Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
Hi Rick, To restate my earlier point (hopefully with greater clarity): No matter what you do, people will look at a page and (probably) either say the type is too big or the type is too small. In either case they can adjust it accordingly, except that those who want to make it smaller (eg. those without accessibility issues) are *perhaps* less likely to know how to. And *perhaps* that's one argument for designing with smaller type as a baseline. I would like to point out that text in a web page is usually not there merely for a design purpose but for communicating some information. That said, it surely is more aggravating for a reader to first have to make a text readable before being able to access some information. This means, a bigger initial text size makes reading or scanning a page for information easier and is more polite towards the reader. Someone who prefers small text size will be able to read bigger text whereas someone who prefers bigger text will not be able to read small text. Cheers, jens -- Jens Brueckmann http://www.yalf.de *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
Jixor - Stephen I wrote: Sorry, the point I'm making is why use 100 and 102, is there any visible difference? Normally not, and 100% is the intended size. The reason for the slightly more than 100% for h5 is that whatever the size 102% is calculated from the h5 should end up _as large as or 1px larger_ than the paragraphs (or whatever) its heading. I would have thought the user would need to have a massive default font size to see any. However I have noticed myself that the way the browsers tend to size fonts can be quite strange. Sometimes a change of 5% in scaling can result in the same font ending up the same size however notably wider. Exactly. The particular layout it's used in don't have 100% font-size for all containers all the way down the chain, and the tip-over changes when sized down font-size on containers are subjected to resizing and used as base for font-size on text-carrying elements - sometimes splitting between 100% and 102%. My entire site is used as a test-bed. I have hundreds of those hardly ever noticeable effects baked in on my own site as part of continuous testing of browsers, in the knowledge that browsers don't handle minute differences exactly the same way. The differences _I_ can then observe, will not disturb or distract a visitor - unless that visitor (maybe a web designer) has particular interests in why something looks slightly different in two browsers under certain conditions. I have received a few comments about such subtle differences over the years, from fellow designers assuming I've gotten my values wrong. That's great, as they are either confirming my own observations, or informing me about something I haven't observed yet in a particular browser under certain conditions. All good to know while I try to expand my knowledge on how User Agents handle my work. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On Sep 5, 2007, at 10:09 PM, Dean Edridge wrote:
By giving users: body{font-size:100%;} you are doing the best you
can at your end, and It's up to them to ensure they have correctly
configured their browser to suit their eyesight or preferences.
I'd tend to agree with those that using the browser defaults as the
base font size would be ideal. Unfortunately we're dealing with years
of legacy web pages where the vast majority of fonts have been sized
down already (in my own unscientific study, over 90% of the sites I
sampled had the base p set to give an equivalent of 12-13 pixels.)
The side-effect of this is that if you use 100%, the font-size on
your site will be much larger than on every other site the viewer
visits.
It's not rocket science to see that if the New York Times (base body
84.5%), Google (base body 12px), and Yahoo (base body 84.5%) all use
smaller base font sizes, using 100% will result in fonts that look
much larger than normal.
This is not a discussion of philosophy but of practicality. I want my
visitors to be able to resize the text to fit their needs, but I also
want my site to adhere to a widely accepted standard, which is *not*
16px.
