Re: [WSG] Font Sizes - Best practice

[Felix Miata]

David Hucklesby wrote Wed, 22 Feb 2006 22:08:03 -0800:
 
> In an attempt to inject something factual into this debate, a quick
> calculation for my 15" 1440 x 1050 laptop tells me that a 10px font size
> is the same size as (poorly cast) 6pt type on paper. 16px is 9.6pt.
> 1pt = 1/72".
 
> I just changed Windows xp to 120 dpi, but this does not appear to have
> altered the text size in Firefox,

That's the expected result of a UA that uses px for user settings. FF
does that in part because it offers the user finer grained control of
size, particularly as resolution is increased. Changing screen
resolution will change the physical size of FF's default, but changing
DPI will not

> but has increased it 25% in IE

That's the expected result of a UA that uses pt for user settings. Most
apps size text in pt. Theoretically, pt is a real life physical size.
When you adjust dpi you're theoretically trying to get a correct result
in pt and every other physical size unit. Check here
http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/PointsDemo.html and see whether FF or IE
or both are doing a good job with the sizes now that you've changed to
120. According to http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/dpi.html you're now
seeing about as close to accurate pt sizes as anyone ever gets windoze
to do.

> - so I
> set IE to "smaller" to compensate.

Why?
-- 
"Love your neighbor as yourself."Mark 12:31 NIV

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata  ***  http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/auth

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Font Sizes - Best practice

[Felix Miata]

Rimantas Liubertas wrote Thu, 23 Feb 2006 02:02:35 +0200:
 
> Only these are browsers vendors defaults, not users.

The browsers/vendors defaults are the users default defaults, mostly
12pt, or px equivalents thereof when all other settings remain at
defaults.
 
> Can anyone point me to a study which shows:

Here's one that exemplifies others, and to which I've seen a total of 0
inconsistent therewith:
http://psychology.wichita.edu/optimalweb/text.htm

It says most users prefer 12pt, which just happens to be the same as
what browsers default to, and is usually substantially larger than the
11px-12px preference of most web designers.

> And once again there should be a reason that majority web pages go
> with font size about 12px.

There is. Most designers are detail oriented people using large
displays. Such people are more comfortable than average with things
small, and so get one application of smaller via their preference,
compounded by the application of compensation for their large displays.
If it wasn't a health hazard to do so they should all be forced to use
14" primary displays at 1400x1050. Also, they and the people who pay
them play the that's what everybody else is doing so it must be OK game.

> Coincidentally, 12-13px is my proffered font size...

What pt size does that correspond to on your main display? What size is
your main display? What is your primary resolution? How old are your
eyes? How good is your corrected vision? How close do you sit to your
display? Do your parents or grandparents find using your web pages on
your equipment and settings equally comfortable as you?

I quit buying magazines and newspapers because I got too tired of the
tiny print they use. The web doesn't by its nature, unlike print media,
force me to accept uncomfortably small type like that. That's a huge
inherent web strength.

Designers wielding the power of CSS can attempt to make me hate their
pages, and usually do. The result is usually me turning off author
styles entirely, as zooming all too often makes a mess out a design that
didn't account for the possibility that the vision, settings, and
equipment of the user don't match that of the designer.

I'm not alone in this. More users want 12pt than anything else, but
designers don't want them to have it. To me, that's the antithesis of a
best practice.
-- 
"Love your neighbor as yourself."Mark 12:31 NIV

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata  ***  http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/auth

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Font Sizes - Best practice

[David Hucklesby]

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 02:02:35 +0200, Rimantas Liubertas wrote:
> <...>
>
> c) How many have an idea what 'px' or 'pt' is, and have an idea how big
> is 16pt/px. Same goes for DPI settings.
>
In an attempt to inject something factual into this debate, a quick
calculation for my 15" 1440 x 1050 laptop tells me that a 10px font size
is the same size as (poorly cast) 6pt type on paper. 16px is 9.6pt.
1pt = 1/72".

I just changed Windows xp to 120 dpi, but this does not appear to have
altered the text size in Firefox, but has increased it 25% in IE - so I
set IE to "smaller" to compensate.

Cordially,
David
--
David Hucklesby, on 2/22/2006

--





**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

RE: [WSG] Font Sizes - Best practice

[Herrod, Lisa]

Hi Terrance

> From: Terrence Wood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> All good questions. I read somewhere recently that a seasoned usability
tester observed one person changing the font size > > for the very first
time.

I wrote about that here recently. I've run hundreds of usability sessions
and that was the first time I'd ever seen a user resize text via the
browser, completely unprompted. The same user also right clicked a link to
open it in a new window.

I have to admit, it was pretty amazing to see!

