Re: [css-d] Font size dilemma
On 2009/03/15 10:27 (GMT-0400) Tim Climis composed: It seems that this whole font sizing mess boils down to the fact that pixel is not a standardized unit of measure. one pixel on my monitor is a different size from one pixel on your monitor. Exactly the reason it's best to size nothing important in px. But a point is a standardized unit of measure. it's 1/72 of an inch. And an inch is 0.0254 meters. And meters are well defined. This is also true, except on a computer display. Most computer displays have a physical amount of px per inch or cm that varies widely, from less than 40/in in some environments to more than 200/in at the other extreme. The heart of the range last century when the internet took off was much lower than it is today, around 70 or so then, closer to 90 today, with a wider variation today than yesteryear. The most popular operating systems though, assume a fixed amount of px/in, usually 96. Thus on a computer display the value of an inch or cm is a logical one, not a physical one. The disparity between a typical logical inch and a real inch used to average much higher than it does today. In context, this meant that text that would print at 12pt would typically display on screen at a seemingly gargantuan real 16pt or more. Today, with higher average display DPI, it's about as likely that 12pt will display smaller than print than it would larger. ...it stands to reason that if you want your fonts to be 10pt (which is normal I want my fonts to be what I can read, not what you think looks good. It's my puter. CSS is designed to suggest, not mandate. for print media) instead of 12 or 16pt (which is the common default size at the most common monitor resolutions) 12pt (IE) or 16px (Safari, Gecko), big difference from 16pt. why not just set the font size to 10pt? At least four reasons: 1-As explained above, a pt on a computer display is a logical size that varies quite a bit among environments. 2-Like px, pt sizing totally disregards user preference, which is rude. 3-Usability experts recommend 10pt as a minimum size, a size below which no page content should go below, including fine print. 4-IE's text sizer has no effect on pt (or px) sized text. As to why 96 assumed instead of 72: http://blogs.msdn.com/fontblog/archive/2005/11/08/490490.aspx -- The plans of the diligent lead to profit as surely as haste leads to poverty. Proverbs 21:5 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Font size dilemma
On 2009/03/16 14:41 (GMT+0900) Philippe Wittenbergh composed: Felix Miata wrote: I haven't figured out where Vrinda came from, other than it's a M$ font NAICT originally from mid-2004. Vrinda is part of a default install of Windows XP (I wouldn't know how it got installed on my VM's otherwise). As I haven't been able to find a copy dated older than mid-2004, I don't believe it could have been part of an original XP install, nor a SP1 install. I keep copies of the oldest known versions of most M$ fonts just for answering questions like this. I think Vrinda may be part of SP2 originally. -- The plans of the diligent lead to profit as surely as haste leads to poverty. Proverbs 21:5 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Font size dilemma
2009/3/13 Michael Stevens bigm...@bigmikes.org:
-Original Message-
From: Jukka K. Korpela [mailto:jkorp...@cs.tut.fi]
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 12:23 PM
To: CSS discuss
Subject: Re: [css-d] Font size dilemma
Leave aside the font-size, as a CSS property, or as a propery of a font, for
a moment. What those people want is not small font size but small letters.
Then you could set, say,
body { font-family: Calibri, Vrinda, sans-serif; }
* { line-height: 1.2; }
The point is that Calibri and Vrinda have letters that are small with
respect to the font size, so the text looks considerably smaller than, say,
Arial of the same size. Either of these fonts is available on the great
majority of computers, and regarding others, let's hope their sans-serif
pleases the user.
I have neither Calibri nor Vrinda installed on my machine so with that
fontstack
I would see your site in the browser default sans-serif font and would also see
your 1.2 line height.
--
Working in the Graphic Design field I've seen and heard of a lot of fonts.
Calibri I have but do not have installed all the time and use it maybe a
couple times a month. And I've never heard of Vrinda. Because of the
inherent problems with calling out REAL typefaces I rarely do it. A few
exceptions might be:
{font-family: Helvetica, Helvetica55, Helvetica 55, HelveticaNeue, Helv,
Swiss721, Swiss721BT, Arial, Arial, sans-serif;}
With this font stack I'd get to Swiss721BT before Arial.
{font-family: Garamond, GarmondITC, Garamond ITC, ITCGaramond, ITC
Garamond, Gatineau, serif;}
I have a Garamond Premier Pro font installed but browsers on my machine might
go to the default serif font on this stack.
{font-family: Palatino, PalatinoLinotype, Palatino Linotype, Book
Antiqua, PalmSprings, Palm Springs, serif;}
I'd pick up the Palatino Linotype option here.
But I usually only define them as serif or sans-serif. Less worrying that
way...
Although two fonts may be classified as serif or sans-serif there is
a lot more to fonts which has to be taken into account for one to be considered
a substitute for another. I'm certainly not au fait with that yet.
I have therefore tend to use the default families.b
Your theory is an interesting one, though.
Regards
L.