Tim Swan
--
Timothy Swan
Designer/Webmaster support
InforME
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
[WSG] Out of Office AutoReply: WSG Digest
Thanks for your message, I am out of the office Friday, 7 September for public holiday. I'll be back in tho office on Monday, 10 September Kind regards, Christian Notice: The information contained in this email is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose or use the information in this email in any way and should destroy any copies. Macquarie does not guarantee the integrity of any emails or attached files. The views or opinions expressed are the author's own and may not reflect the views or opinions of Macquarie. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 6/9/07 (09:08) Jens said: I would like to point out that text in a web page is usually not there merely for a design purpose but for communicating some information. No arguments here. If the consensus amongst the visiting user-base is that the information is lost or hard to access on account of small text sizes then the design has certainly failed in its job. That said, it surely is more aggravating for a reader to first have to make a text readable before being able to access some information. This means, a bigger initial text size makes reading or scanning a page for information easier and is more polite towards the reader. Someone who prefers small text size will be able to read bigger text whereas someone who prefers bigger text will not be able to read small text. Again, a perfectly valid point. However, to mix my own argument into yours (if I may)... Someone who prefers small text size will be able to read bigger text... but may not know how to reduce it to their preferred size. Whereas someone who prefers bigger text will not be able to read small text... but is perhaps more likely to be aware of how to enlarge it to suit their needs. But now I'm repeating myself, so I think I'll shut up for a while (apart from a couple of other replies). Blimey, this turned into quite a thread. But then the font sizing thing always evokes passionate reactions I guess. -- Rick Lecoat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 5/9/07 (01:18) Felix said: I believe I've already explained up thread that they do, in _web_designers_as_a_group_ having a personal skew/bias/preference in favor of things small generally, part of the nature of the kind of detail-oriented people who gravitate into web design. You mentioned that before, along with the fact that you have no actual hard evidence of it but that the statement is born out of your own observations. Nevertheless, you want me to accept it as part of your argument. That's fine, I have no problem with that, and in fact I'm fairly sure that your point is true. When I made the observation that I do not believe that most people's default settings are *chosen* but just happen to be whatever came out of the box, that was also based upon my own observations and anecdotal evidence. However, you dismiss my opinion/personal experience with glib links to 'Proof By Assertion' and seemingly just refuse to even consider the notion. You make some good points in your posts, Felix, and in fact I find myself coming around to the 100% default camp (after all, I never started this thread with any axe to grind) but I find it difficult to give your arguments the credit that they are perhaps due whilst you won't permit others the same debating strategies that you employ yourself. -- Rick Lecoat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 2007/09/06 09:13 (GMT-0400) Timothy Swan apparently typed: I'd tend to agree with those that using the browser defaults as the base font size would be ideal. Unfortunately we're dealing with years of legacy web pages where the vast majority of fonts have been sized down already (in my own unscientific study, over 90% of the sites I sampled had the base p set to give an equivalent of 12-13 pixels.) I disagree. I think 90% applies to sites that size to any degree below 100%, with a significant enough portion sizing at 10px and 11px that the 12px-13px group is significantly less than 90%. More importantly, because of the dropping average display DPI, 12-13px isn't as big as it used to be. Do you think making text even smaller than yesteryear is the right thing for a modern, accessible, usable page to do? The side-effect of this is that if you use 100%, the font-size on your site will be much larger than on every other site the viewer visits. This is bad why? Larger, yes. Much larger, debatable. How do you know those sites aren't getting back button treatment, or unanswered complaints? It's not rocket science to see that if the New York Times (base body 84.5%), Google (base body 12px), and Yahoo (base body 84.5%) all use smaller base font sizes, using 100% will result in fonts that look much larger than normal. Maybe to most people, but what about to people who have discovered zoom and minimum font size? To them, those/most sites will typically have problems with overlapping or hidden text, along with nearly right or right sized text in containers constraining them to too narrow line lengths. This is not a discussion of philosophy but of practicality. I want my visitors to be able to resize the text to fit their needs, but I also want my site to adhere to a widely accepted standard, which is *not* 16px. That widely accepted standard is becoming one of broken pages, the result of zoom and minimum font size. Do you want yours classified among them, or differentiated among elite? -- It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape. Chief Justice Joseph Story Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
Blimey, this turned into quite a thread. But then the font sizing thing always evokes passionate reactions I guess. I do admit the first time I read your initial post I cringed and screamed AAARGGGHLXX! ;-) Someone who prefers small text size will be able to read bigger text... but may not know how to reduce it to their preferred size. Whereas someone who prefers bigger text will not be able to read small text... but is perhaps more likely to be aware of how to enlarge it to suit their needs. Irrespective of your assumption about who would be more capable of resizing text I think you somehow missed my point. I will try and make myself more comprehendible. Given that the primary aim of a web page is to communicate information - here in the form of text. Larger text allows everybody to access this information instantly, whereas smaller text establishes a barrier for those, who are not able to read small text. People who prefer smaller text might not like your page with large text, but they can instantly access your information. People who require larger text can not instantly access information on a page with small text size. In short, text size is a question