When I wrote to the list about it, there were jokes about it being usability
'pr0n' - which went right over my head. Because, while I might be geeky
enough to get excited about resizing text or right clicking a link, I never
got into all of that! Having said that, there was some truth to it. 

So going back to Rimantas questions, my experience would be to answer for
each:
'Very few (non-web developer users)'. But I don't have any stats on this,
it's purely based on observation during usability evaluations.

Hope that helps Rimantas?


> Rimantas Liubertas:
> 
> > a) How many users do know that there exists a preference for a font 
> > size.
> > b) How many of the do know how to use it and indeed do use it.
> > c) How many have an idea what 'px' or 'pt' is, and have an 
> idea how big
> > is 16pt/px. Same goes for DPI settings.
> > d) How many users prefer to play with settings instead of doing what
> > they were going to do in the first place (getting info)?
> 
> All good questions. I read somewhere recently that a seasoned 
> usability 
> tester observed one person changing the font size for the very first 
> time. We may well conclude that the answer to the above questions are 
> "not many", however, I sense that they are largely rhetorical. In any 
> case, they illustrate very well the reason(s) why it is 
> better to have 
> a font that's too big than one that's too small.



Lisa 
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Strange empty XHTML element issues in IE & FF

[Lachlan Hunt]

Vlad Alexander (XStandard) wrote:

Lachlan wrote:
It is just as easy to set , output an 
HTML4 DOCTYPE and not worry about inserting a space before '/>' for 
empty elements.


If you use the 10 lines of re-usable code that I suggested in your
XSLT, one does not need to "worry" - you have XML in and you have XML
out.


That code your referring too seems to be incomplete.  It doesn't handle 
every empty element, and in fact seems to explicitly filter out link and 
meta elements, along with script and iframe elements which makes no 
sense to me.


Excerpt from the XSLT:


  
  


Why do that?  AFAICT, this prevents those elements from being output. 
There may be a reason for that in your specific application, but it 
doesn't really make this code reusable as is, without modification.




  


That list is missing the following empty elements:
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 
* 

As a result, I believe (with the exception of link and meta) these will 
be processed as non-empty elements by your code, and thus not comply 
with Appendix C.



If you're using XSLT, why bother attempting to comply...


It depends on your requirements - right?


Yes, it does.


If you are doing a batch process and you plan to store the output
before serving it, you would want to store it in a parsable form that 
can be served as is or further processed by other XML technologies.


Fair enough, but do you agree that if there is no intention of any 
further XML processing, then converting to HTML 4 would be the most 
appropriate choice?


Can I assume that you agree that XHTML 1.0 was designed to be 
backwards compatible to HTML 4 if written to compatibility 
guidelines?


It is clear that that was certainly the intention, but I don't agree 
that the HTMLWG were entirely successful in doing so.


--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Page veiwing

[Ric Raftis]

Angus at InfoForce Services wrote:

I am sorry if this is off topic. I do not know who to ask. I have my 
screen resolution to default to 800 by 600 and thinking of changeing 
to 1024 by 768. I still would like to view my web pages in 800 by 600. 
I really do not have the knowledge to have the screendefault to 1024 
by 768 and still veiew web pages in 800 by 600. Actually Only one of 
my apps requires 1024 by 768. I use EditPlus 2.12 with Windows XP Home 
SP2. Can anyone help? thank you.


I use MultiRes, a desktop resident resolution switcher.  It's available 
from http://www.entechtaiwan.com/util/multires.shtm and is a free programme.


Regards,


Ric
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Page veiwing

[Lachlan Hunt]

Angus at InfoForce Services wrote:
I am sorry if this is off topic. I do not know who to ask. I have my 
screen resolution to default to 800 by 600 and thinking of changeing to 
1024 by 768


Woah!  They're such low resolutions, do you only have a 15" monitor?

I still would like to view my web pages in 800 by 600. 
I really do not have the knowledge to have the screendefault to 1024 by 
768 and still veiew web pages in 800 by 600.


Get yourself a copy of the Web Developer toolbars for Firefox [1] and IE 
[2].  They have options to resize the browser window to 800x600.  Other 
browsers may have similar tools available or may even be built in, but 
even if they don't, you can always resize them manually.


There's no need to change the resolution of your screen down to 800x600, 
since it's the viewport size that matters.  Also, keep in mind that not 
all users have their browser window maximised.


[1] http://chrispederick.com/work/webdeveloper/
[2] 
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=e59c3964-672d-4511-bb3e-2d5e1db91038&displaylang=en


--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Page veiwing

[Jack Pivac]

on 23/02/06 17:05 Angus at InfoForce Services said the following:
I am sorry if this is off topic. I do not know who to ask. I have my 
screen resolution to default to 800 by 600 and thinking of changeing to 
1024 by 768. I still would like to view my web pages in 800 by 600. I 
really do not have the knowledge to have the screendefault to 1024 by 
768 and still veiew web pages in 800 by 600. Actually Only one of my 
apps requires 1024 by 768. I use EditPlus 2.12 with Windows XP Home SP2. 
Can anyone help? thank you.