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Font size dilemma
2009/3/15 Michael Adams linux_m...@paradise.net.nz: On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 18:42:06 -1000 Came this utterance formulated by david to my mailbox: Jukka K. Korpela wrote: Michael Stevens wrote: Calibri I have but do not have installed all the time and use it maybe a couple times a month. And I've never heard of Vrinda. I picked up Vrinda after considering the material at http://www.codestyle.org/css/font-family/sampler-WindowsResults.shtml and noticing that Vrinda is the only widely available sans-serif font where letters are small as compared with the font size. So it's the best backup for Calibri, the font I'd really like to use. As you can see from http://www.ascenderfonts.com/font/vrinda-bengali.aspx Vrinda was really designed for Bengali writing, but it has Latin 1 characters too, so it might serve as a fallback font when you don't need other characters. I guess the Bengali orientation explains the large intrinsic line-height. Well, in my 20+ years of using computers, including desktop publishing, graphic and web design work - I've never used a computer that had either Calibri or Vrinda on it. And I used to be a real font junky! (That spans every version of Windows, Mac OS7/8/9 and OS X, one version of UNIX and several distros of Linux.) Calibri is one of a set of Office 2007 fonts which can be obtained free with the new powerpoint viewer. http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=048DC840-14E1-467D-8DCA-19D2A8FD7485displaylang=en http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calibri It's use is expected to grow as uptake of office 2007, and this free viewer, gets established. Thanks for posting that link. I'm writing from an XP laptop here - no Calibri installed - when I get Word documents sent me using Calibri I see a gothic font in Open Office. - which can sometimes be amusing - but is most definitely probably not what was intended. Regards L. __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Font size dilemma
-Original Message- From: Felix Miata why not just set the font size to 10pt? 4-IE's text sizer has no effect on pt (or px) sized text. Having used a very high resolution to physical size Windows tablet PC for years I know that if you use points on a Windows computer IE will size any page that uses points to the DPI set in the OS in IE. However, Firefox does not recognize the 120dpi or whatever other settings you choose in your OS and will continue to display it as the browser's default point size. One other factor to throw into the mix is the popularity of LCD screens where the display degrades considerably when you change the screen resolution to anything other than the native screen resolution. Hence my familiarity with how Windows, browsers and applications handle dpi other than 96. Problems in using pixel based container sizes, especially with point based text has shown up in a number of desktop applications, not just in browsers. Cheryl D Wise __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Font size dilemma
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009 02:19:42 -0400 Came this utterance formulated by Felix Miata to my mailbox: On 2009/03/16 14:41 (GMT+0900) Philippe Wittenbergh composed: Felix Miata wrote: I haven't figured out where Vrinda came from, other than it's a M$ font NAICT originally from mid-2004. Vrinda is part of a default install of Windows XP (I wouldn't know how it got installed on my VM's otherwise). As I haven't been able to find a copy dated older than mid-2004, I don't believe it could have been part of an original XP install, nor a SP1 install. I keep copies of the oldest known versions of most M$ fonts just for answering questions like this. I think Vrinda may be part of SP2 originally. Correct http://www.wazu.jp/gallery/Fonts_Bengali.html -- Michael All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well - Julian of Norwich 1342 - 1416 __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Font size dilemma
On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Cheryl D Wise wrote However, Firefox does not recognize the 120dpi or whatever other settings you choose in your OS and will continue to display it as the browser's default point size. Firefox's default font size is in pixels, not points, so conversion from points to pixels via screen dpi is not required. http://www.emdpi.com/fontsize.html -- Richard Mason http://www.emdpi.com __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Font size dilemma
On 2009/03/17 11:19 (GMT+1300) Richard Mason composed: On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Cheryl D Wise wrote However, Firefox does not recognize the 120dpi or whatever other settings you choose in your OS and will continue to display it as the browser's default point size. Firefox's default font size is in pixels, not points, so conversion from points to pixels via screen dpi is not required. http://www.emdpi.com/fontsize.html This is true. However, those who want their FF fonts to match IE fonts need to adjust their FF size pref to match the px size IE uses for the actually configured DPI. e.g. @120 DPI IE's 12pt default is precisely 20px. Those astute enough to change the desktop DPI setting themselves should be competent enough to adjust FF font size prefs. There are open Mozilla bugs dealing with making it easier for the less astute to not be bothered to encounter that difference, such as those whose laptops are OEM set to 120 and don't know anything about DPI or its impact. Related is a request on Linux to have FF inherit its size pref directly from the desktop application pref. -- The plans of the diligent lead to profit as surely as haste leads to poverty. Proverbs 21:5 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Font size dilemma
