Re: [css-d] request: a thorough going over

[David Laakso]

Michael Venables wrote:
> I've been working on a CSS3 / XHTML 1.1 Strict redesign of my site for 
> awhile. Due to circumstances at my host, I had to push it over to the 
> new server sooner than I'd intended. I was hoping to get some feedback 
> if anyone has time to kick the tires on the site. At this point, I think 
> I've lost all objectivity, so any bug or glitch reports, and suggestions 
> -- on anything -- would be most welcome.
>
> The design is pretty sparse, focusing mostly on textual content. The CSS 
> and all the pages validate. I've tested it on <= Firefox 3.5, IE <8, and 
> have seen it in action briefly on whatever the current shipping version 
> of Safari is. Don't have access to Chrome, IE8, or Opera.
>
> http://www.ronin-group.org
>
> It would be most appreciated!
>
>   michael
>
>   



Michael,

Generally you're doing alright. She's relatively consistent 
cross-browser. IE 6/7 on a cursory glance go along with your program. 
Same for IE/8. Opera, Safari, SeaMonkey, and FF.

On a more specific level, just some random thoughts that you may, /or 
may not/, wish to consider...

1/ I think you'll want to use an xhtml 1.0 strict, or an html  4.01 
strict doctype. Someone else can tell why xhtml 1.1 is not such a good idea.
2/ Check your site in a 640 x 480, 800 x 600, 1024 x 768 window. Note 
the clipping of the stuff at the bottom of the left column in a "short 
window."
3/ Should the navigation links in the left column be larger, the same 
size, or smaller than the primary content in the right column?
4/ If, for whatever reason, a user might scale the fonts, do you want 
the navigation links to horizontally cross-over and overlap the primary 
content?
5/ Is it possible to code the site with fewer ids, classes, and span 
thingies?
6/ Gray on gray is sometimes difficult for some users to read. Have you 
checked your site with a color contrast analyzer?

Best,
~d
__
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] request: a thorough going over

[Michael Venables]

On 8/26/2009 1:30 AM, david wrote:
> Nice, cool color selection. Almost made me wish for a bright color 
> somewhere!
I know what you mean about the absence of bright colors. I wrestle with 
that issue, but never really seem to come up with a solution that I 
like. Since I'm not a graphic designer, I can't create fun little bugs 
with which to litter the pages, but acres of raw text can get tedious no 
matter how well the rest of the color scheme works.

If you have any suggestions...


> Looked at it in FF3 on Linux. The serif font against the background 
> had me squinting until I kicked the font size up a couple of steps 
> (the strokes of the letters are thin, the color contrast between the 
> thin letter strokes and background is low). Increasing the line 
> spacing to 1.3 helped quite a bit. Getting rid of the dotty (to me) 
> background helped more.
>
> Since text is your main content, I think increasing readability of the 
> text would be a good idea.
Ah, yes -- Linux... I have to admit, I cheated here, and this was a good 
reminder. I've got a Linux box, and I do a lot of work on it. 
Unfortunately, font support on Linux is pretty bad. So my solution was 
to install the same set of fonts I run on my Windows machines -- at 
which point everything looked really nice, and I forgot how much I hated 
it before.

I tried bumping up the line height like you suggested, but it just 
created really obnoxious rivers on my system. I'm guessing this is all 
related to the font choice(s).

Re. the background... I've been looking for a suitable replacement -- 
something that gives a subtle texture instead of being a solid color, or 
something that stands out -- unfortunately, I have yet to find anything 
that really works. I think your comment is the first negative one I've 
ever gotten about it. If anything, it's so light that the problem people 
have is that they can't see it. I'll keep the "dotty-ness" in mind.


> Maybe this would be a contact to get some work on the ice? ;-)
> http://www.usap.gov/
LOL -- that's great! I'll have to keep that in mind, if I ever get back 
into the business.

Thanks for all your comments,

  michael


__
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] request: a thorough going over

[David Laakso]

Michael Venables wrote:


RE: 

Michael,

My comments below have little if anything to do with CSS. They are 
personal opinion... take them as such, and do with them as will...