Use Web Developer... If you are using Firefox, which you should :)
https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php?id=60&application=firefox

Its got a resize option and will resize your browser window to 800x600 
or other custom resolutions you can set.

Amongst other very cool features.

HTH
Jack
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

[WSG] Page veiwing

[Angus at InfoForce Services]

I am sorry if this is off topic. I do not know who to ask. I have my screen 
resolution to default to 800 by 600 and thinking of changeing to 1024 by 
768. I still would like to view my web pages in 800 by 600. I really do not 
have the knowledge to have the screendefault to 1024 by 768 and still veiew 
web pages in 800 by 600. Actually Only one of my apps requires 1024 by 768. 
I use EditPlus 2.12 with Windows XP Home SP2. Can anyone help? thank you.



Angus MacKinnon
MacKinnon Crest Saying
Latin -  Audentes Fortuna Juvat
English - Fortune Assists The Daring
Web page http://www.infoforce-services.com
Choroideremia Research Foundation Inc. 2nd Vice president
http://www.choroideremia.org

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] CSS Liquid Design Header

[Geoff Deering]

Tom Livingston wrote:



On 2/22/06 5:04 AM, "Geoff Deering" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

 


Can any one point me to a good example of how to do a css header with a
background image 100% wide, while having two distinct images on the far
left and right and they behave in a liquid manner as the browser window
is resized, so that both images maintain being far left and far right.
   



Have you tried jello mold? You can set a min width, so your images won't
crash together. And have a bg color in between for wide pages.

Just a thought...
 



Yes, tracked that down.  Think it's the same principle as what Charles 
recommended.


Thanks for that.

Regards
Geoff
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] CSS Liquid Design Header

[Geoff Deering]

Charles Eaton wrote:



On Feb 22, 2006, at 4:50 AM, Geoff Deering wrote:


I wish it was that simple.

I need something like



How's this:


Note: "Float" in your setup worked against the nature order of how 
computers read code, top down - left to right.




Thanks for the suggestions and also the code corrections and 
improvements.  This is like the jello mold that Tom suggests isn't it?


It doesn't quite fit what I wanted, but I can actually achieve the same 
result with a bit of image manipulation, and will be able to be close to 
back on track with being close to the clients design (which has a lot of 
image layering).


Nothing like a trip to the dentist in the morning to distract one from 
web challenges.  Highly recommended when in need of other perspectives 
(on anything).



Thanks
Geoff
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Breadcrumb as Section Heading H1

[Kevin Futter]

On 22/2/06 10:38 AM, "Patrick H. Lauke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Kevin Futter wrote:

>> My only concern about using a string
>> of text is defining a semantically-appropriate item delimiter that works
>> well for assistive technologies.
> 
> This seems apropos:
>  e-title-tag-separator>

Thanks for the link Patrick - quite interesting. I must admit that I'm
guilty of using », so I may need to rethink that. One thing I found
interesting in the comments is the idea of using a colon as a delimiter,
with one person commenting that it's semantically appropriate as it's used
this way in English grammar. This is not actually correct; colons are used
to *introduce* a list (there's that word again) of elements, but semicolons
(;) are used to separate the constituent elements, with the last element
technically requiring a full-stop (period). I must say though that I feel
drawing on the already-muddled semantics of the English language as a model
for web semantics is a tenuous affair.

Anyway, for the benefit of others interested in this thread/topic, the
upshot from the above link seems to be that the pipe character (|) is the
best compromise currently available as a screen reader-friendly element
separator.

-- 
Kevin Futter
Webmaster, St. Bernard's College
http://www.sbc.melb.catholic.edu.au/



**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Font Sizes - Best practice

[Terrence Wood]

Rimantas Liubertas:

a) How many users do know that there exists a preference for a font 
size.

b) How many of the do know how to use it and indeed do use it.
c) How many have an idea what 'px' or 'pt' is, and have an idea how big
is 16pt/px. Same goes for DPI settings.
d) How many users prefer to play with settings instead of doing what
they were going to do in the first place (getting info)?


All good questions. I read somewhere recently that a seasoned usability 
tester observed one person changing the font size for the very first 
time. We may well conclude that the answer to the above questions are 
"not many", however, I sense that they are largely rhetorical. In any 
case, they illustrate very well the reason(s) why it is better to have 
a font that's too big than one that's too small.


Felix Miata wrote:

Here's my definition of user default-based


Thanks for the definition, particularly the examples you provide for 
when it is ok to use smaller text.



kind regards
Terrence Wood.





