What is the *preferred* way of defining text size - CCS using %... using "x-small"

C

Chris Hope

kchayka said:
Perhaps you originally used em instead of % for body font-size.
Normally, they are interchangeable where font-size is concerned, but
it triggers a known bug in IE. The result is any View/Text Size
setting other than "Medium" results in grossly disproportionate font
scaling.

I thought I'd used percentages but maybe it *was* ems. I do agree with
what most people here say that it's best to suggest the font size using
relative sizes and let the browser decide, but was disappointed when it
seemed to fail so badly on this particular site and we were getting
truckloads of complaint phone calls. Anyway, the % vs em thing is
something to bear in mind in the future. Thanks.
 
C

Chris Hope

Michael said:
Not able to post the real URLs? Crippled pseudo-URLs suck.

The real URLs are about 100 characters long and are likely to break in a
lot of people's news readers. It's always safer to use something like
tinyurl to make the addresses shorter in these cases.
 
M

Michael Fesser

.oO(Chris Hope)
The real URLs are about 100 characters long and are likely to break in a
lot of people's news readers.

Yep, unfortunately ... :(

But I would rather live with a visually broken URL in some news readers
than with such a redirection service. Call it personal preference.

Fup2 poster

Micha
 
K

Karim

.oO(Charles Sweeney)


Where did I mention blind people and that accessibility is only an issue
when dealing with disabled people? More than enough websites are
inaccessible even for me.


Thanks for getting personal.


Not able to post the real URLs? Crippled pseudo-URLs suck.

Long urls are a pain to post and read aloud.
shrinkster.com


Karim
 
M

Matt Bradley

kchayka said:
Sure, lots of times.




No, all you need to take care of the nested lists are descendent selectors.

ul { font-size: 90% }
ul ul { font-size: 100% }

I'll consider myself educated. Thanks kchayka.
 
C

Charles Sweeney

Michael said:
But I would rather live with a visually broken URL in some news readers
than with such a redirection service. Call it personal preference.

Call it stupid.
 
C

Chris Hope

Michael said:
.oO(Chris Hope)


Yep, unfortunately ... :(

But I would rather live with a visually broken URL in some news
readers than with such a redirection service. Call it personal
preference.

I like to do both. That way the user can see where it is they're going
to end up but you have the short url in case it is broken and they
don't have to go through the effort of trying to reconstruct the two
parts of the address.
 
K

kchayka

Karim said:
I don't agree. I am on 1024 x 768 on a 21" monitor.

Text size on your monitor would probably look even more enormous to me.
Try 1600x1200 on a 19" monitor like I use. BTW, I'd bump it up even more
if the refresh rate weren't atrocious.
If I go higher in
resolution, the text will be uncomfortably small.

So, change your settings to something more suited to a larger screen
size. There is more than just the dimensions, you know. Assuming you use
Windows, adjusting the font sizes in the Display/Appearance tab alone
can make a big difference. Individual applications often have default
font sizes and/or zoom factors that you can take advantage of, too. And
there is dpi, of course, assuming your apps don't barf when you change
it. Sadly, some will become unusable.

There is no reason to feel crippled by a high resolution.
How many average Joe knows what dpi is and changes it?

This is completely irrelevant.
You design
web pages in a fashion that has nothing to do with monitor size.

This is something we do agree on. :)
Unless a site is mostly text (ie, Google), you're not gaining much by going
above 1024.

Um, I don't let a few poorly designed web pages determine my screen
settings. If browsing is the only thing you use the monitor for, then
sure, let the web decide for you. If you use it for other things, then
do whatever works best for the bulk of your work. Just don't expect
others to do what you do.
Even in that resolution, most of the sites have empty white
margins on the sides, ie: Yahoo, Amazon, Hotmail... You're not gaining from
the extra width.

Um, my gains have nothing to do with browsing the web.
If you use text mingled with images and use width=100%, you'll have a hard
time having the web page look the way you expect under different
resolutions.