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 18:42:06 -1000 Came this utterance formulated by david to my mailbox: Jukka K. Korpela wrote: Michael Stevens wrote: Calibri I have but do not have installed all the time and use it maybe a couple times a month. And I've never heard of Vrinda. I picked up Vrinda after considering the material at http://www.codestyle.org/css/font-family/sampler-WindowsResults.shtml and noticing that Vrinda is the only widely available sans-serif font where letters are small as compared with the font size. So it's the best backup for Calibri, the font I'd really like to use. As you can see from http://www.ascenderfonts.com/font/vrinda-bengali.aspx Vrinda was really designed for Bengali writing, but it has Latin 1 characters too, so it might serve as a fallback font when you don't need other characters. I guess the Bengali orientation explains the large intrinsic line-height. Well, in my 20+ years of using computers, including desktop publishing, graphic and web design work - I've never used a computer that had either Calibri or Vrinda on it. And I used to be a real font junky! (That spans every version of Windows, Mac OS7/8/9 and OS X, one version of UNIX and several distros of Linux.) Calibri is one of a set of Office 2007 fonts which can be obtained free with the new powerpoint viewer. http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=048DC840-14E1-467D-8DCA-19D2A8FD7485displaylang=en http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calibri It's use is expected to grow as uptake of office 2007, and this free viewer, gets established. -- Michael All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well - Julian of Norwich 1342 - 1416 __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Font size dilemma
Michael Adams wrote: On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 18:42:06 -1000 Came this utterance formulated by david to my mailbox: Jukka K. Korpela wrote: Michael Stevens wrote: Calibri I have but do not have installed all the time and use it maybe a couple times a month. And I've never heard of Vrinda. I picked up Vrinda after considering the material at http://www.codestyle.org/css/font-family/sampler-WindowsResults.shtml and noticing that Vrinda is the only widely available sans-serif font where letters are small as compared with the font size. So it's the best backup for Calibri, the font I'd really like to use. As you can see from http://www.ascenderfonts.com/font/vrinda-bengali.aspx Vrinda was really designed for Bengali writing, but it has Latin 1 characters too, so it might serve as a fallback font when you don't need other characters. I guess the Bengali orientation explains the large intrinsic line-height. Well, in my 20+ years of using computers, including desktop publishing, graphic and web design work - I've never used a computer that had either Calibri or Vrinda on it. And I used to be a real font junky! (That spans every version of Windows, Mac OS7/8/9 and OS X, one version of UNIX and several distros of Linux.) Calibri is one of a set of Office 2007 fonts which can be obtained free with the new powerpoint viewer. http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=048DC840-14E1-467D-8DCA-19D2A8FD7485displaylang=en http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calibri It's use is expected to grow as uptake of office 2007, and this free viewer, gets established. Well, that explains it. I've never worked for any organization that uses Office 2007. (And I've worked for some very big organizations in the education, health insurance and health care fields.) I've never encountered a Powerpoint 2007 format file in the wild, so have never had any need for the MS Powerpoint viewer (OpenOffice opens the Office 2007 files just fine). I don't expect Office 2007 use to establish itself, but that's just my opinion. -- David gn...@hawaii.rr.com authenticity, honesty, community __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Font size dilemma
david wrote: I don't expect Office 2007 use to establish itself, but that's just my opinion. May well be right. For instance: OpenOffice is officially recommended as alternative to / upgrade-replacement for MS Office(s) and other proprietary office software in my country. The bottom line for web designers is that no matter what range of fonts an end-user may have access to, we can't know what that range is or what fonts they'll allow/enforce for web sites. Therefore we can't design with any specific font, or range of fonts, in mind and expect our choices to get through to end-users. Tough, but that's life on the web :-) We should ideally make sure our creations come through in a reasonable and readable fashion no matter what, which means (among other things) that it is better, and safer, to size text to what some call too large than to size it too small. For some reason or another: all systems/browsers have a default of exactly 100% (of some predefined value(s)), so a font-size of 100% can be considered safe. In addition to that we have the WCAG 2 recommendation that our creations should be able to handle 200% font resizing and still be readable/accessible, so there's our safe range. Of course: no web designer really has to play it safe, and we're still free to make up our own math and take our chances. We /may/ hit right here and there now and then ;-) regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Font size dilemma
I would imagine setting a browser minimum font size to bring (say) cnn.com back to 100% font size equivalent would have no effect on a site set to 100% font size; very little effect on one set to say 85%; but running the browser in some zoom mode to get cnn to 100% equiv would blow our font-size 100% sites out to 150% equiv or similar!! I have a related question, because when I first took up CSS in my designs in 2002 or so, I used to size my fonts in points. That was what word processing programs did it in, so that was how I did it. I gradually learned through online reading that that was not the right way to do it, and stopped, but I've never been able to figure out why it's wrong in the first place. It seems that this whole font sizing mess boils down to the fact that pixel is not a standardized unit of measure. one pixel on my monitor is a different size from one pixel on your monitor. But a point is a standardized unit of measure. it's 1/72 of an inch. And an inch is 0.0254 meters. And meters are well defined. Most graphic arts programs have the ability to guess the size of a pixel on your monitor, presumably from your drivers or some setting in your OS or something, so it seems that web browsers must be able to do that same thing. So it stands to reason that if you want your fonts to be 10pt (which is normal for print media) instead of 12 or 16pt (which is the common default size at the most common monitor resolutions) why not just set the font size to 10pt? and then if you have a 120dpi monitor, your browser knows that's 17px, and if you have an old 72dpi monitor, your browser knows that's 10px. And then it's no more illegible than a novel or a newspaper. ---Tim __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Font size dilemma