**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Font Sizes - Best practice

[Rimantas Liubertas]

<...>
>I'll think you'll find
> them pretty unanimous in saying in essence don't mess with user
> defaults. Don't expect all the latter to practice what they preach
> though.
<...>

Only these are browsers vendors defaults, not users.

Can anyone point me to a study which shows:

a) How many users do know that there exists a preference for a font size.

b) How many of the do know how to use it and indeed do use it.

c) How many have an idea what 'px' or 'pt' is, and have an idea how big
is 16pt/px. Same goes for DPI settings.

d) How many users prefer to play with settings instead of doing what
they were going
to do in the first place (getting info)?

So far discussions on this topic are based only on our beliefs and
assumptions (including mine).
Usability is not about giving more means for control, it is about
removing need for control.

In my first car there was a handle which operated choke (thingy which lets
to control the air intake of a carburetor and hence the richness of
the fuel mixture.)
That gave me more control, but not more usability.

My new car does not have this - and yet it is more usable. My main task
is to get from the point A to the point B, not to play with choke. So
when I got that burden removed from me, I have more usable product.

So, good design is about sensible defaults - too choose defaults in
such a way that least possible people will feel a need
to changes them. But yes, for those you should provide means to do just that.

And once again there should be a reason that majority web pages go
with font size about 12px.
Coincidentally, 12-13px is my proffered font size...

But that, of course, does not proof anything.


Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] internet exploder margins

[Gunlaug Sørtun]

Jack Pivac wrote:

http://temp.delphinus.co.nz/newsite/


IE for some reason is adding an extra 10px margin to the left of the 
house/shop picture... where opera and FF are not... if i set the 
margin to 0px then it flushes up nice along the left side


That's the 'IE/win margin-doubling bug on floats'.
Cure - on your page - is to add...

.options li {
display: inline;
}

I'm trying to work out how to center those 3 li/images with a bit of 
spacing in between.


You might pick up some ideas for a practical line-up here...


regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

[WSG] internet exploder margins

[Jack Pivac]

As you can see on http://temp.delphinus.co.nz/newsite/

(blue there only for visibility purposes)

IE for some reason is adding an extra 10px margin to the left of the 
house/shop picture... where opera and FF are not...

if i set the margin to 0px then it flushes up nice along the left side

I'm trying to work out how to center those 3 li/images with a bit of 
spacing in between.


Can anyone give me any tips please?

Kind Regards,
Jack
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Plain text v HTML on this list

[russ - maxdesign]

THREAD CLOSED

Please do not reply to this thread - it has already been closed

Russ

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

RE: [WSG] Plain text v HTML on this list

[Paul Bennett]

You mean none of you can see my animated gifs?

;)

To set default messages to plain text in Outlook: 
Tools > Options > Mail Format - Compose message in: Plain text (drop down box)

To set html messages as plain text when replying:
Format > Plain Text (or Alt+o t for all us keyboard junkies)

Paul 'I miss Mozilla mail' Bennett



-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Worthington
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 12:23 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Plain text v HTML on this list

At 09:46 AM 2/22/2006, Nick Gleitzman wrote:
>... could list members please use plain text for posting? ... kinder to 
>those who only have dialup connections ...

And those of us on slow supposedly "broadband" wireless links.

>... makes the posts more legible. I, for one, tend to skip over posts 
>which are rendered in my mail client in teeny tiny text...

I have told my mail client to render the HTML as plain text with no images. 
This works fine most of the time. Any message I can't read this way is 
probably not worth reading anyway, particularly on a list about web design.



Tom Worthington FACS HLM [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph: 0419 496150
Director, Tomw Communications Pty LtdABN: 17 088 714 309
PO Box 13, Belconnen ACT 2617http://www.tomw.net.au/
Director, ACS Communications Tech Board   http://www.acs.org.au/ctb/
Visiting Fellow, ANU  Blog: http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/atom.xml  

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Plain text v HTML on this list

[Tom Worthington]

At 09:46 AM 2/22/2006, Nick Gleitzman wrote:
... could list members please use plain text for posting? ... kinder to 
those who only have dialup connections ...


And those of us on slow supposedly "broadband" wireless links.

... makes the posts more legible. I, for one, tend to skip over posts 
which are rendered in my mail client in teeny tiny text...


I have told my mail client to render the HTML as plain text with no images. 
This works fine most of the time. Any message I can't read this way is 
probably not worth reading anyway, particularly on a list about web design.




Tom Worthington FACS HLM [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph: 0419 496150
Director, Tomw Communications Pty LtdABN: 17 088 714 309
PO Box 13, Belconnen ACT 2617http://www.tomw.net.au/
Director, ACS Communications Tech Board   http://www.acs.org.au/ctb/
Visiting Fellow, ANU  Blog: http://www.tomw.net.au/blog/atom.xml  


**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Font Sizes - Best practice

[Felix Miata]

Martin Heiden, starting a new thread, wrote Mon, 20 Feb 2006 11:14:13
+0100:
 
>   I read a lot of threads about font-sizing lately, but I still did
>   not catch the point of best practice yet.