Welcome to the WWW. Perhaps you'd feel less frustrated if you switched
to PDF.
 
K

kchayka

Norman said:
Text
specified by point size can vary in size by 33% between a PC and a Mac
for this reason alone. A comfortable font size on a PC can be a series
of unreadable fly specks on a Macintosh -- or so I've read.

It's not a myth. I'm looking at MacIE5 (native 72dpi) and Safari (96dpi)
right now. MacIE renders 12pt about the same as 9pt in Safari.

Both are too small for my tastes, BTW.
 
C

Chris Hope

kchayka said:
Text size on your monitor would probably look even more enormous to
me. Try 1600x1200 on a 19" monitor like I use. BTW, I'd bump it up
even more if the refresh rate weren't atrocious.

This just shows you how everyone feels different about screen resolution
compared with physical screen size. I have a 19" monitor as well but
find everything unbearably small at 1600x1200 and prefer either
1280x1024 or 1152x864. I can't imagine using a 21" monitor at 1024x768
- everything would be HUGE.
 
P

(Pete Cresswell)

RE/
There is an enormous difference between reading snippets of text in a
GUI menu, and reading large amounts of text on screen. The text size in
UI menus is usually far too small for the job. Maybe you don't mind the
eyestrain, but I sure do.

I think this is one of those things that varies widely among people.

Long time ago, I did a company phonebook. Started out with the assumption
that the bigger the page and the smaller the print the better (more names per
page ==> less work to find somebody).

Wrong. Surveyed a few hundred people using sample phonebooks and what I found
out was that:

1) They wanted something small enough to be stored under a standard desk
telephone.

2) The bigger the print, the better they liked it.


Personally, I prefer my screen set at 1600x1200....but I also like reading books
in the semi-dark....
 
T

Toby Inkster

Norman said:
And assuming that point size is the same on all machines.

No I'm not. The point-to-pixel ratio *should* be set differently
for different monitors.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.html/msg/b0e4c9a529b1a53d

That's precisely why point-sized fonts *should* be more sane than
pixel-sized ones -- an 18px font may look too small on a high-res
screen but too big on a low-res screen, but an 18pt font should
always be exactly 1/4 inch high, no matter what screen it is
displayed on.

But as I said a couple of posts up:

| BUT (and it's a *big* BUT) when you rely on point sizes on
| screen, you're relying on the user's browser being set with a
| sensible dpi setting. IME most people do not have the correct
| dpi setting.
 
K

Karim

Text size on your monitor would probably look even more enormous to me.
Try 1600x1200 on a 19" monitor like I use. BTW, I'd bump it up even more
if the refresh rate weren't atrocious.


So, change your settings to something more suited to a larger screen
size. There is more than just the dimensions, you know. Assuming you use
Windows, adjusting the font sizes in the Display/Appearance tab alone
can make a big difference. Individual applications often have default
font sizes and/or zoom factors that you can take advantage of, too. And
there is dpi, of course, assuming your apps don't barf when you change
it. Sadly, some will become unusable.

There is no reason to feel crippled by a high resolution.


Changing font size in the display applet makes the font bigger and messes
the layout in the some apps. I am not going to go back and forth playing
with this setting depending on the app I am using. I switch betwen apps all
the time. In my current display, the font setting is also disabled.
This feature never works right in Windows. It's a know issue and MS plans
to fix this in Longhorn. High resolution is crippling if your eyes or/and
gfx card can support it properly. If I increase screen resolution ibn
games, they become slow and jerky.
This is completely irrelevant.
You don't expect them to play with dpi to view your site properly.
This is something we do agree on. :)


Um, I don't let a few poorly designed web pages determine my screen
settings. If browsing is the only thing you use the monitor for, then
sure, let the web decide for you. If you use it for other things, then
do whatever works best for the bulk of your work. Just don't expect
others to do what you do.

