Re: [Cooker] Mandrake Web Site Fonts
On Wednesday 10 September 2003 10:33, Felix Miata wrote: > rather ugly. Verdana, and its emulator, Bitstream Vera Sans, > are the largest fonts commonly available at any given size. That's why I made Toga (and MIcrosoft made Tahoma). http://www.binara.com/toga/ Not that it helps with the people who design pages for Verdana and Vera. Rob
Re: [Cooker] Mandrake Web Site Fonts
On Wed 10 Sep 2003 07:33, Felix Miata posted as excerpted below: > The best setting is none at all, or else font-family: sans-serif;. No kidding! The same applies to colors, of course. Some people prefer light on dark, while most web sites seem to default to dark on light. The worst problem is when a site sets bgcolor but not text color, or the reverse, making an assumption about user color setting that may not be true, and causing some folks to get white text on white background (or black on black, for the reverse). If one IS going to set one of the two, one should set BOTH. It's mainly for the color thing that I'm running a personal web proxy, the contribs package privoxy. I have it set up with quite a list of s/bgcolor=f.f.f.// s/bgcolor=e.e.e./bgcolor=11/ s/text=0.0.0.// s/text=1.1.1./text=ee/ etc. (Of course the actual substitutions are a bit more complex than that, but you get the idea.) OTOH, the only font thing I've come across that I had to substitute for was s+ms sans serif(,?)+m\$ sans serif($1)+isg (which disables it, but leaves the telltale m$ version there so I can see the filter activated, if there are issues). Finally, it's worth mentioning that an earlier version of Konqueror would crash on the » sequence if used in a title. Well, not crash, exactly, but make KDE (not just Konqueror) entirely unresponsive to input. One could use the kernel's MagicSRQ keys to invoke raw keyboard, then switch to another VC, from which KDE could be terminated and reinvoked, but that was about it. Thus, I inserted a substitute for that using > > instead, which worked fine. (I've been going to check on it again and bug report if necessary, but I'm a bit behind on updates right now..) I started using personal web proxies with the Proxomitron on MSWormOS, and for a time felt lost browsing the web on Linux w/o it. I tried several, but when that contrib package of privoxy arrived, it was just what I needed! Browsing is a much better experience when it's done on my terms, thanks to a personal web proxy set up to rewrite IMO stupid page designs into something a bit more personally tolerable. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin
Re: [Cooker] Mandrake Web Site Fonts
Adam Williamson wrote: On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 03:44, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote: Adam Williamson wrote: On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 19:01, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote: In this case functionality does not dictate that the default fonts look bad. It is possible, and preferred, to have good form and function at the same time. You seem to have lost track of the argument. It moved from "should we stop having helvetica as the preferred font?" (to which everyone seems to agree the answer is "yes") to "what should we replace it with?", with some arguing for a specific font - verdana or arial or whatever - followed by sans-serif, with others arguing for the generic alias first, followed by the specific font name. Try looking at the timestamps of the messages before making assumptions about my grasp of the conversation. You'll find that you're about 5 hours too late to make that statement. Uh? What do the timestamps have to do with it? I was simply going by the messages quoted above your reply. You seemed to be thinking that the person to whom you were requiring wanted to keep Helvetica as the default font, which wasn't the case. Then it was my fault that I didn't place my response inline. I was responding to Han's statement that we don't need looks, we need functionality, as if they were mutually exclusive. Is it OK that I responded to Han? How would you like me to craft my posts so as not to offend you with my *wildly off-point* comments in the future? -- Brant Fitzsimmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Linux user #322847 | Linux machine #207465 | http://counter.li.org/ AMD Duron 1.3GHz | Mandrake 9.1 | Kernel 2.4.21-0.16mm-mdk KDE 3.1.3 | Mozilla 1.4 Mail Client Uptime: 12:00:01 up 4 days, 23:16, 1 user, load average: 0.03, 0.22, 0.19 ___ "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." -Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
Re: [Cooker] Mandrake Web Site Fonts
On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 03:44, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote: > Adam Williamson wrote: > > >On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 19:01, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote: > > > > > > > >>In this case functionality does not dictate that the default fonts look > >>bad. It is possible, and preferred, to have good form and function at > >>the same time. > >> > >> > > > >You seem to have lost track of the argument. It moved from "should we > >stop having helvetica as the preferred font?" (to which everyone seems > >to agree the answer is "yes") to "what should we replace it with?", with > >some arguing for a specific font - verdana or arial or whatever - > >followed by sans-serif, with others arguing for the generic alias first, > >followed by the specific font name. > > > > > > Try looking at the timestamps of the messages before making assumptions > about my grasp of the conversation. You'll find that you're about 5 > hours too late to make that statement. Uh? What do the timestamps have to do with it? I was simply going by the messages quoted above your reply. You seemed to be thinking that the person to whom you were requiring wanted to keep Helvetica as the default font, which wasn't the case. -- adamw