Tim Climis wrote: I have a related question, because when I first took up CSS in my designs in 2002 or so, I used to size my fonts in points. That was what word processing programs did it in, so that was how I did it. I gradually learned through online reading that that was not the right way to do it, and stopped, but I've never been able to figure out why it's wrong in the first place. It isn't wrong, but it cripples certain browsers and makes it harder to apply reasonable end-user preferences in all browsers. We refer to points for font sizing as part of the print on screen philosophy, and print doesn't work all that well on all that many screens - it belongs on paper and similar surfaces. Most graphic arts programs have the ability to guess the size of a pixel on your monitor, presumably from your drivers or some setting in your OS or something, so it seems that web browsers must be able to do that same thing. So it stands to reason that if you want your fonts to be 10pt (which is normal for print media) instead of 12 or 16pt (which is the common default size at the most common monitor resolutions) why not just set the font size to 10pt? and then if you have a 120dpi monitor, your browser knows that's 17px, and if you have an old 72dpi monitor, your browser knows that's 10px. The problem is complex but also quite simple. We work with what we have and what we gonna get - pushed by ourselves and those who build browsers and write standards, and, most important: what the end-users are likely to have, or get within a reasonable time-frame. With way more than a billion end-user installations on line, we better put emphasis on reasonable time-frame, as we will have to cater for decade-old installations alongside the latest and greatest week-old installations. Of course: we don't have to cater for old and new installations in the same way, as long as we don't cripple any of them. Practically: 1: screen-resolution is low compared to print-resolution - we need 300dpi on screens before we can call it acceptable. Coarser steps makes it harder to make points - and any other unit - hit screen-pixels exactly, and browsers round up/down at differing points. This results in variations, that are much larger on screens than on print. 2: most graphic arts programs - or their users - solve this low screen-resolution problem by resizing the entire project - zoom it, and the artist then moves/scrolls parts into view while working. Most browsers can do that too - now, but end-users are not _working_ on the project - they _interact_ with it, and most end-users would prefer to not have to scroll both ways just to be able to read and interact. 3: browsers have only recently started to take screen-resolution into account and apply default-resizing. Not all browsers are there yet, and those that are are not equally good at it. 4: end-users should be able to use their software - browser - to re-format text to suit their needs/preferences. This is an advantage we have in our digital age, and it would be sad if we limited and/or crippled our software to frozen print now that we have finally gotten out of it. 5: some browsers - IE - can't resize text where points or pixels are used. The solution: ignore font sizes on web pages, doesn't solve the designer's problem. Blame whoever you like, but the problem persists. And then it's no more illegible than a novel or a newspaper. 6: if a printed work has too small text, the end-user can either use a magnifying glass or throw the entire work into the fireplace. Neither are very practical when the work is on screens, but the end-user can of course look for better options elsewhere on the world wide web. I can't prove it but I think many do. I derive from the above that it is better to conform to reality than to apply wishful thinking (and mouse-type in points) now. At the same time I test how much of my wishful thinking that actually works anywhere, hoping I may be able to apply some of it tomorrow as I'd hate being stuck in the past at every crossroad and turn of evolution. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Font size dilemma
At 11:01 + on 03/13/2009, Bobby Jack wrote about Re: [css-d] Font size dilemma: Having said all that, I don't think we need to be too dogmatic about it. Web pages are NOT the same as books - I believe there should be more of a visual identity to a site than just a logo and a couple of images. If browsers did a better job of handling font-sizing, every web site could easily be readable by all whilst maintaining a unique look of its own, even in regards to the 'base' font size. In some ways CSS is a step backwards on this issue from the old HTML FONT tag. With FONT ... you display in the USER'S defined font size and increase/decrease the display via the SIZE parm. With CSS you can get the same result via use of EM or % sizes but using PT (or other measures that ignore the user's default font size) causes the user's settings to be overridden and ignored. -- Bob Rosenberg RockMUG Webmaster webmas...@rockmug.org www.RockMUG.org __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Font size dilemma
At 21:26 -0400 on 03/14/2009, Felix Miata wrote about Re: [css-d] Font size dilemma: It's also possible for fonts to show up at the preferred size, regardless how large or small that happens to be. It's also possible that the difficulties resulting from common too small fonts will be reduced or eliminated. There is also the problem that the character height on a site designed on a Windows Machine makes the characters look smaller on a Macintosh Computer (to get the same image size on the Mac you must bump the size up one notch). This has to do with the 96dpi font sizing on the Windows Machine requiring larger letters than the Macintosh fonts which are based on 72dpi measurements. -- Bob Rosenberg RockMUG Webmaster webmas...@rockmug.org www.RockMUG.org __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Font size dilemma
At 16:59 +0100 on 03/15/2009, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gunlaug_S=F8rtun?= wrote about Re: [css-d] Font size dilemma: 6: if a printed work has too small text, the end-user can either use a magnifying glass or throw the entire work into the fireplace. Or just buy the book (or get it from your local public library) as a LPE (Large Print Edition - ie: 16pt type [like the children's books use]) in the first place. -- Bob Rosenberg RockMUG Webmaster webmas...@rockmug.org www.RockMUG.org __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Font size dilemma