 
> On 8/25/2009 9:20 PM, David Laakso wrote:
>>
>> 1/ I think you'll want to use an xhtml 1.0 strict, or an html  4.01 
>> strict doctype. Someone else can tell why xhtml 1.1 is not such a 
>> good idea.
> If it has to do with the issue of serving the correct MIME type (i.e. 
> "application/xhtml+xml" vs. "text/html"), I think I've got that 
> covered. There's a bit about it on my colophon page:
>
> http://ronin-group.org/TRG_colophon#mime
>
> And if that's NOT it, or I've missed something, I'd love to be better 
> informed.


404



>
>> 2/ Check your site in a 640 x 480, 800 x 600, 1024 x 768 window. Note 
>> the clipping of the stuff at the bottom of the left column in a 
>> "short window."
> This is one of those things that I wonder about every so often. I 
> don't really track my visitor metrics, but my conclusion wound up 
> being that I haven't seen anyone run something as small as 800 x 600 
> in so long that it's just not an issue.



Granted. Nevertheless, as a simple example, on a 1680/116.5dpi MacBook 
Pro @1024 with a full-sidebar  will yield a 640 "content" window...



>
> On the other hand, if you're seeing clipping at 1024 x 768, that 
> worries me. Was there a particular page giving you problems, or was 
> that a general resolution comment?



It is a general comment --no big deal-- just something to be aware of. 
Regardless of a users native resolution, a short-window may make the fp 
sidebar  problematic.




>
>> 3/ Should the navigation links in the left column be larger, the same 
>> size, or smaller than the primary content in the right column?
> Obviously, I thought they should be larger.  =]
> This was done for a couple of reasons: 1) to increase visibility, 2) 
> to give them a certain scale in the sidebar and not have them 
> surrounded by white space.
>
> I don't know if these are *good* reasons, but they were the ones that 
> drove my decision.
>
> What are the operational or aesthetic theories behind the other 
> schools of thought?



Dunno. Some say /content'/ rules the roost.


>
>> 4/ If, for whatever reason, a user might scale the fonts, do you want 
>> the navigation links to horizontally cross-over and overlap the 
>> primary content?
> That doesn't happen on any browser I've tested. IE6 -- though 
> essentially irrelevant -- wraps the text as it grows bigger. IE7 and 
> Firefox 3 both scale the width of the sidebar along with the fonts. (I 
> tried to make sure that widths are specified in ems so that this 
> contingency is covered.)


I do get carried away with pushing the envelope :-) .

A well placed soft-hyphen (s) on the long-words such as "Recommended" in 
the  sidebar will keep compliant-browser power users off your back.



>
>> 6/ Gray on gray is sometimes difficult for some users to read. Have 
>> you checked your site with a color contrast analyzer?
> No, I haven't. This is the first I've heard of such a creature. I'll 
> look into them.


FWIW,  here's one...




>
> Thanks for all your suggestions and comments. I really appreciate you 
> taking the time.
>
>  michael
>
>
>
>

OK. Best, ~d








__
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] request: a thorough going over

[Michael Venables]

>>> 1/ I think you'll want to use an xhtml 1.0 strict, or an html  4.01 
>>> strict doctype. Someone else can tell why xhtml 1.1 is not such a 
>>> good idea.
>> If it has to do with the issue of serving the correct MIME type (i.e. 
>> "application/xhtml+xml" vs. "text/html"), I think I've got that 
>> covered. There's a bit about it on my colophon page:
>>
>> http://ronin-group.org/TRG_colophon#mime
>>
>> And if that's NOT it, or I've missed something, I'd love to be better 
>> informed.
> 404
Sorry. Serves me right for not cutting and pasting.

http://www.ronin-group.org/TRG_colophon.html#mime


__
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] request: a thorough going over

[Michael Venables]

On 8/26/2009 9:22 AM, David Laakso wrote:
> My comments below have little if anything to do with CSS. They are
> personal opinion... take them as such, and do with them as will...
>
Understood. Please don't feel like I don't appreciate them. I'm purely 
self-taught, and there's a lot that I can learn, especially from people 
who do this professionally.


