests with the end user.

Not if we start making all our web pages out of graphics Like to see you
resize it then

 

[Toby A Inkster]

Not if we start making all our web pages out of graphics Like to see you
resize it then

Can still resize it in Opera 2 an higher.

 

[kchayka]

Perhaps. Take a look at www.subhuman.net - this was a fun site my partner
and I did. It's sorta experimental.

It's very pink. I loathe pink. I never would have thought to use that
color for Garbage, myself. It clashes with Shirley's hair, doesn't it?

I don't know what you did, but my status bar is going crazy between
"waiting" and "transferring" data on every page, it's some kind of
endless loop. Other than that, to me it's kinda typical for a
"designer" site - text is too small and the content gets all squished up
in narrow fixed-width columns when I make it big enough to read. <sigh>
I pretty much ignored most of the graphics, though I kinda like their
arrangement.

What's so experimental about it anyway? I couldn't really tell since I
didn't get much past the home page because of that annoying page load
problem. That makes the site a PITA to use.

Anyway, we have around 12,000 unique IPs
tracked though that site A DAY.

We must be getting something right.

Maybe it's a bunch of folks with a pink fetish.

 

[SpaceGirl]

It's very pink. I loathe pink. I never would have thought to use that
color for Garbage, myself. It clashes with Shirley's hair, doesn't it?

Shirl likes pink

I don't know what you did, but my status bar is going crazy between
"waiting" and "transferring" data on every page, it's some kind of
endless loop. Other than that, to me it's kinda typical for a
"designer" site - text is too small and the content gets all squished up
in narrow fixed-width columns when I make it big enough to read. <sigh>
I pretty much ignored most of the graphics, though I kinda like their
arrangement.

There is a bug I've not been able to kill that causes it. It's something to
do with one of the iframes loading incomplete content... I dunno Still
working on that. The bug DID disappear in one build, then came back. Damn it
:/

What's so experimental about it anyway? I couldn't really tell since I

It's experimental in that the ENTIRE site is generated on the fly from
scripted ASP modules and a SQL database. Any single page consists of about 5
distinct reusuable modules that rearrange themselves and sucks content out
of a database depending on each page template. The site also modifies itself
server side depending on the browser to hit it. It's all sat on top of a
content management system too. None of these systems were from 3rd parties,
every scrap of the site was written by hand from the ground up (apart from
some borrowed code for the ticker-tape display).

didn't get much past the home page because of that annoying page load
problem. That makes the site a PITA to use.

It's not a *big* problem - the bug doesn't prevent the site from running or
any of the content to not be displayed.

Maybe it's a bunch of folks with a pink fetish.

Prolly

 

[Andrew Glasgow]

Mac displays type slightly larger than a PC which tends to mess up
html tables and such. What is the common solution for this? I'd like
to get type to display at the same apparent size on both platforms.

Also- If you have a second and you know of some websites that have a
commercial and cutting-edge look mtv.com please post some. Thanks.

Design a page that looks good at multiple text sizes.

 

[Andrew Glasgow]

I wish. Clients tend to want pixel perfect. And they are the ones paying for
the designs in the first place.

Educate them that their users don't care about pixel-perfection. It'll
be more impressive if you show them a design, say "This is how it looks
normally" and then zoom up the text size and say "this is how it will
look to a visually impaired person" and point out that it still looks
nice and is usable.

 

[Franois de Dardel]

Mac displays type slightly larger than a PC which tends to mess up

Educate them that their users don't care about pixel-perfection. It'll

be more impressive if you show them a design, say "This is how it looks
normally" and then zoom up the text size and say "this is how it will look
to a visually impaired person" and point out that it still looks nice and
is usable.

I have had this problem for years, as I am developing web pages at home on
my Mac, but 95% of the viewers are on a Windows platform.
I've read many many opinions and recommendations on the subject, and
eventually I have decided to use style sheets with font sizes in pixels.
Advantage: they look the same on Mac and PC
Disadvantage: on many browsers, they are not scalable, i.e. when you click
the "font size: bigger", nothing happens.
Apple Safari, the now standard browser on Macs, does scale the fonts even
if they are defined in pixels, so I would assume that other browsers will
do that sooner or later.

François de Dardel
http:/mapage.noos.fr/dardelf
Faber est suae quisque fortunae
Remove fourteen to reply
Enlever le quatorze

 

[ksdfj]

The problem: There is a need to design web pages that render reliably
(identically) on different browsers and at different screen resolutions.
Also, we'd like users to be able to scale the whole web page (fonts and
graphics),
or to just scale the fonts (at their own risk, of course).

Possible solution number 1: Use PDF for everything. (Just kidding.)

Possible solution number 2 (my humbly-submitted solution):

1. Design your HTML documents with a specific screen resolution (DPI) in
mind.
Dpecified the DPI with a certain tag in the document. If no DPI is
specified,
default to some standard value, like 96 dpi. (The specific tag and the
default DPI would have to go into the HTML standard.)