On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, Tim Climis wrote I gradually learned through online reading that that was not the right way to do it, and stopped, but I've never been able to figure out why it's wrong in the first place. One reason is that points are inches and some people who write about these topics just don't understand how an Operating System differentiates between inches on paper and inches on screen. In computer typography a point is 1/72 of an inch so anything measured in points is actually measured in inches. In Eric Meyer on CSS he says There is no clearly defined mapping between pixels and the physical world. How many pixels should there be per inch?. Nonsense. Of course there are completely defined mappings of inches to pixels. Programmers have been writing text editors and word processing programs for years where they clearly map font size in points (inches) to pixels on screen. When printing the programmer knows the size of the piece of paper, but when putting text on screen the programmer has no way of reliably, or accurately, knowing the size of your screen so there had to be a standard way of converting lengths specified in inches into lengths in pixels, and this is done by using 'screen dpi', the value of which, in Windows, we can change in the Control Panel Length in inches * screen dpi = Length in pixels So if something is specified as one inch long and screen dpi is set, via the Control Panel, to 102 dpi (my current setting) then: 1 * 102 = 102 pixels. Unfortunately people then put their ruler up to the screen and find it's not one inch on their ruler so incorrectly conclude that There is no clearly defined mapping between pixels and the physical world'. Add to that the fact that the actual physical number of pixels per linear inch (determined by the monitor manufacturing process) is specified as a number of dpi it's hardly surprising that there is confusion and inches get a bad press. After all that, browsers (as opposed to the Operating System) don't treat inch measurements in a completely consistent manner why be surprised? They don't seem to treat many other quantity's in a consistent manner either e.g. Don't use pixels because If inches are going to get a bad press then authors should do so for the right reasons, not the spurious reasons so often seen. It seems that this whole font sizing mess boils down to the fact that pixel is not a standardized unit of measure. one pixel on my monitor is a different size from one pixel on your monitor. The word standard means what here? The CSS spec tries to define a standard pixel, and talks rubbish. Actually one pixel on your monitor is different to another pixel on your monitor at different times. If, say, you usually operate at 1280 * 1024 and then switch to 1024 * 768 then 20% of pixels have 'disappeared' both horizontally and vertically, but the whole screen is still filled. Pixels have changed their size. -- Richard Mason http://www.emdpi.com __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Font size dilemma
On 2009/03/15 17:14 (GMT-0400) Bob Rosenberg composed: There is also the problem that the character height on a site designed on a Windows Machine makes the characters look smaller on a Macintosh Computer (to get the same image size on the Mac you must bump the size up one notch). This has to do with the 96dpi font sizing on the Windows Machine requiring larger letters than the Macintosh fonts which are based on 72dpi measurements. All that was made obsolete by Mac OS X, which, unlike windoz, is locked to 96 DPI. Except to the devs and some dev wannabes, deviating from 96 on OS X is just a dream. It may never be literally possible. Instead resolution independence may come via a different model than DPI adjustment. -- The plans of the diligent lead to profit as surely as haste leads to poverty. Proverbs 21:5 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Font size dilemma
Tim Climis wrote: Most graphic arts programs have the ability to guess the size of a pixel on your monitor, presumably from your drivers or some setting in your OS or something, so it seems that web browsers must be able to do that same thing. So it stands to reason that if you want your fonts to be 10pt (which is normal for print media) instead of 12 or 16pt (which is the common default size at the most common monitor resolutions) why not just set the font size to 10pt? and then if you have a 120dpi monitor, your browser knows that's 17px, and if you have an old 72dpi monitor, your browser knows that's 10px. And then it's no more illegible than a novel or a newspaper. But text on monitors is inherently less legible than text printed on paper. Even old moldy cheap laserprinters use 600dpi, and paper doesn't suffer from even subliminally-perceived refresh rates. And I don't personally consider 10px type sizes readable! -- David gn...@hawaii.rr.com authenticity, honesty, community __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Font size dilemma
On 2009/03/14 18:42 (GMT-1000) david composed: Well, in my 20+ years of using computers, including desktop publishing, graphic and web design work - I've never used a computer that had either Calibri or Vrinda on it. And I used to be a real font junky! (That spans every version of Windows, Mac OS7/8/9 and OS X, one version of UNIX and several distros of Linux.) Vrinda comes in right below Book Antiqua @ 84.58% on http://www.codestyle.org/css/font-family/sampler-WindowsResults.shtml I haven't figured out where Vrinda came from, other than it's a M$ font NAICT originally from mid-2004. Calibri is one of the standard Vista fonts, all of which are closer in apparent size to Times New Roman than Arial, Georgia or Verdana. http://fm.no-ip.com/auth/Font/fonts-msvista.html -- The plans of the diligent lead to profit as surely as haste leads to poverty. Proverbs 21:5 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Font size dilemma
On Mar 16, 2009, at 2:14 PM, Felix Miata wrote: Well, in my 20+ years of using computers, including desktop publishing, graphic and web design work - I've never used a computer that had either Calibri or Vrinda on it. And I used to be a real font junky! (That spans every version of Windows, Mac OS7/8/9 and OS X, one version of UNIX and several distros of Linux.) Vrinda comes in right below Book Antiqua @ 84.58% on http://www.codestyle.org/css/font-family/sampler-WindowsResults.shtml I haven't figured out where Vrinda came from, other than it's a M$ font NAICT originally from mid-2004. Calibri is one of the standard Vista fonts, all of which are closer in apparent size to Times New Roman than Arial, Georgia or Verdana. http://fm.no-ip.com/auth/Font/fonts-msvista.html Vrinda is part of a default install of Windows XP (I wouldn't know how it got installed on my VM's otherwise). The 'Vista' fonts, installed by Vista, Office 2007, Office 2008 Mac have an aspect ratio as follows: Calibri 0.467 sans-serif Cambria 0.467 serif Candara 0.464 sans-serif Constantia 0.453 serif Corbel 0.464 sans-serif Times New Roman 0.448 All those 'vista fonts' have a 'normal' line-height equivalent to ~1.220. Philippe --- Philippe Wittenbergh http://l-c-n.com/ __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Font size dilemma