>> If it has to do with the issue of serving the correct MIME type (i.e.
>> "application/xhtml+xml" vs. "text/html"), I think I've got that
>> covered. There's a bit about it on my colophon page:
>>
>> And if that's NOT it, or I've missed something, I'd love to be better
>> informed.
>>  
> 404
>
http://www.ronin-group.org/TRG_colophon.html#mime


>>> 2/ Check your site in a 640 x 480, 800 x 600, 1024 x 768 window. Note
>>> the clipping of the stuff at the bottom of the left column in a
>>> "short window."
>>>
>> This is one of those things that I wonder about every so often. I
>> don't really track my visitor metrics, but my conclusion wound up
>> being that I haven't seen anyone run something as small as 800 x 600
>> in so long that it's just not an issue.
>>  
> Granted. Nevertheless, as a simple example, on a 1680/116.5dpi MacBook
> Pro @1024 with a full-sidebar  will yield a 640 "content" window...
>
I never even thought of that. Good point!


>>> 6/ Gray on gray is sometimes difficult for some users to read. Have
>>> you checked your site with a color contrast analyzer?
>>>
>> No, I haven't. This is the first I've heard of such a creature. I'll
>> look into them.
>>  
>
> FWIW,  here's one...
> 
>
That looks very cool. I'll have to give it a whirl.

I didn't realize that the color contrast issue played into 
accessibility, which I have to admit, I'm vaguely aware of, but haven't 
paid much attention to in the site development. It's good to have a 
reminder.

Best,

  michael


__
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] request: a thorough going over

[Felix Miata]

On 2009/08/26 08:52 (GMT-0700) Michael Venables composed:

> david wrote:

>> Looked at it in FF3 on Linux. The serif font against the background 
>> had me squinting until I kicked the font size up a couple of steps 
>> (the strokes of the letters are thin, the color contrast between the 
>> thin letter strokes and background is low). Increasing the line 
>> spacing to 1.3 helped quite a bit. Getting rid of the dotty (to me) 
>> background helped more.

>> Since text is your main content, I think increasing readability of the 
>> text would be a good idea.

> Ah, yes -- Linux... I have to admit, I cheated here, and this was a good 
> reminder. I've got a Linux box, and I do a lot of work on it. 
> Unfortunately, font support on Linux is pretty bad. So my solution was 
> to install the same set of fonts I run on my Windows machines -- at 
> which point everything looked really nice, and I forgot how much I hated 
> it before.

Installing the Windows fonts isn't much help. You don't see what Linux users
without them see.

Linux font support has gotten much better in recent years. Most recent
distros install DejaVu by default, and many also include Liberation. Their
equivalents are:

DejaVu Sans = Lucida Console = Bitstream Vera Sans
DejaVu Sans = Verdana = Bitstream Vera Sans
DejaVu Serif = nothing really close; larger than Georgia; size close to
Verdana; (same as Bitstream Vera Serif)

Liberation Mono = Lucida Console
Liberation Sans = Arial/Helvetica
Liberation Serif = Times New (Roman)

You also have the option of just accepting their choice of default, or just
specifying  generic monospace, sans-serif, or serif.

> I tried bumping up the line height like you suggested, but it just 
> created really obnoxious rivers on my system. I'm guessing this is all 
> related to the font choice(s).

If you do a lot of nesting and font size adjustment, pure number line-heights
are less likely to cause trouble:
http://fm.no-ip.com/auth/line-height-inherit.html

Your 252px limited links column is rather confusing at high resolution:
http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/SC/sc-michve03.png

OTOH, the content paragraph lines are little on the long side, more like a
term paper (usually double-spaced) than a book (normally single spaced with
normal leading).
-- 
How much better to get wisdom than gold, to choose
understanding rather than silver. Proverbs 16:16 NKJV

 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] request: a thorough going over

[Michael Venables]

On 8/25/2009 9:20 PM, David Laakso wrote:
> Generally you're doing alright. She's relatively consistent
> cross-browser. IE 6/7 on a cursory glance go along with your program.
> Same for IE/8. Opera, Safari, SeaMonkey, and FF.
>
> On a more specific level, just some random thoughts that you may, /or
> may not/, wish to consider...
>
> 1/ I think you'll want to use an xhtml 1.0 strict, or an html  4.01
> strict doctype. Someone else can tell why xhtml 1.1 is not such a good
> idea.