Among designers, I don't think you'll ever find a consensus on what it
is. Among usability and accessibility experts, I'll think you'll find
them pretty unanimous in saying in essence don't mess with user
defaults. Don't expect all the latter to practice what they preach
though.
 
>   On the other hand, I don't know anyone who changed the default
>   font-size in his/her browser,

As Lachlan Hunt wrote shortly after you asked, how many have is
irrelevant. There's not only the issue of not knowing how many have, but
also of not knowing how many knowing that they could and how to do it
wouldn't change anything anyway, or at least, not the same as the
designer would.

> but lot's of people (mostly designers)
> who prefer smaller font-sizes.

It may be a high proportion of web designers who do, little short of
100% it seems, but they constitute but a small fraction of people using
the web. OTOH, I'll bet as a group they use larger than average computer
displays to do their work, and also as a group, they don't have worse
than average vision.
 
>   Well, the question is: Which group of people is more important? Or

I prefer to prefer those who have to use a site over those who simply
own it. Generally there are far more of the former than the latter.

>   better: Is there a way to please both groups?

I don't think you can dichotomize into only two groups. I think you have
to determine on your own what the "right thing to do" is based upon what
you know and can readily learn, what you're trying to do, and who you're
trying to do it for. We know some things, we have a gut feeling for some
things, and we speculate about other things.

As it happens, there have been published studies that show what web
users prefer in size, and there's no correlation between the results of
those studies and the text size on the average web site other than the
average web site having smaller size text (typically 7.5-10pt) than the
studies show users want (~12pt on average, larger among seniors).

Here's my definition of user default-based (subject to adjustment for
things I forget about):

A-relative sizes only, either keywords, % or em, plus pt at 11.0 or
above may be considered when a close correlation between onscreen and
printed is highly desirable; subject to exceptions below
B-text smaller than CSS small permitted only for: superscripts,
subscripts, math equations, copyright notices, "footers" (except for
contact information), captions for very small images, and very small
blocks of "fine print". In addition, pt may be specified at 8.0 or above
when printed output is particularly important.
C-text smaller than medium but no smaller than CSS small permitted only
for: large blocks of "fine print", navlists/menus, breadcrumbs, captions
for small images, necessarily wide code blocks, very large tables of
numerical data, selects, contact information in "footers", headings for
items in B above. In addition, pt may be specified for these items at
9.5pt or above when printed output is particularly important.
D-notwithstanding B & C, examples of particular text sizes may be
whatever size the demonstration attempts to show, and incidental text in
images not meant to be read may be considered as just a portion of the
image instead of real text.
E-high contrast color scheme suitable for people with common
manifestations of color blindness.
F-As font-family interplays heavily with font-size, a non-generic
font-family may not be specified for main content paragraphs unless
its x-height is common-web-font-average or more. This means none of
the common Times families are large enough. Specifying no font-family
at all for main content paragraphs is preferable. Specifying Times
New Roman at 1em is roughly equivalent to .8em to someone whose
default is Verdana. http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/tmp/test.html

Here's what I know:

1-When you don't design user default-based, you're guaranteed to
displease the unknowable non-zero number of those who have affirmatively
adjusted their settings according to their preferences/requirements for
pages that respect their settings.

2-When you don't design user default-based, you're virtually guaranteed
to displease the unknowable non-zero number of those who find the hand
they were dealt acceptable. This includes many in corporate environments
where the sysadmins have preconfigured all systems to something other
than factory settings, and many users of windoze systems set by the
vendor or manufacturer to settings other than the traditional doze
defaults of 96 DPI and 800x600.

3-When you don't design user default-based, the number and character of
those who find your design perfectly acceptable will exclude the two
groups above, and otherwise be a random and unknowable number that
includes many who really don't care one w

Re: [WSG] Font Sizes - Best practice

[Martin Heiden]

Tom,

on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 at 16:23 wsg@webstandardsgroup.org wrote:

> On 2/20/06 5:14 AM, "Martin Heiden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>> I read a lot of threads about font-sizing lately, but I still did
>>   not catch the point of best practice yet.

> Not to beat an already beaten, kicked, poked, piddled-on very dead horse,
> but I didn't see an actual "answer" to this post. Is there a font-size best
> practice? Did a majority here agree on anything?

No, not now. I'm still reading all the links that Felix and others
sent me. But besides my first attempt to put all this in a few lines
of text, nothing happened.

I hope that someone will add to my points:

- Don't reduce the main font-size to less than 80% of the default
  font-size. Try to keep it at 100% for the main text.