Michael Stevens wrote: Calibri I have but do not have installed all the time and use it maybe a couple times a month. And I've never heard of Vrinda. I picked up Vrinda after considering the material at http://www.codestyle.org/css/font-family/sampler-WindowsResults.shtml and noticing that Vrinda is the only widely available sans-serif font where letters are small as compared with the font size. So it's the best backup for Calibri, the font I'd really like to use. As you can see from http://www.ascenderfonts.com/font/vrinda-bengali.aspx Vrinda was really designed for Bengali writing, but it has Latin 1 characters too, so it might serve as a fallback font when you don't need other characters. I guess the Bengali orientation explains the large intrinsic line-height. Because of the inherent problems with calling out REAL typefaces I rarely do it. But what's the point of suggesting generic font families only? Well, maybe it makes popular browsers use Arial instead of Times New Roman, but if that's what you really mean, why not say it - and why not suggest something more sensible instead of Arial? The problem with Arial is that in the common default font size, it looks too large to many people. Maybe not users, but people that many web authors need to listen to. The generic font families are really a shot in the dark. Sans-serif can mean pretty much anything - in particular, the size impression varies _a lot_. -- Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Font size dilemma
On 13/03/2009, at 9:12 PM, david wrote: And who says that CNN or any other particular site is doing it right? I'm not saying they are doing it right, personally I think it's too small. What I *am* saying is: 1. that is what Joe Average user is used to seeing; 2. those who have difficulty with those sizes will have already compensated for it in some way or another; 3. using default font-size (100%) may: a) appear too large to clients/users because of 1. above; b) may appear ridiculously large to those in 2. above depending on how they adjusted their browser from the norm. My main concern at the moment is 3a and the clients who pay the bills. I have had some helpful suggestions on and off list that could be a workable compromise with the current jobs, thanks folks. KathyW. __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Font size dilemma
On 2009/03/15 11:55 (GMT+1100) Kathy Wheeler composed: What I *am* saying is: 1. that is what Joe Average user is used to seeing; Not related to liking. 2. those who have difficulty with those sizes will have already compensated for it in some way or another; Compensation methods include, but are not limited to: 1-giving the computer away to someone who can use it 2-backaches from leaning forward too much 3-not using the computer, because it's too hard to use 4-due to eyestrain, turning it off before task(s) is/are complete 5-buying bigger display, in many cases only to find things are smaller rather than larger 3. using default font-size (100%) may: a) appear too large to clients/users because of 1. above; b) may appear ridiculously large to those in 2. above depending on how they adjusted their browser from the norm. It's also possible for fonts to show up at the preferred size, regardless how large or small that happens to be. It's also possible that the difficulties resulting from common too small fonts will be reduced or eliminated. My main concern at the moment is 3a and the clients who pay the bills. If the designers weren't coloring client perceptions to think small is good or that sub-preference is not small, it wouldn't be such a problem to respect users' preferences. I much prefer 1st grader reader font sizes to the mousetype designers are so fond to sell to clients. Note this is not just about fonts. On higher DPI displays, fixed widths typically don't provide enough room for reasonable line lengths commensurate with legible fonts made from more pixels, or even words to fit at all in the space allotted. Once upon a time the defaults were too big. Technology has changed that. Resolution is up. DPI is up. Defaults are unchanged, which means smaller than they used to be. What hasn't changed is that designers still don't know how big they are in the environments of users. Thus, not using 100% of default on most content amounts to telling all users their defaults are wrong, which is nothing short of rude and disrespectful. -- The plans of the diligent lead to profit as surely as haste leads to poverty. Proverbs 21:5 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Font size dilemma
On 2009/03/14 21:55 (GMT+0200) Jukka K. Korpela composed: But what's the point of suggesting generic font families only? Allowing a user to actually see his preferred font family used on a web page not of his own making? Well, maybe it makes popular browsers use Arial instead of Times New Roman, but if that's what you really mean, why not say it - and why not suggest something more sensible instead of Arial? More sensible, like Helvetica? Or something of apparent larger size, like Verdana? Smaller Calibri, which most Macs and older and FOSOS computers don't have? The problem with Arial is that in the common default font size, it looks too large to many people. Looks good to many people too. It's my default, on purpose. The generic font families are really a shot in the dark. Not that much. Most pre-Vista systems at least have either Helvetica or its clone Arial, or a metric equivalent, like Liberation Sans, Nimbus Sans L, or Albany AMT. On recent Linux systems, odds are the default is DejaVu Sans, a close equivalent to Verdana. If an individual visitor's browser isn't set to one of them, or something of slightly larger apparent size than Helvetica/Arial, odds are that's his preference, something worth respecting. Sans-serif can mean pretty much anything - in particular, the size impression varies _a lot_. As to size, indeed!: http://fm.no-ip.com/auth/Font/fonts-msvista.html -- The plans of the diligent lead to profit as surely as haste leads to poverty. Proverbs 21:5 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Font size dilemma