If it has to do with the issue of serving the correct MIME type (i.e. 
"application/xhtml+xml" vs. "text/html"), I think I've got that covered. 
There's a bit about it on my colophon page:

http://ronin-group.org/TRG_colophon#mime

And if that's NOT it, or I've missed something, I'd love to be better 
informed.


> 2/ Check your site in a 640 x 480, 800 x 600, 1024 x 768 window. Note
> the clipping of the stuff at the bottom of the left column in a "short
> window."

This is one of those things that I wonder about every so often. I don't 
really track my visitor metrics, but my conclusion wound up being that I 
haven't seen anyone run something as small as 800 x 600 in so long that 
it's just not an issue.

On the other hand, if you're seeing clipping at 1024 x 768, that worries 
me. Was there a particular page giving you problems, or was that a 
general resolution comment?


> 3/ Should the navigation links in the left column be larger, the same
> size, or smaller than the primary content in the right column?

Obviously, I thought they should be larger.  =]
This was done for a couple of reasons: 1) to increase visibility, 2) to 
give them a certain scale in the sidebar and not have them surrounded by 
white space.

I don't know if these are *good* reasons, but they were the ones that 
drove my decision.

What are the operational or aesthetic theories behind the other schools 
of thought?


> 4/ If, for whatever reason, a user might scale the fonts, do you want
> the navigation links to horizontally cross-over and overlap the
> primary content?

That doesn't happen on any browser I've tested. IE6 -- though 
essentially irrelevant -- wraps the text as it grows bigger. IE7 and 
Firefox 3 both scale the width of the sidebar along with the fonts. (I 
tried to make sure that widths are specified in ems so that this 
contingency is covered.)


> 5/ Is it possible to code the site with fewer ids, classes, and span
> thingies?
I'm sure it probably is.  =]


> 6/ Gray on gray is sometimes difficult for some users to read. Have
> you checked your site with a color contrast analyzer?
No, I haven't. This is the first I've heard of such a creature. I'll 
look into them.

Thanks for all your suggestions and comments. I really appreciate you 
taking the time.

  michael



__
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] request: a thorough going over

[David Hucklesby]

David Laakso wrote:
> Michael Venables wrote:
> 
> 
> RE: 
> 
> Michael,
> 
> My comments below have little if anything to do with CSS. They are 
> personal opinion... take them as such, and do with them as will...
> 
[...]
> 
> 
>>> 2/ Check your site in a 640 x 480, 800 x 600, 1024 x 768 window.
>>> Note the clipping of the stuff at the bottom of the left column
>>> in a "short window."
>> This is one of those things that I wonder about every so often. I 
>> don't really track my visitor metrics, but my conclusion wound up 
>> being that I haven't seen anyone run something as small as 800 x
>> 600 in so long that it's just not an issue.
...

FWIW - I work at a computer training lab that has workstations with 19"
monitors, natively running at 1280 x 1024. I have noticed several
students switching to 800 x 600 over the last year. I don't think this
is necessarily age-related, either, as students doing this have been
little more than half my age...