2. Specify all sizes and positions in pixels, because everybody knows what
a pixel is.

3. Use embedded fonts instead of relying on the browser's default fonts.
(Or, somebody create a well-defined set of default fonts that every
browser should use.)

OK, with (1) through (3) we have a document that will always render the same
if
the browser is working correctly... Now for the scaling issues.

4. By default, the browser should scale the entire HTML document according
to the local screen DPI and the HTML document's DPI. This is, if the
HTML document uses 72 dpi, and the screen is 96 dpi, then the browser
should scale the page by 1.33. It should resample the images, and scale
the font sizes appropriately before re-rendering them. It should NOT
just
create a bitmap of the whole page and scale the bitmap, because that
would suck.

5. Because resampling images loses information, the browser should also be
able to display the page without scaling, that is, pixel-for-pixel.

Resampling images is not the best solution, but it is an easy one.
But here's another idea on how to better handle scaled images:

6. Have the web server do the work. Create the original images in a high
resolution,
like 200 or 300 dpi. When the browser asks for an image, it will have to
tell
the web server what DPI it wants it in. (This could be implemented as an
extra
line in the HTTP command or as part of the actual URL. Either way, it
will
require a change to the standards, the web servers, and the browsers. A
hassle,
yes, but we'll be better off in the long run.) OK, so now the web server
has
to send the image. If it's smart then it will have a cache of the image
rendered
at the most popular sizes. If it's not, then it will have to resize
(resample)
the image before sending it.

That's about it. In a perfect world, this is how it would work. But I
doubt
it will ever happen.

 

[Els]

The problem: There is a need to design web pages that render reliably
(identically) on different browsers and at different screen resolutions.
Also, we'd like users to be able to scale the whole web page (fonts and
graphics),
or to just scale the fonts (at their own risk, of course).

Possible solution number 1: Use PDF for everything. (Just kidding.)

Possible solution number 2 (my humbly-submitted solution):

[snip second solution with a lot of pixels and calculations]

You forgot the 'just kidding' remark here.

 

[David Mackenzie]

2. Specify all sizes and positions in pixels, because everybody knows what
a pixel is.

I wouldn't like to print out a page and the text appears 12 pixels
high. It would be 1/25 of an inch tall and I wouldn't be able to read
it!

 

[ksdfj]

I wouldn't like to print out a page and the text appears 12 pixels
high. It would be 1/25 of an inch tall and I wouldn't be able to read
it!

but that's exactly the situation we have right now with a lot of web pages;
they
hard-code their font sizes in pixels, and then there's no way to scale the
font. (unless you're using Netscape 6 or 7 or Mozilla.) pages built this
way are hard to read on high-resolution monitors.

that's why i suggested using the "pixel space" as a sort of logical space in
which to build pages, and then it would be the browser's responsibility to
scale
this "logical space" into your monitor's actual "physical space". sorry if i
didn't explain this well enough before.

it actually doesn't matter what "logical space" we choose, as long as
everybody agrees on what it is and what it means. i chose the "pixel
space" because everybody knows what a pixel is, and a lot of
pages (too many) are already designed in this space.

as display resolutions become increasingly high, somebody's going
to have to take this problem seriously.

 

[Steve Pugh]

but that's exactly the situation we have right now with a lot of web pages;
they hard-code their font sizes in pixels, and then there's no way to scale the
font. (unless you're using Netscape 6 or 7 or Mozilla.)

Or Opera, or Safari, or Mac IE. In fact text sized in pixels can be
resized in almost all browsers excepr NN4 and (sigh) Win IE.

pages built this way are hard to read on high-resolution monitors.

that's why i suggested using the "pixel space" as a sort of logical space in
which to build pages, and then it would be the browser's responsibility to
scale this "logical space" into your monitor's actual "physical space". sorry if i
didn't explain this well enough before.

This is exactly what the CSS spec says already. It defines the px unit
as being relative to pixel density of the output medium (i.e. screen
resolution). Problem is that every browser treats 1px as 1 screen
pixel.

it actually doesn't matter what "logical space" we choose, as long as
everybody agrees on what it is and what it means.

The 'em space' (oh hang on, that means something else already) has the
advantage that it respects the user chosen font size. Two users with
identical screen resolutions might prefer, or even need, very
different font sizes - your scheme doesn't work for them.

i chose the "pixel space" because everybody knows what a pixel is,

The fact that the CSS spec and the browsers are in complete
disagreement suggests otherwise. And there was a recent thread in
ciwas asking how to make a line that was thinner than 1 pixel.

and a lot of pages (too many) are already designed in this space.

Yes, they suck, don't they?

as display resolutions become increasingly high, somebody's going
to have to take this problem seriously.