Jukka K. Korpela wrote: Michael Stevens wrote: Calibri I have but do not have installed all the time and use it maybe a couple times a month. And I've never heard of Vrinda. I picked up Vrinda after considering the material at http://www.codestyle.org/css/font-family/sampler-WindowsResults.shtml and noticing that Vrinda is the only widely available sans-serif font where letters are small as compared with the font size. So it's the best backup for Calibri, the font I'd really like to use. As you can see from http://www.ascenderfonts.com/font/vrinda-bengali.aspx Vrinda was really designed for Bengali writing, but it has Latin 1 characters too, so it might serve as a fallback font when you don't need other characters. I guess the Bengali orientation explains the large intrinsic line-height. Well, in my 20+ years of using computers, including desktop publishing, graphic and web design work - I've never used a computer that had either Calibri or Vrinda on it. And I used to be a real font junky! (That spans every version of Windows, Mac OS7/8/9 and OS X, one version of UNIX and several distros of Linux.) -- David gn...@hawaii.rr.com authenticity, honesty, community __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Font size dilemma
Kathy Wheeler wrote: I know the mantra: let the user decide, set font-size to 100% but ... Looking at major general news sites, popular public blogging etc sites, they ALL seem to have fonts set much smaller. This being the case surely the visually impaired surfer, being otherwise perfectly normal individuals frequenting popular public news, blogging, social sites etc, will have already set their font preferences to suit those sites they frequent. Rather than blindly (bad term, I know) accepting the 100% font size, wouldn't a better approach be to settle on a font-size that doesn't make a client's site look like a kindergarten reader (compared to major news sites for eg) In what browsers on what OSes installed on what particular hardware? You have no control over the hardware a visitor is using to view your site. I could be running a 19 monitor at 640x480 resolution because that's what I need in order to see things. Or I could be like a friend of mine who ran his 17 monitor at 2048x1536 resolution. (I even once ran a 15 monitor at 1600x1200.) and just make sure it doesn't break under common techniques used by the visually impaired? That's the important thing, and easiest if you start with the assumption that the visitor already has their preferred font size set. And what common techniques are in use? Firefox has at least 2 different Zoom options with very different results, then there's minimum font size ... what are those who alter their browsers actually using? What should we be checking by? I think that the most likely browser settings you'll encounter in general public use are the browser's stock, default settings. So keep a test system around with your chosen browsers installed with their unchanged installation defaults ... I would imagine setting a browser minimum font size to bring (say) cnn.com back to 100% font size equivalent would have no effect on a site set to 100% font size; very little effect on one set to say 85%; but running the browser in some zoom mode to get cnn to 100% equiv would blow our font-size 100% sites out to 150% equiv or similar!! Or have I missed something? You're still trying to prescribe the visitor's font sizes. You have no control over it, so why spend any time bothering with it? And who says that CNN or any other particular site is doing it right? Way too many sites are designed by Graphic Designers Who Must Look Kewl At Any Cost - and media companies are some of the worst offenders in that area. (An aside: some of the most Absolutely Totally Kewl - and completely unusable - sites I've seen have been the home sites of web design firms ... ) I don't adjust my font sizes so that any particular site's font looks my chosen size. I set my chosen size, and kick the font size up or down if needed by some particular site. I have almost never encountered a web site where I had to kick the font size DOWN. -- David gn...@hawaii.rr.com authenticity, honesty, community __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Font size dilemma
--- On Fri, 3/13/09, Kathy Wheeler kat...@home.albury.net.au wrote: Looking at major general news sites, popular public blogging etc sites, they ALL seem to have fonts set much smaller. This being the case surely the visually impaired surfer, being otherwise perfectly normal individuals frequenting popular public news, blogging, social sites etc, will have already set their font preferences to suit those sites they frequent. Kathy, I sympathise: it's difficult to get over the 'small is cool' mindset that seems to be prevalent nowadays. Even on respectable 'design sites', I very rarely see body text at my browser's default font size. I've chosen to design my personal site around the default size, so I hardly use the font-size CSS property at all - only percentages greater than 100 for headings, etc. It's very tempting to use a smaller font somewhere, but I'm holding out for the moment. My target audience is probably 'better sighted' than the general public, but I've chosen to go this way to also handle different resolutions which, as others have pointed out, make font-sizing a very tricky thing. I don't think browsers help - the general features such as page zoom / text zoom / minimum font size are pretty poorly implemented, IMO (see http://www.fiveminuteargument.com/blog/minimum-font-size, for example). Combined with poorly chosen font sizes, I really sympathise with anyone whose eyesight is worse than mine. Having said all that, I don't think we need to be too dogmatic about it. Web pages are NOT the same as books - I believe there should be more of a visual identity to a site than just a logo and a couple of images. If browsers did a better job of handling font-sizing, every web site could easily be readable by all whilst maintaining a unique look of its own, even in regards to the 'base' font size. - Bobby __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Font size dilemma
Kathy Wheeler wrote:
Rather than blindly (bad term, I know) accepting the 100% font size,
wouldn't a better approach be to settle on a font-size that doesn't
make a client's site look like a kindergarten reader
I'm not sure why one's page should not be better than the crowd in
legibility. But assuming the goal you describe - which is surely what many
people and especially their bosses and clients call for - I'd like to
suggest one particular CSS technique for it.