Re: [Cooker] Mandrake Web Site Fonts
Then there's the DPI issue. Pt sizes depend on DPI as well as monitor size and resolution, while px sizes only depend on monitor size and resolution. Pt is not an appropriate way to size display fonts: then there is the problem of folks that need to use high res desktops due to aps or wanting the space or but have fair to worse eyesight mines 40/200 (i start to get blurring at about 2 foot) pleas let the user decide how big a "dinky" font should be
Re: [Cooker] Mandrake Web Site Fonts
Adam Williamson wrote: On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 19:01, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote: In this case functionality does not dictate that the default fonts look bad. It is possible, and preferred, to have good form and function at the same time. You seem to have lost track of the argument. It moved from "should we stop having helvetica as the preferred font?" (to which everyone seems to agree the answer is "yes") to "what should we replace it with?", with some arguing for a specific font - verdana or arial or whatever - followed by sans-serif, with others arguing for the generic alias first, followed by the specific font name. Try looking at the timestamps of the messages before making assumptions about my grasp of the conversation. You'll find that you're about 5 hours too late to make that statement. -- Brant Fitzsimmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Linux user #322847 | Linux machine #207465 | http://counter.li.org/ AMD Duron 1.3GHz | Mandrake 9.1 | Kernel 2.4.21-0.16mm-mdk KDE 3.1.3 | Mozilla 1.4 Mail Client Uptime: 22:40:00 up 4 days, 9:56, 1 user, load average: 0.08, 0.16, 0.09 ___ "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." -Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
Re: [Cooker] Mandrake Web Site Fonts
On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 01:07, Felix Miata wrote: > Adam Williamson wrote: > > > On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 15:27, Felix Miata wrote: > > > > The above is very offensive, not so much the family as the size. Those > > > using high resolution displays like 1600x1200 or above see 12px as > > > Only if their system is misconfigured. > > Absolutely not! > > > If you use 1600x1200 on a monitor > > below 17" in size, you're misusing it. > > Absolutely not! Maybe you'd like to explain the preponderance of > notebook displays of about 15" that are optimized for 1280x1024 (SXGA), > 1400x1050 (SXGA+), or even 1600x1200 (UXGA)? With pleasure. A 15" laptop display is equivalent to a 17" CRT, and LCDs are generally better at being viewable at high resolution anyway, so 1280x1024 or 1400x1050 are perfectly acceptable on them. Personally, I think 1600x1200 is still too high for a 15" LCD. I wouldn't buy a laptop which had such a screen. > > For a monitor 19" in size or > > bigger, 12pt fonts at 1600x1200 should look pretty much the same size as > > 12pt fonts at 1280x1024 on a 17" monitor, for instance. Point sizes are > > Actually not. 1600x1200 is a standard 4/3 aspect ratio, while 1280x1024 > is a bastard 5/4 ratio, and everything is malproportioned as a result of > the latter. See http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/aspect.html Yes, I know this. It was simply an example resolution in the sensible range for monitor size / resolution tradeoff. > Then there's the DPI issue. Pt sizes depend on DPI as well as monitor > size and resolution, while px sizes only depend on monitor size and > resolution. Pt is not an appropriate way to size display fonts: > > http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/#tech-relative-units > http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/gls/g104.html > > > relative, not absolute, and therefore if you configure X correctly and > > use a reasonable resolution for your display size, a 12pt font will be > > perfectly fine. > > 12pt should be fine for about anyone in any case. However, the web page > at issue was not using pt, but rather px, which is entirely different. > Visit http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/allreschooser.html to > understand the impact of 12px, regardless of resolution. Ah, I thought webpages set sizes in pt. My bad, sorry. -- adamw
Re: [Cooker] Mandrake Web Site Fonts
Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 15:27, Felix Miata wrote: > > The above is very offensive, not so much the family as the size. Those > > using high resolution displays like 1600x1200 or above see 12px as > Only if their system is misconfigured. Absolutely not! > If you use 1600x1200 on a monitor > below 17" in size, you're misusing it. Absolutely not! Maybe you'd like to explain the preponderance of notebook displays of about 15" that are optimized for 1280x1024 (SXGA), 1400x1050 (SXGA+), or even 1600x1200 (UXGA)? > For a monitor 19" in size or > bigger, 12pt fonts at 1600x1200 should look pretty much the same size as > 12pt fonts at 1280x1024 on a 17" monitor, for instance. Point sizes are Actually not. 1600x1200 is a standard 4/3 aspect ratio, while 1280x1024 is a bastard 5/4 ratio, and everything is malproportioned as a result of the latter. See http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/aspect.html Then there's the DPI issue. Pt sizes depend on DPI as well as monitor size and resolution, while px sizes only depend on monitor size and resolution. Pt is not an appropriate way to size display fonts: http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/#tech-relative-units http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/gls/g104.html > relative, not absolute, and therefore if you configure X correctly and > use a reasonable resolution for your display size, a 12pt font will be > perfectly fine. 12pt should be fine for about anyone in any case. However, the web page at issue was not using pt, but rather px, which is entirely different. Visit http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/allreschooser.html to understand the impact of 12px, regardless of resolution. More to help understand the difference: http://www.elsid.co.za/download/css_fontsizes.htm > I'm writing this with a 10pt font at 1600x1200 on a 19" > display and it looks great. As it should, if DPI is suitably set. For me, at 1600x1200, it takes somewhere around 168 DPI to make 10pt "right sized" on 19", while on 1280x1024 it takes only 132 DPI to make 10pt "right sized" on 19". I normally use 1024x768 at 120 DPI, which makes 10pt "right-sized" for me on 19". High resolution is for those interested in high quality. It should not be synonymous with shrunken system controls, which in practice is generally the case, and the reason why I don't normally use higher than 1024x768 on 19". It was only after upgrading my primary monitor from 17" to 19" that I switched up from normally using 800x600. High resolution is about greater accuracy and fidelity within a given amount of physical space, and shouldn't depend on monitor size at all. See http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary: [resolution] "h : the process or capability of making distinguishable the individual parts of an object, closely adjacent optical images, or sources of light". -- "...[B]e quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry" James 1:19 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/auth.html
Re: [Cooker] Mandrake Web Site Fonts
Digital Wokan wrote: > Felix Miata wrote: > > Why must dee-zine-ers assume that their choices are better than users'? > > By allowing the users' choice instead of overriding, new users of > > Mandrake can see what the Mandrake defaults look like. ;-) > Because good dee-zine-ers have read studies on what makes for eye > catching displays. Well whoop-de-doo! > While the Mandrake sites' purposes are primarily to > disseminate information, Appears so. > though as the first impression of Mandrake a > non-Linux user gets, it would only benefit Mandrake's cause to have an > appealing site. And how is being eye-appealing contradictory to being useful? The question remains how can the dee-zine-ers know that the visitor even has the dictated font installed, much less that the visitor would rather see some font other than the one he preferred and selected for his own default? -- "...[B]e quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry" James 1:19 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/auth.html
Re: [Cooker] Mandrake Web Site Fonts
Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 15:45, Felix Miata wrote: > > No, you should put sans-serif first, and leave out arial and helvetica > > and verdana. That way, whatever the user has decided is the best > > sans-serif is the one that will be used. > > I agree, and in fact if you refer to my earlier post you'll see I > suggested "sans, verdana, helvetica" as my preferred ordering. Though > you're right I should've said sans-serif, not sans, as sans is > deprecated...oops. I wrote to "leave out arial and helvetica and verdana" because to put anything at all AFTER sans-serif is 100% wasted bandwidth. If the visitor has any sans-serif fonts installed at all, which he will 99.% of the time, whichever his is configured to use by default WILL be what is used when sans-serif is the first listed. Those listed after sans-serif will never be selected by the browser on account of their inclusion either in the css or the tag, because either: 1-they aren't present, and so weren't found among available sans-serif choices, or 2-are present, but were first found as possible sans-serif choices. -- "...[B]e quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry" James 1:19 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/auth.html
Re: [Cooker] Mandrake Web Site Fonts
On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 02:16, Diego Iastrubni wrote: > ביום רביעי, 10 בספטמבר 2003, 22:07, Adam Williamson כתב: > > I agree, and in fact if you refer to my earlier post you'll see I > > suggested "sans, verdana, helvetica" as my preferred ordering. Though > > you're right I should've said sans-serif, not sans, as sans is > > deprecated...oops. > IMHO setting fotns is eveil. Let the user set them in the brower config Would also work fine, yeah. -- adamw
Re: [Cooker] Mandrake Web Site Fonts