The browsers can either implement px units as per the spec (which is
not too different from your proposal).
Or users will have to learn how to configure their browsers properly
for their screen reoslutions, which may mean setting them to ignore
clueless authors who use pixel sized text.

Steve

 

[David Mackenzie]

but that's exactly the situation we have right now with a lot of web pages;
they
hard-code their font sizes in pixels, and then there's no way to scale the
font. (unless you're using Netscape 6 or 7 or Mozilla.)

Or Opera.

that's why i suggested using the "pixel space" as a sort of logical space in
which to build pages, and then it would be the browser's responsibility to
scale
this "logical space" into your monitor's actual "physical space". sorry if i
didn't explain this well enough before.

The web is not a visual medium. There is an increasing number of
different devices accessing the web. Some of them have no concept of a
"pixel" at all. When I browse, my browser's canvas area is usually
1024x619. My friend can browse on his phone. It has a screen area of
128x60. In the future, a top of the range BMW may read out pages to
its driver and passengers, who will navigate by voice recognition.

That's why building properly marked-up pages that are viewable and
usable at any (reasonable) size and are accessible to audio browsers,
webbots, printers, neural implants etc is more important than ever.

as display resolutions become increasingly high, somebody's going
to have to take this problem seriously.

There is no problem. HTML & CSS allow for all the above scenarios to
be catered for today.

 

[Whitecrest]

The web is not a visual medium.

The web is BOTH a visual and non visual medium. One size does not fit
all. You can, and will always be able to, do different kinds of things
on the web. Not all web sites need to be accessible by everything that
can read a web site.

In the future, a top of the range BMW may read out pages to
its driver and passengers, who will navigate by voice recognition.

I personally can't wait for Holodeck porn myself...

That's why building properly marked-up pages that are viewable and
usable at any (reasonable) size and are accessible to audio browsers,
webbots, printers, neural implants etc is more important than ever.

Yes, IF the content of the site is best presented like this, then by all
means you should do that.

 

[David Mackenzie]

The web is BOTH a visual and non visual medium.

Sorry. Should have read "The web is not purely a visual medium".

One size does not fit
all. You can, and will always be able to, do different kinds of things
on the web. Not all web sites need to be accessible by everything that
can read a web site.

Agreed. But you can do simple things to help as many devices as
possible, e.g. include alt attributes for images and not relying on
Javascript for navigation.

I personally can't wait for Holodeck porn myself...

Wouldn't the pop-up ads get in the way ;-)

Yes, IF the content of the site is best presented like this, then by all
means you should do that.

Any browser should be able to make a fair effort at rendering a well
marked-up site.

Obviously, if the site is an on-line flash comic then audio and
text-only browsers cannot be expected to render the flash animation.
But that does not excuse the author for allowing the site to be
totally inaccessible to audio and text-only browsers.

I know someone who has a top-of-the-range palmtop. He pays for the
bandwidth he uses so has images disabled. He tried to get football
results from a sporting site but was unable to because the navigation
used images without alt attributes.

The web is unlike any medium that has gone before. I suppose it could
be described as menium-independent information.

Sure, all its content won't be renderable on all devices, but most of
it should be available on most devices and well written pages can help
with this.

 

[ksdfj]

This is exactly what the CSS spec says already. It defines the px unit
as being relative to pixel density of the output medium (i.e. screen
resolution). Problem is that every browser treats 1px as 1 screen
pixel.

cool. i was unaware of this definition of the px. so it truly is just
a browser problem, which makes it all the more easier to fix.

The 'em space' (oh hang on, that means something else already) has the
advantage that it respects the user chosen font size. Two users with
identical screen resolutions might prefer, or even need, very
different font sizes - your scheme doesn't work for them.

no, i think the browsers *should* give the user the ability to scale the fonts
independently of everything else, even if the web page has the font sizes
hard-coded. the only thing i would add would be the ability to scale the
entire page, not just the fonts. when browser authors finally start
to implement the CSS standard in regard to pixel scaling, they'd just
need to allow the user to tweak the default pixel scaling ratio.

 

[kchayka]

cool. i was unaware of this definition of the px. so it truly is just
a browser problem, which makes it all the more easier to fix.

IMO it's the opposite - harder to fix. As far as px units go, virtually
all graphical browsers behave the same now, so the results are fairly
predictable regardless of browsing environment. If even one browser
starts rendering px units per the current specs, predictability starts
going out the window. That will be a worse situation than what we have now.

It seems that browser vendors have more or less agreed what px means,
though it isn't what the W3C says it should mean. I'm not sure why they
don't just change the spec to reflect reality, since I don't have high
hopes any vendor will ever implement this particular spec.

 

[Mark Parnell]

the only thing i would add would be the ability to scale the
entire page, not just the fonts.

Opera already does this.