Leave aside the font-size, as a CSS property, or as a propery of a font, for
a moment. What those people want is not small font size but small letters.
Then you could set, say,
body { font-family: Calibri, Vrinda, sans-serif; }
* { line-height: 1.2; }
At font-size 100%, assuming typical browser defaults, this should result in
a rendering that is acceptable to above-mentioned people. It may look too
small to many people who have not changed browsers from their defaults, but
simple change of font size, even on IE, should help them.
The point is that Calibri and Vrinda have letters that are small with
respect to the font size, so the text looks considerably smaller than, say,
Arial of the same size. Either of these fonts is available on the great
majority of computers, and regarding others, let's hope their sans-serif
pleases the user.
It seems that Vrinda has a large inherent line-height, so setting
line-height explicitly to 1.2 or even to a somewhat smaller value should be
helpful.
The biggest problem might be that Vrinda has a fairly limited character
repertoire (rather few accented characters, though ISO Latin 1 is covered)
and an oddly long hyphen (though the hyphen is clearly shorter than the end
dash). Calibri is much better in these respects, but it's less common.
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Font size dilemma
-Original Message-
From: Jukka K. Korpela [mailto:jkorp...@cs.tut.fi]
Sent: Friday, March 13, 2009 12:23 PM
To: CSS discuss
Subject: Re: [css-d] Font size dilemma
Leave aside the font-size, as a CSS property, or as a propery of a font, for
a moment. What those people want is not small font size but small letters.
Then you could set, say,
body { font-family: Calibri, Vrinda, sans-serif; }
* { line-height: 1.2; }
The point is that Calibri and Vrinda have letters that are small with
respect to the font size, so the text looks considerably smaller than, say,
Arial of the same size. Either of these fonts is available on the great
majority of computers, and regarding others, let's hope their sans-serif
pleases the user.
--
Working in the Graphic Design field I've seen and heard of a lot of fonts.
Calibri I have but do not have installed all the time and use it maybe a
couple times a month. And I've never heard of Vrinda. Because of the
inherent problems with calling out REAL typefaces I rarely do it. A few
exceptions might be:
{font-family: Helvetica, Helvetica55, Helvetica 55, HelveticaNeue, Helv,
Swiss721, Swiss721BT, Arial, Arial, sans-serif;}
{font-family: Garamond, GarmondITC, Garamond ITC, ITCGaramond, ITC
Garamond, Gatineau, serif;}
{font-family: Palatino, PalatinoLinotype, Palatino Linotype, Book
Antiqua, PalmSprings, Palm Springs, serif;}
But I usually only define them as serif or sans-serif. Less worrying that
way...
Your theory is an interesting one, though.
Mike
__
css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Font size dilemma
Kathy Wheeler wrote: Rather than blindly (bad term, I know) accepting the 100% font size, wouldn't a better approach be to settle on a font-size that doesn't make a client's site look like a kindergarten reader (compared to major news sites for eg) and just make sure it doesn't break under common techniques used by the visually impaired? I'm not visually impaired - I'm just in the over 50 group, and half the web has to be blown up in order to read anything. A good portion of the sites I visit regularly, break somewhat before reaching 100% now. In a few years time more sites will break even more, as I set my browser to resize them to compensate, if they continue to size them low. That's the effect of aging eyes. Watching sites break under stress may end up being a great pass-time activity :-) ... what are those who alter their browsers actually using? I have no idea. It is good to have options... http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_additions_37.html ...and there are so many end-users with various wants, needs and know-how around. What should we be checking by? Ideally all that's technically possible in browser/OS/screen/whatever combinations. That's what I always _try_ to do. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Font size dilemma
Kathy Wheeler wrote: I know the mantra: let the user decide, set font-size to 100% but ... KathyW. I guess there is a CSS question, rather than a difference of opinion, buried in your post. What is it? -- A thin red line and a salmon-color ampersand forthcoming. http://chelseacreekstudio.com/ __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Font size dilemma
- Original Message - From: Kathy Wheeler kat...@home.albury.net.au To: CSS discuss css-d@lists.css-discuss.org Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2009 8:05 PM Subject: [css-d] Font size dilemma I know the mantra: let the user decide, set font-size to 100% but ... Stet Looking at major general news sites, popular public blogging etc sites, they ALL seem to have fonts set much smaller. I'm nearly 50 with reasonably good close vision. What you have to realize is some of us run very fine screen resolutions on small monitors. I run 1400 x 1050 on a 17 monitor at work. Try text at 62.5% default on that! I also think you'll find that font size is the least of the usability issues on some of these sites...excess flash, too many ads, bad nav layout ad nauseum. And what common techniques are in use? Firefox has at least 2 different Zoom options with very different results, then there's minimum font size ... what are those who alter their browsers actually using? Most of us are inimately familiar with how to zoom our browser of choice. IE7 and FF use CTL+, Opera uses +. It ain't that difficult. What should we be checking by? As much as possible. Old boxes are great to set up Linux and Win 98/IE6 on. I develop at 1280px horizontal, make sure it doesn't look kindergarden at 1024px horizontal, and the layout doesn't break at +/- 2 zoom levels. Cheers, Peter www.fatpawdesign.com Win XP/SP3, IE7, FF3, O9 __ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