On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 19:04, Digital Wokan wrote: > Because good dee-zine-ers have read studies on what makes for eye > catching displays. While the Mandrake sites' purposes are primarily to > disseminate information, though as the first impression of Mandrake a > non-Linux user gets, it would only benefit Mandrake's cause to have an > appealing site. > > Ever wonder why you're beta testing a Linux distro instead of doing ad > campaigns for Fortune 500 companies? Stop arguing the toss, read the thread and make some kind of concrete suggestion. What does all the hot air above actually *equate* to in terms of what you want the font preferences to be for the Mandrake website? Or are you just pissing in the wind? -- adamw
Re: [Cooker] Mandrake Web Site Fonts
On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 19:01, Brant Fitzsimmons wrote: > In this case functionality does not dictate that the default fonts look > bad. It is possible, and preferred, to have good form and function at > the same time. You seem to have lost track of the argument. It moved from "should we stop having helvetica as the preferred font?" (to which everyone seems to agree the answer is "yes") to "what should we replace it with?", with some arguing for a specific font - verdana or arial or whatever - followed by sans-serif, with others arguing for the generic alias first, followed by the specific font name. -- adamw
Re: [Cooker] Mandrake Web Site Fonts
ביום רביעי, 10 בספטמבר 2003, 22:07, Adam Williamson כתב: > I agree, and in fact if you refer to my earlier post you'll see I > suggested "sans, verdana, helvetica" as my preferred ordering. Though > you're right I should've said sans-serif, not sans, as sans is > deprecated...oops. IMHO setting fotns is eveil. Let the user set them in the brower config -- - diego / Kansas state law requires pedestrians \ | crossing the highways at night to wear | \ tail lights. / \ ^__^ \ (xx)\___ (__)\ )\/\ U ||w | || || Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Re: [Cooker] Mandrake Web Site Fonts
On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 18:17, FACORAT Fabrice wrote: > normal you put your specific fonts first and then default one ( family > like sans-serif ) so that if the user doesn't have the font you want it > fallback to generals ones. This is only if you're conceited enough to believe your website only looks good in the One True Font in which you designed it. IMO, you should design sites so they'll look fine with whatever font the user prefers, and put the general alias before the specific fonts in the preference order. That way we all get to look at the fonts we like, and I can see Vera and Felix can see Helvetica and we don't have to argue. :) -- adamw
Re: [Cooker] Mandrake Web Site Fonts
On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 15:45, Felix Miata wrote: > FACORAT Fabrice wrote: > > > so they don't know how to use css, class, implicite class, etc ... ? > > The problem is that many mdk site need to be redesigned. > > The only one with a decent design is http://www.mandrakesoft.com others > > are crap. > > > - link should not be underlined and should have a special color with a > > color change for hover event, for example : > > No, links should be underlined, so that users know a link is a link > without having to hover. See e.g. > http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9605.html > > > > The same issue applies here, you should use instead: > > > font-family: arial, sans-serif, helvetica; > > > you should put Verdana before Arial as Arial sometimes is bolder than > > other fonts. > > No, you should put sans-serif first, and leave out arial and helvetica > and verdana. That way, whatever the user has decided is the best > sans-serif is the one that will be used. I agree, and in fact if you refer to my earlier post you'll see I suggested "sans, verdana, helvetica" as my preferred ordering. Though you're right I should've said sans-serif, not sans, as sans is deprecated...oops. -- adamw
Re: [Cooker] Mandrake Web Site Fonts
On Wed, 2003-09-10 at 15:27, Felix Miata wrote: > The above is very offensive, not so much the family as the size. Those > using high resolution displays like 1600x1200 or above see 12px as Only if their system is misconfigured. If you use 1600x1200 on a monitor below 17" in size, you're misusing it. For a monitor 19" in size or bigger, 12pt fonts at 1600x1200 should look pretty much the same size as 12pt fonts at 1280x1024 on a 17" monitor, for instance. Point sizes are relative, not absolute, and therefore if you configure X correctly and use a reasonable resolution for your display size, a 12pt font will be perfectly fine. I'm writing this with a 10pt font at 1600x1200 on a 19" display and it looks great. -- adamw
Re: [Cooker] Mandrake Web Site Fonts
Because good dee-zine-ers have read studies on what makes for eye catching displays. While the Mandrake sites' purposes are primarily to disseminate information, though as the first impression of Mandrake a non-Linux user gets, it would only benefit Mandrake's cause to have an appealing site. Ever wonder why you're beta testing a Linux distro instead of doing ad campaigns for Fortune 500 companies? Digital "Top Post Happy" Wokan Felix Miata wrote: > Why must dee-zine-ers assume that their choices are better than users'? > By allowing the users' choice instead of overriding, new users of > Mandrake can see what the Mandrake defaults look like. ;-) Brant Fitzsimmons wrote: In this case functionality does not dictate that the default fonts look bad. It is possible, and preferred, to have good form and function at the same time. Han Boetes wrote: Exactly. Let people choose their own favourite font-sets. Once again. This is not an art-site. It needs to be functional.