- Specify font-size in relative units (em or %) to give the user
  control over the font-size.

- Let the layout grow/shrink with the font-size or ensure that there
  is enough space to enlarge the font-size to 150%.

regards

  Martin

 



**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Font Sizes - Best practice

[James O'Neill]

Tom,

Body or HTML it doesn't really matter as it will cascade down to
everything else. I set the Percent on the Root Element and then the EM
on the Body just so that the EM font size is set as the default
everywhere vice the Percent.

Later on in what I refer to as the Core Style sheet I set every font
size that is not 1 EM to whatever I want it to be, as you have shown.
It might save you from setting all of the elements that you would like
to 1 EM, but the 100.01% will work fine. I just prefer everything to
be in EM's for consistency.

Jim

On 2/22/06, Tom Livingston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Is there a benefit to the above, as opposed to just:
>
> body{font:100.01% (font family)}
>
> followed by whatever needed additional sizing, like
>
> h2{font-size:1.2em;}
>
> for example?


--
__
"Bugs are, by definition, necessary.
Just ask Microsoft!"

www.co.sauk.wi.us (Work)
www.arionshome.com (Personal)
www.freexenon.com (Consulting)
__
Take Back the Web with Mozilla Fire Fox
http://www.getfirefox.com

Making a Commercial Case for Adopting Web Standards
http://www.maccaws.org/

Web Standards Project
http://www.webstandards.org/

Web Standards Group
http://www.webstandardsgroup.org/

Guild of Accessible Web Designers
http://www.gawds.org/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Font Sizes - Best practice

[Tom Livingston]

On 2/22/06 10:45 AM, "James O'Neill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> html {font-size:100.01%;}
> body, table  {font-size:1em; }

Is there a benefit to the above, as opposed to just:

body{font:100.01% (font family)}

followed by whatever needed additional sizing, like

h2{font-size:1.2em;}

for example?

-- 

Tom Livingston
Senior Multimedia Artist
Media Logic
www.mlinc.com




**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Font Sizes - Best practice

[James O'Neill]

I as well.

This is the default for my stylesheets

html {font-size:100.01%;}
body, table  {font-size:1em; }

http://www.freexenon.com/2005/10/css-fonts-and-font-sizing.html

Jim

On 2/22/06, Tom Livingston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 2/20/06 5:14 AM, "Martin Heiden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I read a lot of threads about font-sizing lately, but I still did
> >   not catch the point of best practice yet.
>
> Not to beat an already beaten, kicked, poked, piddled-on very dead horse,
> but I didn't see an actual "answer" to this post. Is there a font-size best
> practice? Did a majority here agree on anything?
>
> (FWIW, I use 100.01% on the body, and size other things - if needed - with
> ems)

--
__
"Bugs are, by definition, necessary.
Just ask Microsoft!"

www.co.sauk.wi.us (Work)
www.arionshome.com (Personal)
www.freexenon.com (Consulting)
__
Take Back the Web with Mozilla Fire Fox
http://www.getfirefox.com

Making a Commercial Case for Adopting Web Standards
http://www.maccaws.org/

Web Standards Project
http://www.webstandards.org/

Web Standards Group
http://www.webstandardsgroup.org/

Guild of Accessible Web Designers
http://www.gawds.org/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Strange empty XHTML element issues in IE & FF

[XStandard]

Lachlan wrote:
> It is just as easy to set , output
> an HTML4 DOCTYPE and not worry about inserting a space
> before '/>' for empty elements.
If you use the 10 lines of re-usable code that I suggested in your XSLT, one 
does not need to "worry" - you have XML in and you have XML out.

> If you're using XSLT, why bother attempting to comply...
It depends on your requirements - right? If you are doing a batch process and 
you plan to store the output before serving it, you would want to store it in a 
parsable form that can be served as is or further processed by other XML 
technologies.

Can I assume that you agree that XHTML 1.0 was designed to be backwards 
compatible to HTML 4 if written to compatibility guidelines?

Regards,
-Vlad
http://xstandard.com



**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] CSS Liquid Design Header

[Tom Livingston]

On 2/22/06 5:04 AM, "Geoff Deering" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Can any one point me to a good example of how to do a css header with a
> background image 100% wide, while having two distinct images on the far
> left and right and they behave in a liquid manner as the browser window
> is resized, so that both images maintain being far left and far right.

Have you tried jello mold? You can set a min width, so your images won't
crash together. And have a bg color in between for wide pages.

Just a thought...

-- 

Tom Livingston
Senior Multimedia Artist
Media Logic
www.mlinc.com




**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Font Sizes - Best practice

[Tom Livingston]

On 2/20/06 5:14 AM, "Martin Heiden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> I read a lot of threads about font-sizing lately, but I still did
>   not catch the point of best practice yet.