of preference versus requirement. Cheers, jens -- Jens Brueckmann http://www.yalf.de *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 6/9/07 (16:41) Jens said: I do admit the first time I read your initial post I cringed and screamed AAARGGGHLXX! ;-) Yeah, fair enough, and I knew that many would share your reaction. But the question in the original post was one that I really had divided opinions about and wanted to hear other people's thoughts. the ensuing melee has perhaps not convinced me entirely either way, but has nudged me in one direction over another, so it's been valid (for me at least), and thank you to all who participated. Irrespective of your assumption about who would be more capable of resizing text I think you somehow missed my point. No, I understood you. I just wanted to try throwing it back with a bit of personal spin and see what you made of it. When you say: People who require larger text can not instantly access information on a page with small text size I don't particularly disagree with you. I would, however, be /very/ interested to find out how many of the people who require 'larger' text (eg. people who find the cited 'small-text' sites -- yahoo, NY Times, etc -- hard to read) already have their browsers set up to make the necessary corrections, either by setting a large minimum font size, or by clicking the 'Ignore font sizes set by page' box (that's just an IE thing I think). I think that information would be enlightening. The issue of whether an unchanged default setting, except when left as it is by deliberate choice, should be considered a 'user preference' in the context of most people have their preferred size set to 16px has not really been decided for me, but maybe it's like trying to prove a negative. Certainly plenty of others on this list are satisfied that it should be considered so in the absence of evidence to the contrary, and maybe I'll have to leave it at that. Or start saving up to commission a massive study. Nah. -- Rick Lecoat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 6 Sep 2007, at 17:39, Rick Lecoat wrote: The issue of whether an unchanged default setting, except when left as it is by deliberate choice, should be considered a 'user preference' in the context of most people have their preferred size set to 16px has not really been decided for me, but maybe it's like trying to prove a negative. default settings aren't user preferences, they are manufacturer preferences. only when a user changes those defaults do they become the preference of the user. surely? and I'm not just referring to browsers, I'm talking generally. I believe we're talking this thing round in circles, but if *most* users leave the defaults as they are and most designers have set the fonts on most sites smaller than the defaults then the norm for *most* users is smaller than default. we're in a catch 22 as I see it. if the browser manufacturers make the defaults smaller, then a lot of web sites break. If you don't adjust the font size at all it looks bigger than expected to *most* users - and if the client is looking at their site compared to everyone else they also expect it to look similar, not have massive fonts. perhaps the wise and good on his list would make it blindingly obvious which is the best and most pragmatic way to set font-size to conform to the norm - i.e. smaller than the default *without* messing up the minority of web users who have changed the defaults in their browser. which I think is the crux of the matter, since in the absence of hard evidence all our feelings on who has set what and what they think to the norm is pointless. I'd like a foolproof way of pleasing my client, without upsetting anyone. is there a way? ;) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On Sep 6, 2007, at 11:43 AM, Felix Miata wrote: How do you know those sites aren't getting back button treatment, or unanswered complaints? I work on a site that gets over a million page views per month. We set our base font size, using percentages, to be approximately 13 pixels. We had exactly 3 complaints last year, two of them from people who had IE text display set to Smaller. Yes, there may have been more people that would have liked it to be larger, but unless we hear from them I wouldn't know that. It's not rocket science to see that if the New York Times (base body 84.5%), Google (base body 12px), and Yahoo (base body 84.5%) all use smaller base font sizes, using 100% will result in fonts that look much larger than normal. Maybe to most people, but what about to people who have discovered zoom and minimum font size? To them, those/most sites will typically have problems with overlapping or hidden text, along with nearly right or right sized text in containers constraining them to too narrow line lengths. If the text containers are elastic and resize as the text is resized, this shouldn't be a major problem. You're arguing that people should use the browser defaults as the base; I'm arguing that long ago it was determined by *most* website designers that 16 pixels was too large (I'm *not* arguing whether that was the correct decision.) If you use 100% today, and people have already adjusted their browsers for adequate display (yes, usually adjusting the size up) your page will have freakishly large type. I *wish* there was a better standard, but there simply isn't, except in wishful thinking. Tim -- Timothy Swan Designer/Webmaster support InforME *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 6/9/07 (17:58) Tony said: we're in a catch 22 as I see it. if the browser manufacturers make the defaults smaller, then a lot of web sites break. If you don't adjust the font size at all it looks bigger than expected to *most* users - and if the client is looking at their site compared to everyone else they also expect it to look similar, not have massive fonts. perhaps the wise and good on his list would make it blindingly obvious which is the best and most pragmatic way to set font-size to conform to the norm - i.e. smaller than the default *without* messing up the minority of web users who have changed the defaults in their browser. which I think is the crux of the matter, since in the absence of hard evidence all our feelings on who has set what and what they think to the norm is pointless. I'd like a foolproof way of pleasing my client, without upsetting anyone. is there a way? Tony, next time I think I'll get you to write my original post. Clarity. I like clarity. ;-) -- Rick Lecoat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On Thu, September 6, 2007 2:13 pm, Timothy Swan wrote:
On Sep 5, 2007, at 10:09 PM, Dean Edridge wrote:
By giving users: body{font-size:100%;} you are doing the best you
can at your end, and It's up to them to ensure they have correctly
configured their browser to suit their eyesight or preferences.