Re: [Cooker] Mandrake Web Site Fonts
Brant Fitzsimmons wrote: > Han Boetes wrote: > >Exactly. Let people choose their own favourite font-sets. Once > >again. This is not an art-site. It needs to be functional. > In this case functionality does not dictate that the default fonts look > bad. It is possible, and preferred, to have good form and function at > the same time. Why must dee-zine-ers assume that their choices are better than users'? By allowing the users' choice instead of overriding, new users of Mandrake can see what the Mandrake defaults look like. ;-) -- "...[B]e quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry" James 1:19 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/auth.html
Re: [Cooker] Mandrake Web Site Fonts
Han Boetes wrote: Felix Miata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: FACORAT Fabrice wrote: Le mer 10/09/2003 à 14:45, Felix Miata a écrit: No, links should be underlined, so that users know a link is a link without having to hover. See e.g. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9605.html underline is weird. link in blue ok, but not underline, this is not beautiful at all ! It isn't about beauty, it's about usability. Users expect links to be blue and underlined. When they aren't, usability suffers, because you've violated a standard practice they rely on. People who don't want this can disable it in their webbrowser. And mandrake isn't an art-like site. It has to be usable. No, you should put sans-serif first, and leave out arial and helvetica and verdana. That way, whatever the user has decided is the best sans-serif is the one that will be used. normal you put your specific fonts first and then default one ( family like sans-serif ) so that if the user doesn't have the font you want it fallback to generals ones. Normal only as in common practice, not as in wise practice. When you have a need (normally uncommon) to use specific fonts on your page, then specify them. Otherwise, let the user see his choice by making only the generic specification, or none at all. Font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; is just plain dumb me-too-ism. Exactly. Let people choose their own favourite font-sets. Once again. This is not an art-site. It needs to be functional. # Han In this case functionality does not dictate that the default fonts look bad. It is possible, and preferred, to have good form and function at the same time. -- Brant Fitzsimmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Linux user #322847 | Linux machine #207465 | http://counter.li.org/ AMD Duron 1.3GHz | Mandrake 9.1 | Kernel 2.4.21-0.16mm-mdk KDE 3.1.3 | Mozilla 1.4 Mail Client Uptime: 13:55:00 up 4 days, 1:11, 1 user, load average: 0.20, 0.34, 0.18 ___ "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." -Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)
Re: [Cooker] Mandrake Web Site Fonts
Felix Miata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > FACORAT Fabrice wrote: > > Le mer 10/09/2003 à 14:45, Felix Miata a écrit: > > > No, links should be underlined, so that users know a link is a > > > link without having to hover. See e.g. > > > http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9605.html > > > > underline is weird. link in blue ok, but not underline, this is not > > beautiful at all ! > > It isn't about beauty, it's about usability. Users expect links to be > blue and underlined. When they aren't, usability suffers, because > you've violated a standard practice they rely on. People who don't want this can disable it in their webbrowser. And mandrake isn't an art-like site. It has to be usable. > > > No, you should put sans-serif first, and leave out arial and > > > helvetica and verdana. That way, whatever the user has decided is > > > the best sans-serif is the one that will be used. > > > > normal you put your specific fonts first and then default one ( > > family like sans-serif ) so that if the user doesn't have the font > > you want it fallback to generals ones. > > Normal only as in common practice, not as in wise practice. When you > have a need (normally uncommon) to use specific fonts on your page, > then specify them. Otherwise, let the user see his choice by making > only the generic specification, or none at all. Font-family: verdana, > arial, helvetica, sans-serif; is just plain dumb me-too-ism. Exactly. Let people choose their own favourite font-sets. Once again. This is not an art-site. It needs to be functional. # Han -- http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/software http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/documents/quotingguide.html
Re: [Cooker] Mandrake Web Site Fonts
