Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please

[Felix Miata]

On 2007/06/05 19:15 (GMT+0100) Designer apparently typed:

> To me, the zoom feature of IE7 (or firefox, or Opera)  means that you 
> can resize a page constructed in pixels without hurting anyone.  Doesn't it?

Those with narrow windows will inevitably get a horizontal scroll as a result 
of IE7 page zoom.

For the benefit of those without IE7 access: 
http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/ie7zoom.html
-- 
"Respect everyone." I Peter 2:17 NIV

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

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


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please

[Felix Miata]

On 2007/06/04 10:06 (GMT-0700) Paul Novitski apparently typed:

>> > Felix Miata wrote:

>> >>http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Sites/ksc/

>>On 2007/06/04 01:41 (GMT-0700) Paul Novitski apparently typed:

>> > In Firefox 2, when the window width becomes too narrow and/or the
>> > text size becomes too large to allow the headline "The Dancer's
>> > Product Resource" to fit on one line, the headline wraps around with
>> > such a high line-length that the new line overlaps the content below
>> > the header.

> Sorry, I don't see the problem.  Why not simply allow the header 
> block to naturally expand vertically when the headline wraps?

I've replaced line-height with padding to vertically center H1, so the problem 
of expanding outside of #header on when wrap occurs is gone.
-- 
"Respect everyone." I Peter 2:17 NIV

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

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


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please

[Felix Miata]

On 2007/06/06 19:45 (GMT+0100) Designer apparently typed:

> Felix Miata wrote:

>> All that said, the way I judge the readability of any page is by the size of 
>> the bulk of its content and main navigation, not by a couple of minimal 
>> importance non-primary-content lines it contains.
>> By that standard, Bob's is a substantial distance from comfortable to read, 
>> barely above "fine print" (pain) threshold in the absence of applied zoom or 
>> minimum font size.

> Interestingly, I notice that the text I produced on this 'template' 
> ("barely above "fine print" (pain) threshold") site is just marginally 
> bigger than the default menu bars on FF2, IE7, Opera . . .

> Just an observation :-)

Probably pretty close to exactly like this (standard XP 8pt/11.67px Tahoma menu 
text): http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/bobs2col096W.png

Note that on KDE on Linux the default menu text is bigger (10pt/13.33px vs. 
your template's 75%/14px): http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/bobs2col096L.gif

On Mac the menu text is apparently both bigger still, and more legible than 
your page text, since its contrast is much higher than your #333 on #F1F1F1, 
while the same apparent size (but not the
x-height gigantic Verdana): http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/bobs2col096M.jpg

All the way back at least into W95, doz has defaulted to what M$ for many years 
called "small" text for its UI. With XP in 2001 it renamed it from "small" to 
"normal".

Your interesting observation I haven't seen mentioned very often in any web 
development forums, but I did address it quite some time back: 
http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/defaultsize.html#note1 . The
summary of that paragraph is that normal web page content text has no business 
being anywhere near as small as browser UI text.
-- 
"Respect everyone." I Peter 2:17 NIV

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

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


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please

[Joseph Taylor]

Bob,

You have to take everything that Felix says with a grain of salt to  
say the least.


Don't get into a p***ing contest with his judgement of font sizes.

Joseph R. B. Taylor
Sites by Joe, LLC
http://sitesbyjoe.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]



On Jun 6, 2007, at 2:45 PM, Designer wrote:


Felix Miata wrote:

All that said, the way I judge the readability of any page is by  
the size of the bulk of its content and main navigation, not by a  
couple of minimal importance non-primary-content lines it contains.
By that standard, Bob's is a substantial distance from comfortable  
to read, barely above "fine print" (pain) threshold in the absence  
of applied zoom or minimum font size.


Interestingly, I notice that the text I produced on this  
'template' ("barely above "fine print" (pain) threshold") site is  
just marginally bigger than the default menu bars on FF2, IE7,  
Opera . . .


Just an observation :-)
--
Bob

www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please

[Designer]

Felix Miata wrote:


All that said, the way I judge the readability of any page is by the size of 
the bulk of its content and main navigation, not by a couple of minimal 
importance non-primary-content lines it contains.
By that standard, Bob's is a substantial distance from comfortable to read, barely above 
"fine print" (pain) threshold in the absence of applied zoom or minimum font 
size.


Interestingly, I notice that the text I produced on this 'template' 
("barely above "fine print" (pain) threshold") site is just marginally 
bigger than the default menu bars on FF2, IE7, Opera . . .