Not to beat an already beaten, kicked, poked, piddled-on very dead horse,
but I didn't see an actual "answer" to this post. Is there a font-size best
practice? Did a majority here agree on anything?

(FWIW, I use 100.01% on the body, and size other things - if needed - with
ems)

-- 

Tom Livingston
Senior Multimedia Artist
Media Logic
www.mlinc.com




**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] CSS Liquid Design Header

[Charles Eaton]

On Feb 22, 2006, at 4:50 AM, Geoff Deering wrote:


I wish it was that simple.

I need something like


How's this:


Note: "Float" in your setup worked against the nature order of how 
computers read code, top down - left to right.



*{
padding:0;
margin:0;
height:auto;
width:auto;
font-size:100%;
}

/* = */

#headerbanner {
   position: absolute;
   color: ;
   background: #1C3959 url(/images/banner.jpg) repeat-x top;
   display: block;
   height: 145px;
   width: 100%;
   border: 0;
   z-index: 0;
  }

#bannerleft {
   position: relative;
   background: #1C3959 url(/images/lbanner.jpg) no-repeat top;
   width: 20%;
   height: 143px;
   background-color:green;
   z-index: 0;
}

#bannerright {
   position: absolute;
   background: #1C3959 url(/images/rbanner.jpg) no-repeat top;
   top: 0%;
   right: 0%;
   width: 20%;
   height: 143px;
   z-index: 0;
   background-color:blue;
}

#headerbanner h1  {
   position: relative;
   margin:2em 2em 0em 2em;
   font-size: 1.4em;
   text-align: center;
   color: #F0;
   background: transparent;
   z-index: -1;
}

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] Plain text v HTML on this list - THREAD CLOSED

[russ - maxdesign]

> Maybe we should take a
> poll to see if the majority want that implemented here. ;-)

THREAD CLOSED


1. Reason for thread closing

We have asked members on numerous occasions if they have problems or
comments about the running of the WSG mail list to email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
directly and NOT to send their comments or complaints out to the entire
list.

Why? You may think your comment or complaint is very important, but there is
a good chance that the vast majority of WSG members do not care. Every time
someone complains about an aspect of the WSG on-list, we get numerous
off-list complaints from others about the complaint.

The mail list is for discussions about web standards. So, please send all
comments, abuse or suggestions off-list to [EMAIL PROTECTED] - NOT to the
list.


2. Poll 

We are more than happy to take a poll on aspects of the WSG - in fact we
welcome them. We have done them officially and unofficially in the past and
have found them very useful in helping us improve or change aspects about
the WSG.

However, we do not want any more on-list polls - especially ones that do not
relate to web standards. The last thing we need is 3000 posts saying "me
too" hitting the lists.

If you wish to take part in Felix's HTML Email poll, please email
[EMAIL PROTECTED] off-list with the title "WSG email poll". Please do not send
answers to this poll to the list. We will gather the results from this poll
and Peter can decide how he will act on the results.

Thank you for your patience.
Russ

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] FireFox eating Div

[Nuno Gaspar]

That´s all about float elements...

Your  it's not floating, it's generate and
foloow the flux of HTML, the ul#nav it's inside but it's floating it
means that´s above but the height of wrapper it is not influenced by
the float element unless they are bot floating...

You could try put both float and u will see that the height it's influenced by both elements...

This it´s the cause to FF it does not recognize the height and join the both height-- Nuno Gaspar - Designer ---http://www.artideias.com

Re: [WSG] :before and :after for code tag

[Lachlan Hunt]

T. R. Valentine wrote:

On 22/02/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

code:before {
 content: " 

No version of Internet Exploder will generate content. Unfortunately.


Not natively, but Dean Edwards' IE7 script will add limited support for it.

--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] :before and :after for code tag

[T. R. Valentine]

On 22/02/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> / css ***/
>
> code:before {
>  content: "   display:block;
>  }
>
> code:after {
>  content: " ?>";
>  display: block;
>  }
>
>
> Above has no problem with Firefox. Unfortunately, IE7 doesn't browse it
> properly. Any idea ? Thanks,

No version of Internet Exploder will generate content. Unfortunately.

--
T. R. Valentine
Use a decent browser: Safari, Firefox, Mozilla, Opera
(Avoid IE like the plague it is)
N���.�Ȩ�X���+��i��n�Z�֫v�+��h��y�m�쵩�j�l��.f���.�ץ�w�q(��b��(��,�)උazX����)��

Re: [WSG] Plain text v HTML on this list

[T. R. Valentine]

On 22/02/06, Felix Miata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> All incoming HTML and other multipart gets filtered automatically to my
> trash, and so I only open what looks safe according to subject lines.
> Good thing for the subject key [WSG] or many posts from this list would
> never get opened, unlike WD and css-d posts, whose moms seem to have
> greater disgust for HTML than Russ & co and pre-filter so that those
> lists don't get evil mail in the first place. Maybe we should take a
> poll to see if the majority want that implemented here. ;-)

If a poll is being begun, I'll vote 'yes' to filter out e-mail that
isn't plain text.