FACORAT Fabrice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > - link should not be underlined and should have a special color > > > with a color change for hover event, for example : > > > > No, links should be underlined, so that users know a link is a > > link without having to hover. See e.g. > > http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9605.html > > underline is weird. link in blue ok, but not underline, this is not > beautiful at all ! this should be left as user preference in navigator, but never in css stylesheets. idem for fonts, i really think fonts should not be set up (fsck broken navigators)
Re: [Cooker] Mandrake Web Site Fonts
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Felix Miata wrote: > FACORAT Fabrice wrote: > > >>Le mer 10/09/2003 à 14:45, Felix Miata a écrit : > > >>>No, links should be underlined, so that users know a link is a link >>>without having to hover. See e.g. >>>http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9605.html > >>underline is weird. link in blue ok, but not underline, this is not >>beautiful at all ! > > It isn't about beauty, it's about usability. Users expect links to be > blue and underlined. When they aren't, usability suffers, because you've > violated a standard practice they rely on. > I agree. Take lwn.net for example, they use blue links which are not underlined. My monitor at home has recently lost most of it's blue colour drive, it is very old (no chance of warranty, little chance of getting it fixed) and I will not be needing it quite soon (so no sense in paying money to replace it), but that screws up lwn.net for me, at home I have to mouse over all the text until I find words that change colour (from black to red). It would be much easier if they were underlined. Try using the web as a colour-blind person (or someone like me with a broken monitor), turn down one of the colour drives, and see what effect it has on the function of beauty and usability ... Regards, Buchan - -- |--Another happy Mandrake Club member--| Buchan MilneMechanical Engineer, Network Manager Cellphone * Work+27 82 472 2231 * +27 21 8828820x202 Stellenbosch Automotive Engineering http://www.cae.co.za GPG Key http://ranger.dnsalias.com/bgmilne.asc 1024D/60D204A7 2919 E232 5610 A038 87B1 72D6 AC92 BA50 60D2 04A7 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE/X1QPrJK6UGDSBKcRAv4yAJ9jvXu5amkRHLbnvOSttgDvjDh2EwCfdHQG KbaN8vdq/YcQ/Cla9ViuLJg= =Z83m -END PGP SIGNATURE- * Please click on http://www.cae.co.za/disclaimer.htm to read our e-mail disclaimer or send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a copy. *
Re: [Cooker] Mandrake Web Site Fonts
FACORAT Fabrice wrote: > Le mer 10/09/2003 à 14:45, Felix Miata a écrit : > > No, links should be underlined, so that users know a link is a link > > without having to hover. See e.g. > > http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9605.html > underline is weird. link in blue ok, but not underline, this is not > beautiful at all ! It isn't about beauty, it's about usability. Users expect links to be blue and underlined. When they aren't, usability suffers, because you've violated a standard practice they rely on. > > No, you should put sans-serif first, and leave out arial and helvetica > > and verdana. That way, whatever the user has decided is the best > > sans-serif is the one that will be used. > normal you put your specific fonts first and then default one ( family > like sans-serif ) so that if the user doesn't have the font you want it > fallback to generals ones. Normal only as in common practice, not as in wise practice. When you have a need (normally uncommon) to use specific fonts on your page, then specify them. Otherwise, let the user see his choice by making only the generic specification, or none at all. Font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; is just plain dumb me-too-ism. -- "...[B]e quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry" James 1:19 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/auth.html
Re: [Cooker] Mandrake Web Site Fonts
FACORAT Fabrice wrote: > Le mer 10/09/2003 à 14:27, Felix Miata a écrit : > > Personally I find rather little distinction between helvetica and arial, > > and in fact use arial as my default on systems on which it is installed. > Arial is to bold and on some system where arial is not correctly > installed you may have on bold arial. Why should it matter whether bold or not? M$'s arial.ttf bolds at 18px and above. Many fonts bold starting at 16px (Comic Sans MS), 17px (Trubuchet MS) or 18px (Verdana & Arial). Don't remember which, but one common font bolds at 20px. Check some for yourself at http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/fonts-face-index.html > > information that varying text sizes convey. Instead, no size should be > > set at all, or the size should be set to 100%, so that the user sees > > whatever size he has determined best suited to his use. > or font-size: normal; That's OK on pages you don't expect to be viewed in IE. But, IE has bugs, and if you don't want people seeing the effects of the IE bugs, always set a font-size using % in body. > > The browsers all use the first listed font they find. The only way > > helvetica would be used in either case is when arial does not exist but > > helvetica does exist and gets selected because it is in fact a > > sans-serif font. > > What really should be used instead is font-family: > > sans-serif; > > That way, the user's choice of sans-serif will be used, be it arial or > > verdana or helvetica, or, heaven forbid, the Mandrake Linux installed > > sans-serif default. > you will not have only mdk linux. You may have RH ( poor fonts quality > ). I don't think RHL has a problem any more since switching to freetype 2. -- "...[B]e quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry" James 1:19 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/auth.html
Re: [Cooker] Mandrake Web Site Fonts
Le mer 10/09/2003 à 14:27, Felix Miata a écrit : > Buchan Milne wrote: > > > Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > Agree 100%, assuming this means the site still has Helvetica set as its > > > preferred font. We've spent years in the distro fixing the reliance on > > > this ass-ugly piece of bitmap crap, so why does the website of the damn > > > distro want to use it?! Since we now have such lovely fonts in Mandrake, > > > the website should have the default font set as "sans", so it actually > > > looks half acceptable. Sites that default to Helvetica bug me so much > > > I've actually wiped the font from my system (I tried setting up that > > > thing you can do in fonts.conf that make it use Vera in place of > > > Helvetica, but I could never make it work), so now the MDK page looks > > > okay to me, but this is a hack I should NOT have to use. > > I wipe Verdana from systems that come with it. Same for Bitstream Vera > Sans. Helvetica looks fine to me, though I like others better. I no longer use helvetica as it seems to no to be AA. it's weird. I use Verdana most of the time. > Personally I find rather little distinction between helvetica and arial, > and in fact use arial as my default on systems on which it is installed. Arial is to bold and on some system where arial is not correctly installed you may have on bold arial. > The above is very offensive, not so much the family as the size. Those > using high resolution displays like 1600x1200 or above see 12px as > microscopic little mousetype, if they can see it at all, unless using a > browser with a minimum font size enabled, or when using a text or page > zoom feature. If using the former override, then most if not all text on > the page will be the user's minimum, which eliminates all contextual > information that varying text sizes convey. Instead, no size should be > set at all, or the size should be set to 100%, so that the user sees > whatever size he has determined best suited to his use. or font-size: normal; > The browsers all use the first listed font they find. The only way > helvetica would be used in either case is when arial does not exist but > helvetica does exist and gets selected because it is in fact a > sans-serif font. > > What really should be used instead is font-family: > > sans-serif; > > That way, the user's choice of sans-serif will be used, be it arial or > verdana or helvetica, or, heaven forbid, the Mandrake Linux installed > sans-serif default. you will not have only mdk linux. You may have RH ( poor fonts quality ).
Re: [Cooker] Mandrake Web Site Fonts
Le mer 10/09/2003 à 14:45, Felix Miata a écrit : > FACORAT Fabrice wrote: > > > so they don't know how to use css, class, implicite class, etc ... ? > > The problem is that many mdk site need to be redesigned. > > The only one with a decent design is http://www.mandrakesoft.com others > > are crap. > > > - link should not be underlined and should have a special color with a > > color change for hover event, for example : > > No, links should be underlined, so that users know a link is a link > without having to hover. See e.g. > http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9605.html underline is weird. link in blue ok, but not underline, this is not beautiful at all ! > > > The same issue applies here, you should use instead: > > > font-family: arial, sans-serif, helvetica; > > > you should put Verdana before Arial as Arial sometimes is bolder than > > other fonts. > > No, you should put sans-serif first, and leave out arial and helvetica > and verdana. That way, whatever the user has decided is the best > sans-serif is the one that will be used. normal you put your specific fonts first and then default one ( family like sans-serif ) so that if the user doesn't have the font you want it fallback to generals ones.