I'd tend to agree with those that using the browser defaults as the
base font size would be ideal. Unfortunately we're dealing with years
of legacy web pages where the vast majority of fonts have been sized
down already (in my own unscientific study, over 90% of the sites I
sampled had the base p set to give an equivalent of 12-13 pixels.)
Probably the same 90% who are not designing Web standards compliant.
This however is the Web Standards Group (not the Microsoft support group)
and we shopuld be designing to those standards.
It's not rocket science to see that if the New York Times (base body
84.5%), Google (base body 12px), and Yahoo (base body 84.5%) all use
smaller base font sizes, using 100% will result in fonts that look
much larger than normal.
This is not a discussion of philosophy but of practicality. I want my
visitors to be able to resize the text to fit their needs, but I also
want my site to adhere to a widely accepted standard, which is *not*
16px.
12pt IS the widely accepted standard - it is the result of years of
research into Human Computer Interaction costing multi-millions in
usability testing investment by screen manufacturers and software
development companies - that's why it's chosen as the default.
Amother statistic that seems to be unavailable is the vast numbers of
users who dont know how to change text size - and who subsequently go
around muttering I wish those bleedin' idiots would make the text
bigger.
Tim Swan
--
Timothy Swan
Designer/Webmaster support
InforME
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 2007/09/06 17:58 (GMT+0100) Tony Crockford apparently typed: If you don't adjust the font size at all it looks bigger than expected to *most* users This is only a problem if you choose to regard it as a problem. Neither is what users want and expect necessarily the same thing. Being part of a majority doesn't not necessarily make you or the majority right. - and if the client is looking at their site compared to everyone else they also expect it to look similar, not have massive fonts. You're the expert. Your clientele is a limited universe you can try to educate. You could offer it a look at some authoritative sites that both exhibit respect and recommend respect. -- It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape. Chief Justice Joseph Story Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 2007/09/06 13:08 (GMT-0400) Timothy Swan apparently typed: If the text containers are elastic and resize as the text is resized, this shouldn't be a major problem. The comparison was made to most other sites. Most other sites are neither standards compliant nor elastic. You're arguing that people should use the browser defaults as the base; I'm arguing that long ago Long ago is a point I've made upthread more than one, which seems to get ignored each time it was determined by *most* website designers Contrary to the determinations of the computer operating system designers and web browser designers. that 16 pixels was too large (I'm *not* arguing whether that was the correct decision.) Roughly a decade ago. In the meantime, the average size of a px has been decreasing, as a consequence of the average increase in display DPI. It may have been correct for the time, but it's gone stale, particularly since the variance has also grown. There were no touchscreens or handhelds or 11 WXGA laptops then, nor 30 LCDs. Then as now, you don't know how big 16px is except for the 16px right in front of your face. -- It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape. Chief Justice Joseph Story Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 6 Sep 2007, at 18:30, Felix Miata wrote: On 2007/09/06 17:58 (GMT+0100) Tony Crockford apparently typed: - and if the client is looking at their site compared to everyone else they also expect it to look similar, not have massive fonts. You're the expert. Your clientele is a limited universe you can try to educate. You could offer it a look at some authoritative sites that both exhibit respect and recommend respect. but sadly, in my world, they don't. The majority is what they want to *be* like. I'm still looking for a best practice solution to reducing font size to the *norm* and not causing problems when I do so. have you any suggestions on that front? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
Tony Crockford wrote: I'm still looking for a best practice solution to reducing font size to the *norm* and not causing problems when I do so. have you any suggestions on that front? in web design and the way the viewer can set font limits, i don't think there is a *norm*. setting your font size to 100% in the body and then using ems or percentages to shrink font size is what i would recommend. do a test page for your client and then show them how the user can control the fonts in their browser and maybe they will understand how unstable web design really is. don't forget to show them the test page at different resolutions as well. then you and your client can sit down and talk about what would be best for them. my 2 cents. dwain -- Dwain Alford http://www.alford-design-group.com The artist may use any form which his expression demands; for his inner impulse must find suitable expression. Kandinsky *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 6 Sep 2007, at 20:32, dwain wrote: Tony Crockford wrote: I'm still looking for a best practice solution to reducing font size to the *norm* and not causing problems when I do so. have you any suggestions on that front? in web design and the way the viewer can set