Cordially,
David
--


__
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] request: a thorough going over

[Michael Venables]

On 8/25/2009 9:20 PM, David Laakso wrote:
> Generally you're doing alright. She's relatively consistent 
> cross-browser. IE 6/7 on a cursory glance go along with your program. 
> Same for IE/8. Opera, Safari, SeaMonkey, and FF.
>
> On a more specific level, just some random thoughts that you may, /or 
> may not/, wish to consider...
>
> 1/ I think you'll want to use an xhtml 1.0 strict, or an html  4.01 
> strict doctype. Someone else can tell why xhtml 1.1 is not such a good 
> idea.
If it has to do with the issue of serving the correct MIME type (i.e. 
"application/xhtml+xml" vs. "text/html"), I think I've got that covered. 
There's a bit about it on my colophon page:

http://ronin-group.org/TRG_colophon#mime

And if that's NOT it, or I've missed something, I'd love to be better 
informed.

> 2/ Check your site in a 640 x 480, 800 x 600, 1024 x 768 window. Note 
> the clipping of the stuff at the bottom of the left column in a "short 
> window."
This is one of those things that I wonder about every so often. I don't 
really track my visitor metrics, but my conclusion wound up being that I 
haven't seen anyone run something as small as 800 x 600 in so long that 
it's just not an issue.

On the other hand, if you're seeing clipping at 1024 x 768, that worries 
me. Was there a particular page giving you problems, or was that a 
general resolution comment?

> 3/ Should the navigation links in the left column be larger, the same 
> size, or smaller than the primary content in the right column?
Obviously, I thought they should be larger.  =]
This was done for a couple of reasons: 1) to increase visibility, 2) to 
give them a certain scale in the sidebar and not have them surrounded by 
white space.

I don't know if these are *good* reasons, but they were the ones that 
drove my decision.

What are the operational or aesthetic theories behind the other schools 
of thought?

> 4/ If, for whatever reason, a user might scale the fonts, do you want 
> the navigation links to horizontally cross-over and overlap the 
> primary content?
That doesn't happen on any browser I've tested. IE6 -- though 
essentially irrelevant -- wraps the text as it grows bigger. IE7 and 
Firefox 3 both scale the width of the sidebar along with the fonts. (I 
tried to make sure that widths are specified in ems so that this 
contingency is covered.)

> 5/ Is it possible to code the site with fewer ids, classes, and span 
> thingies?
I'm sure it probably is.  =]

> 6/ Gray on gray is sometimes difficult for some users to read. Have 
> you checked your site with a color contrast analyzer?
No, I haven't. This is the first I've heard of such a creature. I'll 
look into them.

Thanks for all your suggestions and comments. I really appreciate you 
taking the time.

  michael



__
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] request: a thorough going over

[david]

David Laakso wrote:

>>> 6/ Gray on gray is sometimes difficult for some users to read. Have 
>>> you checked your site with a color contrast analyzer?
>> No, I haven't. This is the first I've heard of such a creature. I'll 
>> look into them.
> 
> 
> FWIW,  here's one...
> 

Nice extension. I installed it and ran it on the Mozilla Addons page 
where I downloaded it from - and it reported 60-some odd failures in 
color contrast or brightness ... ;-)

-- 
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] request: a thorough going over

[david]

David Hucklesby wrote:

> FWIW - I work at a computer training lab that has workstations with 19"
> monitors, natively running at 1280 x 1024. I have noticed several
> students switching to 800 x 600 over the last year. I don't think this
> is necessarily age-related, either, as students doing this have been
> little more than half my age...

Always good to remember that anyone of any age can have vision problems. 
And it can be compounded by GUIs that don't really give users much 
option for conveniently adjusting text sizes in the UI.

-- 
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] request: a thorough going over

[Michael Venables]

Felix,

Sorry it took so long to reply. I had mail client problems yesterday.


On 8/26/2009 10:54 AM, Felix Miata wrote:
>> Ah, yes -- Linux... I have to admit, I cheated here, and this was a good
>> reminder. I've got a Linux box, and I do a lot of work on it.
>> Unfortunately, font support on Linux is pretty bad. So my solution was
>> to install the same set of fonts I run on my Windows machines -- at
>> which point everything looked really nice, and I forgot how much I hated
>> it before.
>>  
> Installing the Windows fonts isn't much help. You don't see what Linux users
> without them see.
>
True, but the standard suggestion for the better part of a decade (at 
least) was to install the Windows web font pack. And it's still 
something that comes up in Google searches, so who knows how many people 
are still following that advice.