Re: [Cooker] Mandrake Web Site Fonts
FACORAT Fabrice wrote: > so they don't know how to use css, class, implicite class, etc ... ? > The problem is that many mdk site need to be redesigned. > The only one with a decent design is http://www.mandrakesoft.com others > are crap. > - link should not be underlined and should have a special color with a > color change for hover event, for example : No, links should be underlined, so that users know a link is a link without having to hover. See e.g. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9605.html > > The same issue applies here, you should use instead: > > font-family: arial, sans-serif, helvetica; > you should put Verdana before Arial as Arial sometimes is bolder than > other fonts. No, you should put sans-serif first, and leave out arial and helvetica and verdana. That way, whatever the user has decided is the best sans-serif is the one that will be used. -- "...[B]e quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry" James 1:19 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/auth.html
Re: [Cooker] Mandrake Web Site Fonts
Adam Williamson wrote: > Agreed. Besides, Verdana was expressly designed as a display font, and > Arial was expressly designed as a printed output font. Verdana looks way > better on screen than Arial, I've no idea why so many Windows users seem > to use Arial as a display font... Maybe because arial is more attractive at normal sizes? To each his own. Usually those who think Verdana looks better are seeing it primarily at small sizes. At small sizes, it looks fine. At normal or larger sizes, its proportions are rather ugly. Verdana, and its emulator, Bitstream Vera Sans, are the largest fonts commonly available at any given size. People who design sites with either as the first font choice are actually seeing everything larger than normal, larger than those who do not have these installed. The best setting is none at all, or else font-family: sans-serif;. -- "...[B]e quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry" James 1:19 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/auth.html
Re: [Cooker] Mandrake Web Site Fonts
Buchan Milne wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Agree 100%, assuming this means the site still has Helvetica set as its
> > preferred font. We've spent years in the distro fixing the reliance on
> > this ass-ugly piece of bitmap crap, so why does the website of the damn
> > distro want to use it?! Since we now have such lovely fonts in Mandrake,
> > the website should have the default font set as "sans", so it actually
> > looks half acceptable. Sites that default to Helvetica bug me so much
> > I've actually wiped the font from my system (I tried setting up that
> > thing you can do in fonts.conf that make it use Vera in place of
> > Helvetica, but I could never make it work), so now the MDK page looks
> > okay to me, but this is a hack I should NOT have to use.
I wipe Verdana from systems that come with it. Same for Bitstream Vera
Sans. Helvetica looks fine to me, though I like others better.
> AFAIK, MandrakeClub now uses CSS for all style settings, and according
> to Denis, doesn't set any fonts (though I will check later), however,
> http://www.linux-mandrake.com is full of this junk:
> September 9th, 2003
> - Mandrake 9.2RC2 - The second
> release-candidate of Mandrake Linux 9.2 is available for download and
> tests. Release informations and places to download are available href="92beta.php3">here.
Time for an overhaul to bring the site into the modern css era.
> Luckily I override some fonts ...
> Please, can someone ensure this is addressed. Helvetica is not a decent
> replacement for Arial or sans-serif, and should be listed last, not first.
Personally I find rather little distinction between helvetica and arial,
and in fact use arial as my default on systems on which it is installed.
> Ha! I just looked at the CSS on http://www.mandrakeclub.com, and see this:
> BODY {
> color: #00;
> background: #ff;
> padding: 5px;
> margin: 0px;
> font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif;
> font-size: 12px;
> }
The above is very offensive, not so much the family as the size. Those
using high resolution displays like 1600x1200 or above see 12px as
microscopic little mousetype, if they can see it at all, unless using a
browser with a minimum font size enabled, or when using a text or page
zoom feature. If using the former override, then most if not all text on
the page will be the user's minimum, which eliminates all contextual
information that varying text sizes convey. Instead, no size should be
set at all, or the size should be set to 100%, so that the user sees
whatever size he has determined best suited to his use.
> * {
> font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif;
> font-size: 12px;
> }
Above is pure redundance, since the same is in body, and everything on
the page that matters is in body.
> The same issue applies here, you should use instead:
> font-family: arial, sans-serif, helvetica;
font-family: arial, sans-serif, helvetica;
is exactly equivalent to
font-family: arial, sans-serif;.
The browsers all use the first listed font they find. The only way
helvetica would be used in either case is when arial does not exist but
helvetica does exist and gets selected because it is in fact a
sans-serif font.
What really should be used instead is font-family:
sans-serif;
That way, the user's choice of sans-serif will be used, be it arial or
verdana or helvetica, or, heaven forbid, the Mandrake Linux installed
sans-serif default.
--
"...[B]e quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry"
James 1:19 NIV
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/auth.html