font limits, i don't think there is a *norm*. setting your font size to 100% in the body and then using ems or percentages to shrink font size is what i would recommend. That's what I've been doing. what are the downsides of this approach? who do they affect? how are they affected. (I'm slightly hazy on the whole user set browser defaults thing, there seem to be a number of options including application preferences and user stylesheets. and a combination of minimum fonts, ignore all fonts and larger/smaller text settings in IE) so, what happens if a user has their default font set larger than the browser default in this case? conversely what happens if they have set their default smaller than the manufacturer shipped settings? Maybe Felix explained it, but I didn't understand it, can someone just make it simple, so I can judge the merit of this pragmatism? tia *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
Tony Crockford wrote: I'm still looking for a best practice solution to reducing font size to the *norm* and not causing problems when I do so. The most cross-browser reliable method is to declare 'font-size: 100%' as base, and size *down* _only_ on the text-carrying elements. This approach let all container-elements inherit the base directly, which means 100% = 1em = default = 'chosen or unchosen user preferences' everywhere but on text. This will in most cases make it a lot easier to size all elements to line up as intended relative to all others even when 'em', '%' and 'px' is used in the element-size mix, than if each of the container-elements rely on intermediate deviations from base font-size. An added advantage is that text doesn't get unintentionally and unnecessarily blown up in some browsers, because of how they apply 'minimum font size'. Call it browser-bugs or whatever, but too many sites break under the slightest stress simply because they adjust font-size _up_ from base (which usually is body) rather than down. Once your font-size issue is solved in a way that makes it technically able to take font-resizing well, then there's not much more you can do. The need for font-resizing and how to achieve it, is for the end user to decide on and solve, and your responsibility ends once you have made absolutely sure _your_ solution doesn't prevent _them_ from using _their_ software to resize. The only way to make sure your method is not causing any unsolvable problems at the user-end, is to test across browsers and browser-options until breaking-point and a bit beyond. You should ideally know more about how your solution behaves and how much stress it can take, than any end user. However, there's no way you can prevent a user from breaking your well-prepared solution by adding a particularly nasty user-stylesheet, so you can quietly limit your testing to the more ordinary, selectable, browser-options. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
Tony Crockford wrote: what are the downsides of this approach? the down side is the user controls your font sizes. in ie i usually use the medium setting then check the largest setting to make sure the design doesn't break. there are some who set 12 as their minimum and god knows what for a maximum font size. then others set a minimum of 9. these are just some of the joys of being a web developer/designer. who do they affect? how are they affected. everybody is effected and it depends on their font size settings in there browser. also screen resolution plays a part in font sizes as well. 800x600 fonts and images are huge while 1280x800 on my laptop seems normal to me now. i still run across sites that have small font sizes for their content. once you start increasing the font size to where you can read it the design usually falls apart, especially if the designer used table for layout. (I'm slightly hazy on the whole user set browser defaults thing, there seem to be a number of options including application preferences and user stylesheets. and a combination of minimum fonts, ignore all fonts and larger/smaller text settings in IE) so, what happens if a user has their default font set larger than the browser default in this case? then the fonts are larger. conversely what happens if they have set their default smaller than the manufacturer shipped settings? then the fonts are smaller. Maybe Felix explained it, but I didn't understand it, can someone just make it simple, so I can judge the merit of this pragmatism? i guess the best practice *norm* would be to set the font size in the body at 100% and scale up or down from there using css. you can make yourself sick if you worry about this too much. all you can do is decide on how you want your font size to look with respect to default browser settings and pray that someone out there doesn't set their font settings to 5 or worse yet 1; but then again, that's their choice and that was one of the hardest things for me to overcome; i can make it look good on my computer, but i have no control over the browser settings other viewers of my sites set for themselves. good luck, dwain -- Dwain Alford http://www.alford-design-group.com The artist may use any form which his expression demands; for his inner impulse must find suitable expression. Kandinsky *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 2007/09/06 20:16 (GMT+0100) Tony Crockford apparently typed:
On 6 Sep 2007, at 18:30, Felix Miata wrote:
You're the expert. Your clientele is a limited universe you can try
to educate. You could offer it a look at some authoritative sites
that both exhibit respect and recommend respect.