Now that I think about it, I don't really know what the font situation 
on Mac OS is, either. Should probably do a bit of looking into that.


> Linux font support has gotten much better in recent years. Most recent
> distros install DejaVu by default, and many also include Liberation. Their
> equivalents are:
>
> DejaVu Sans = Lucida Console = Bitstream Vera Sans
> DejaVu Sans = Verdana = Bitstream Vera Sans
> DejaVu Serif = nothing really close; larger than Georgia; size close to
> Verdana; (same as Bitstream Vera Serif)
>
> Liberation Mono = Lucida Console
> Liberation Sans = Arial/Helvetica
> Liberation Serif = Times New (Roman)
>
This is great info. Thanks!


> You also have the option of just accepting their choice of default, or just
> specifying  generic monospace, sans-serif, or serif.
>
I know about specifying the generics, but how do you leverage the user 
choice of default?


>> I tried bumping up the line height like you suggested, but it just
>> created really obnoxious rivers on my system. I'm guessing this is all
>> related to the font choice(s).
>>  
> If you do a lot of nesting and font size adjustment, pure number line-heights
> are less likely to cause trouble:
> http://fm.no-ip.com/auth/line-height-inherit.html
>
That little article was fascinating.


> Your 252px limited links column is rather confusing at high resolution:
> http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/SC/sc-michve03.png
>
How interesting. I haven't seen the site do that before (except under IE6).

What tool are you using for the analysis?


> OTOH, the content paragraph lines are little on the long side, more like a
> term paper (usually double-spaced) than a book (normally single spaced with
> normal leading).
>
I completely agree. I've been thinking that I probably need to go back 
and cut the line length down (probably 25% at least). Your comment was 
good incentive to go back and do that.

Best,

  michael

__
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] request: a thorough going over

[Felix Miata]

On 2009/08/28 08:22 (GMT-0700) Michael Venables composed:

> Felix Miata wrote:

>> Installing the Windows fonts isn't much help. You don't see what Linux users
>> without them see.

> True, but the standard suggestion for the better part of a decade (at 
> least) was to install the Windows web font pack. 

Of course.

> And it's still
> something that comes up in Google searches, so who knows how many people 
> are still following that advice.

That's exactly my point. Plenty don't, because they refuse to have anything
to do with anything from M$, or don't want to install any optional or
external source software.

If you do have them installed, you have a poor idea what those who do not are
seeing.

> Now that I think about it, I don't really know what the font situation 
> on Mac OS is, either. Should probably do a bit of looking into that.

I did a fresh Tiger install last week, and immediately updated to 10.4.11. I
installed no other software except for SeaMonkey 1.1.7 & Firefox 3.5.2. This
left me with 100% of the M$ web fonts installed.

>> You also have the option of just accepting their choice of default, or just
>> specifying  generic monospace, sans-serif, or serif.

> I know about specifying the generics, but how do you leverage the user 
> choice of default?

Not sure what you mean by "leverage". With browsers other than IE, specifying
only a generic will allow the visitor to see used whatever his defaults are
set to. With IE, specifying only generics will allow the visitor to see the
defaults M$ hard-coded into the browser: Courier new for monospace, Times New
Roman for serif, and Arial for sans-serif. Safari (v4.0.3 at least) will use
its user-selectable monospace default if the requested font(s) are not
available, same as the Geckos, but when the requested serif or sans-serif
fonts are not available, it will supply the user-selectable default
proportional, regardless whether that default is a serif or a sans-serif, and
regardless whether the requested type of font is a serif or a sans-serif.

http://fm.no-ip.com/auth/Font/fonts-face-samples-cdef.html might be useful in
confirming for yourself.

Note too that anytime Helvetica is requested on Windows, it is treated as if
the request had been for Arial, which means all the following on Windows
render identically:

font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif
font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif
font-family: helvetica, sans-serif
font-family: helvetica, 'lucida sans unicode', 'trebuchet ms', sans-serif
font-family: sans-serif

>> Your 252px limited links column is rather confusing at high resolution:
>> http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/SC/sc-michve03.png

> How interesting. I haven't seen the site do that before (except under IE6).