We agree that one uses whatever resolutions best fits their needs. My 1024
fits me fine. I don't have a 20/20 vision and I went with a 21" monitor so
I don't have to strain my eyes. I spend hours working with a computer.
If text is too big for you in 1024, go to 1600 and higher if you need to.
If going over 1024 just buys me more white space in 90% of sites while
making text go smaller, I have no reason then to go above 1024. The only
side effect is I get less content on one screenful. 1024 shows pretty good
amount for me to begin with.


Um, my gains have nothing to do with browsing the web.

See above.
Welcome to the WWW. Perhaps you'd feel less frustrated if you switched
to PDF.

We don't live in a perfect world. Most sites don't validate properly. Most
of them don't fill the screen when going with a higher resolution. yahoo,
msn, hotmail, yahoo, cnn, amazon, ebay, ..etc. People keep talking about
how things should be when the real world examples prove otherwise.




Karim
 
T

Toby Inkster

GreyWyvern said:
Hehe, no, you have a tangent; you're assuming all internet users are
distributed equally among all values of "Default".

Actually, if you read the original page I assume that 50%+ of people have
their font set about right by default (not too big, not too small).

I think this is a reasonable assumption, as I can't imagine that over half
of the web-using population are out there surfing about with unreadable
defaults.
 
T

Travis Newbury

Right, but I already have settings (14px) in my browser. If his site
sets 12px, I'll have to manually change my browser settings
_just_for_his_page_. What's wrong with using 100% of whatever font size
the visitor likes best?

Nothing is wrong with 100%. Why do you always try to start arguments?
I thought you killfiled me because you were trying to start an argument
on a different thread.
 
E

Eric Jarvis

Richard said:
10 pt is fine for most printed work on paper, but on a website, readability
is the issue.
With the choices in various font sizes, why do you need to use % at all?

10pt has a meaning when applied to print, it has no defined meaning when
used for screen display. Therefore you have no way of knowing how text set
in pt will display other than trial and error. Only ever use pt in print
style sheets. Even px is a better unit for font size for screen display.
 
J

Jukka K. Korpela

Eric Jarvis said:
10pt has a meaning when applied to print, it has no defined meaning
when used for screen display.

Of course it has. The pt unit means (in CSS - which is what we are
talking about in this issue) exactly 25.4/72 millimetres, so the only
thing it depends on is the metre, which is defined on the basis of
universal physical constants.

According to usual CSS principles, the computed value may need to be
rounded to the nearest value that can be used under particular
constraints, and browsers might even do this wrong. But the meaning of
10pt _is_ defined.

And it's exactly because of this exactness why the pt unit should not
be used by Web authors
 
T

Travis Newbury

Thanks for the article. So... I'll forget Verdana I think.

Interesting read (several of the articles ). While browsing the
articles I especially found this interesting

"As far as Flash is concerned: in principle it can be a very useful tool
where animations are needed on a site. In practice I have yet to see a
site using Flash that would not be improved by its removal. (Update,
early 2004: such sites are now slowly starting to appear. But my comment
still applies to the majority of Flash-using sites."

Accessible flash sites are starting to appear. And even more
importantly companies are beginning to realize what an awesome
application development tool Flash has become since MX.

Companies creating web based CBT's are turning to Flash, as are
multimedia communications applications, Webcasting, and interactive
sites.

Is it for everyone? Probably not. But it is fast becoming more accepted
especially in Commercial, Government, and Educational e-learning sites.
(Even more so if the organization sticks to ADL's SCORM standards). A
visit the SCORM standards site (http://www.adlnet.org/ Advanced
Distributed Learning) and you will find one of the fastest growing
articles in the forums are concerning Flash and SCORM compliance.

That's the great thing about the Web. It has a ton of uses.
 
M

Michael Fesser

.oO(Chris Hope)
Michael said:
But I would rather live with a visually broken URL in some news
readers than with such a redirection service. Call it personal
preference.

I like to do both. [...]

Sounds OK, but actually I haven't seen it yet in the wild.

OT, fup2 poster

Micha
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
473,776
Messages
2,569,603
Members
45,189
Latest member
CryptoTaxSoftware

Latest Threads

Top