but sadly, in my world, they don't.
Don't what? Don't understand your instruction? Don't believe your instruction?
Don't let you try to instruct them? Don't look at the good example sites you
offer them? ? ? ?
The majority is what they want to *be* like.
The majority always gets it right, right? Inertia is easy to overcome, right?
Do they understand that it's good business to treat customers right, which on
the WWW means big, easy-to-read text?
http://www.lighthouse.org/accessibility/top-10/
I'm still looking for a best practice solution to reducing font size
to the *norm* and not causing problems when I do so.
have you any suggestions on that front?
If you want an answer based upon experience, it can't really come from here,
because I only do 100% basing, and defensive training.
The least intrusive method is building the site such that it can continue to
nicely function no matter what size is set on body, which in essence is the
functionally effective application of both different defaults than
yours, and zooming. (It's also a byproduct of good liquid/fluid/flexible
design.) By controlling the whole thing solely by the size set on body, users
also get the benefit that a simple user stylesheet can return your site
to using their default size. The whole stylesheet:
body {font-size: medium !important;}
That simplicity cannot work on sites where fonts are set on particular
elements, or via class ids or names. Anything much beyond that one rule is
beyond the capability of any besides web design professionals accustomed to
routine use of CSS.
--
It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs,
whether any free government can be permanent, where the
public worship of God, and the support of religion,
constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in
any assignable shape.
Chief Justice Joseph Story
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 2007/09/06 20:42 (GMT+0100) Tony Crockford apparently typed: I'm slightly hazy on the whole user set browser defaults thing, there seem to be a number of options including application preferences and user stylesheets. and a combination of minimum fonts, ignore all fonts and larger/smaller text settings in IE The defaults are responsible for the size and family the browser uses when neither user nor site applies CSS to elements affected by those defaults, and presentational font markup is not employed on those elements. IE's font smallest/smaller/medium/larger/largest selector in effect is one (crude and defective) mechanism that sets its default (the other one is the system DPI selection in desktop settings). It's defective in that its setting is totally disregarded when px or absolute units are applied to size text via CSS. IE's two ignore fonts settings mean that the basic defaults are applied even when site and/or user CSS exists, plus when sites set sizes using px or absolute units. A minimum font size setting in simplistic terms means simply a size below which no text will be allowed to be rendered by the browser. Due to the manner of implementation by its programmers, Gecko browsers with a minimum font size applied will often render large portitions of a page not only larger than the minimum setting, but also larger than *its own* default size setting. The latter mostly happens when authors implement the Clagnut CSS font sizing method. http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/Clagnut/eonsSS.html User stylesheets in those rare cases they exist are generally employed to override particular site CSS, rather than to affect browser defaults. so, what happens if a user has their default font set larger than the browser default in this case? Can't happen. Browser default == user default. :-p conversely what happens if they have set their default smaller than the manufacturer shipped settings? Given the same size display and the same display resolution, all web page text that is sized based on the the browser default setting will be smaller than if the shipped settings had been retained. Maybe Felix explained it, but I didn't understand it, can someone just make it simple, so I can judge the merit of this pragmatism? Oh that it should be simple, but with power, comes complexity. -- It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape. Chief Justice Joseph Story Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