--
T. R. Valentine
Use a decent browser: Safari, Firefox, Mozilla, Opera
(Avoid IE like the plague it is)

Re: [WSG] CSS Liquid Design Header

[Geoff Deering]

russ - maxdesign wrote:


Do you mean like this?
http://www.maxdesign.com.au/presentation/liquid-background/

Russ
 



I wish it was that simple.

I need something like



#headerbanner {
   color: ;
   background: #1C3959 url(/images/banner.jpg) repeat-x top;
   display: block;
   height: 145px;
   width: 100%;
   border: 0;
  
}


#bannerleft {
   padding: 0;
   margin: 0; 
   float: left;

   background: #1C3959 url(/images/lbanner.jpg) no-repeat top;
   clear: both;
}

#bannerright {
   padding: 0;
   margin: 0; 
   float: right;

   background: #1C3959 url(/images/rbanner.jpg) no-repeat top;
   clear: both;
}

#headerbanner h1  {
   padding: .5em 1em .5em 1em;
   font-size: 140%;
   text-align: center;
   color: #F0;
   background: transparent;
}


So #headerbanner has a 1 pixel width image and the left and right banner 
have to sit on top of that so they behave in a liquid way keeping to the 
left and right.  There's probably a simple solution, but it's something 
I normally don't deal with.


G.
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

[WSG] Out of Office AutoReply: digest for wsg@webstandardsgroup.org

[Irene Hagstrom]

Title: Out of Office AutoReply: digest for wsg@webstandardsgroup.org





I'm out of the office until 23 February.


If you have any urgent matter please contact Alistair Tegart via email on: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[WSG] :before and :after for code tag

[serkanmanga]

Hi,
 
 
/ css ***/
 
code:before { content: "  display:block; } code:after { content: " ?>"; display: block; }
 
Above has no problem with Firefox. Unfortunately, IE7 doesn't browse it properly. Any idea ? Thanks, 
-- Saygilarimla;With Kind Regards;Mit Freundlichen Gruessen;Muy Atentamente;Serkan MANGA www.cleanpixels.com ! soon 

Re: [WSG] CSS Liquid Design Header

[russ - maxdesign]

Do you mean like this?
http://www.maxdesign.com.au/presentation/liquid-background/

Russ

> Hi,
> 
> Can any one point me to a good example of how to do a css header with a
> background image 100% wide, while having two distinct images on the far
> left and right and they behave in a liquid manner as the browser window
> is resized, so that both images maintain being far left and far right.
> 
> Regards
> Geoff
> **
> The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/
> 
> See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
> **
> 

**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

 See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
 for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

[WSG] CSS Liquid Design Header

[Geoff Deering]

Hi,

Can any one point me to a good example of how to do a css header with a 
background image 100% wide, while having two distinct images on the far 
left and right and they behave in a liquid manner as the browser window 
is resized, so that both images maintain being far left and far right.


Regards
Geoff
**
The discussion list for  http://webstandardsgroup.org/

See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**

Re: [WSG] FireFox eating Div

[Mike at Green-Beast.com]

Hello Ryan,
 
You can fix that issue and 
shorten your CSS a bit with this. I didn't test it in IE but it should be 
fine.
 
* { border: 0; margin: 
0; padding: 0; text-decoration: none; }
body { text-align: center; 
}
#wrapper { border: 1px solid 
rgb(204, 153, 102); margin: auto; width: 800px; }
ul#nav { text-align : left; margin 
: 10px 0 10px 0; }
ul#nav li { display: 
inline; }
 
To answer your question, I don't 
use IE as my default browser, but since most of my sites' visitors use it, it's 
rather important to me :)
 
HTH.
 
Sincerely,
Mike Cherimhttp://green-beast.com/http://accessites.org/
 
 

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Ryan Moore 
  To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 1:50 
  PM
  Subject: [WSG] FireFox eating Div
  
  
  Hello 
  all,
   
  Wondering why firefox likes to 
  exclude my #nav element out of the box model here.  The site’s CSS can be 
  viewed in the source for readability.  
   
  http://www.rockitdevelopment.com/test/
   
  It works fine in IE but who cares 
  about that browser.  What is the method around this that is best for 
  standards?

[WSG] Strange empty XHTML element issues in IE & FF

[Paul Hempsall]

Title: Message



I came across a 
strange issue last night while converting some XML data via an XSL template into 
XHTML.
 
Issue 1: In the Head 
section of my XHTML I had an empty script element (see below). IE refused 
to load the page. FF had no problem with this.
 

/>