> What tool are you using for the analysis?

My eyes? What analysis?
-- 
How much better to get wisdom than gold, to choose
understanding rather than silver. Proverbs 16:16 NKJV

 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] request: a thorough going over

[Michael Venables]

On 8/28/2009 3:26 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
>> Now that I think about it, I don't really know what the font situation
>> on Mac OS is, either. Should probably do a bit of looking into that.
>>  
> I did a fresh Tiger install last week, and immediately updated to 10.4.11. I
> installed no other software except for SeaMonkey 1.1.7&  Firefox 3.5.2. This
> left me with 100% of the M$ web fonts installed.
>
Was that a tyop, or are you saying that either Apple or Mozilla are 
including the M$ web fonts?


> With browsers other than IE, specifying
> only a generic will allow the visitor to see used whatever his defaults are
> set to. With IE, specifying only generics will allow the visitor to see the
> defaults M$ hard-coded into the browser: Courier new for monospace, Times New
> Roman for serif, and Arial for sans-serif. Safari (v4.0.3 at least) will use
> its user-selectable monospace default if the requested font(s) are not
> available, same as the Geckos, but when the requested serif or sans-serif
> fonts are not available, it will supply the user-selectable default
> proportional, regardless whether that default is a serif or a sans-serif, and
> regardless whether the requested type of font is a serif or a sans-serif.
>
> http://fm.no-ip.com/auth/Font/fonts-face-samples-cdef.html might be useful in
> confirming for yourself.
>
> Note too that anytime Helvetica is requested on Windows, it is treated as if
> the request had been for Arial, which means all the following on Windows
> render identically:
>
> font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif
> font-family: helvetica, arial, sans-serif
> font-family: helvetica, sans-serif
> font-family: helvetica, 'lucida sans unicode', 'trebuchet ms', sans-serif
> font-family: sans-serif
>
Some of that I knew, but the rest of it was informative.


>> What tool are you using for the analysis?
>>  
> My eyes? What analysis?
>
Whatever produced that interesting looking screen-cap you posted, 
overlaid on my page.  =]

Best,

  michael

__
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] request: a thorough going over

[Felix Miata]

On 2009/08/28 19:57 (GMT-0700) Michael Venables composed:

> On 8/28/2009 3:26 PM, Felix Miata wrote:

>> I did a fresh Tiger install last week, and immediately updated to 10.4.11. I
>> installed no other software except for SeaMonkey 1.1.7&  Firefox 3.5.2. This
>> left me with 100% of the M$ web fonts installed.

> Was that a tyop, or are you saying that either Apple or Mozilla are 
> including the M$ web fonts?

No typo, and not Mozilla. Apple is a marketing company as much as anything
else. It knows the value of those fonts to users of its OS.

>> My eyes? What analysis?

> Whatever produced that interesting looking screen-cap you posted, 
> overlaid on my page.  =]

Plain, ordinary screencap program. Not overlay. Inlay, designed to produce
real-world context. Open the topmost URL and look at its HTML.
-- 
How much better to get wisdom than gold, to choose
understanding rather than silver. Proverbs 16:16 NKJV

 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] request: a thorough going over

[Philippe Wittenbergh]

On Aug 29, 2009, at 11:57 AM, Michael Venables wrote:

> Was that a tyop, or are you saying that either Apple or Mozilla are
> including the M$ web fonts?

The MS fonts have been installed by default on OS X since forever [1].  
First as part of IE 5.2 on 10.0~10.1, which was then the default  
browser, then from 10.2 onwards Apple licensed them from Microsoft  
(with web compat in mind).
Doesn't mean that the user will see your page with those fonts. I know  
quite a few Mac users who disable and/or remove those fonts (me at the  
front: you won't find verdana & courier new on any of my machines… :-).

[1] and on OS 9 before that


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/