Just an observation :-)
--
Bob

www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] layout/font site test - please

[Philip Kiff]

Felix Miata <> wrote on  EDT:
> On 2007/06/04 12:33 (GMT-0400) Philip Kiff apparently typed:
>
>> In particular, the subheading tag line on the DancesSRQ is just a
>> wee bit too small for my tastes -- my browser computes it as 10px.
> 
> The one line #element7B p text was set to x-small, which was a
> mistake I corrected after posting. 

Yes, that fixes it.  Better now.

Phil.



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please

[Felix Miata]

On 2007/06/04 12:33 (GMT-0400) Philip Kiff apparently typed:

> Felix Miata wrote:

>> On 2007/06/02 11:06 (GMT+0100) Designer apparently typed:

>>> Sparked partly by the recent discussions on elasticity, I've been
>>> attempting to put together a 'template', based on em's and with a
>>> max-width.
>>> []
>>> You can see it at:
>>> http://www.marscovista.fsnet.co.uk/newtemplate/template.html

>> I only looked in IE7 & FF. Pretty good, although the line lengths are
>> on the long side of what I like, and the text is too small.

>> http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Sites/ksc/dancesrqb.html is the same
>> basic layout, but without breaking IE's font resizer, with no special
>> treatment for antique browsers, and without disrespecting the
>> visitor's choice of font size.

> Just FYI, on my default browser settings,
...
> the font sizes used on Designer's
> site provide better readability than those on the DancesSRQ site. 

This is a rather curious statement considering that exclusive of the H1 text on 
Bob's site the largest text there is 75% (12px for most users of default 
settings), while on my site 90%+ of the text is
100% of the default (16px for most users of default settings) and only about 
100 characters of "fine print" on mine is smaller than his smallest (see more 
below).

> In particular, the subheading tag line on the DancesSRQ is just a wee bit too
> small for my tastes -- my browser computes it as 10px.

The one line #element7B p text was set to x-small, which was a mistake I 
corrected after posting. That line was an attempt to match the original site, 
which used text in an image. I substituted real
text with CSS styling, but neglected to notice that my matching was done using 
my normal readable 20px default and I hadn't compensated for it, resulting in a 
smaller size than intended. At a 20px
default, x-small is 15px, 75% of the default. If x-small was 75% at a 16px 
default, it would be 12px, not 10px (about which, see more below).

> The same size font
> is displayed in the bottom copyright statement.  By contrast, the smallest
> size that appears on Designer's site shows up as 12px.  No doubt it is a
> matter of taste and personal preference, but I would be cautious in
> promoting the current DancesSRQ design over the one used by Designer as far
> as font sizes are concerned.

Only the one line #footer and 6 words of (bold, and precisely matching the 
original design) .specimen remain at 10px. I don't see how such a little bit of 
borderline "readable" (fine print)
contextually styled text could compensate for the other 96% of the content's 
100% or larger text, leaving Bob's with "better readability" for its mostly 75% 
or smaller content.

As to x-small being 10px, I believe that even though it is exactly that in most 
web browsers by default, I also believe that it shouldn't be - so much so that 
I tried to do something about it several
years ago by getting Gecko to make x-small 12px. See: 
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=187256 . That possibly could still 
happen, but I'm guessing it won't.

All that said, the way I judge the readability of any page is by the size of 
the bulk of its content and main navigation, not by a couple of minimal 
importance non-primary-content lines it contains.
By that standard, Bob's is a substantial distance from comfortable to read, 
barely above "fine print" (pain) threshold in the absence of applied zoom or 
minimum font size.
-- 
"Respect everyone." I Peter 2:17 NIV

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

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


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please

[Nick Fitzsimons]

On 5 Jun 2007, at 19:15:39, Designer wrote:


Nick Fitzsimons wrote:

This is a common misconception. IE7 _cannot_ resize text whose  
size is specified in pixels, in precisely the same way that IE6  
can't.
The use of the page zoom tool will enlarge or shrink it along with  
the other content of the page, but using the menu options to  
adjust text size won't work.

Regards,
Nick.



Paul Novitski wrote few days ago, to point out a method which  
resizes the images as well as the text on page zoom. (using ems for  
the images). Good idea. So, I'm now curious as to why you think  
(infer) that IE's zoom (which does exactly that) won't replace text  
resizing?


The only point I was making is that it is a fallacy to suggest that  
IE 7 treats text sized in pixels any differently to IE 6; they've  
just changed the effect of certain hotkeys to use the new zoom  
feature, but the menu's text size options will still have no effect.


This means that a user who wishes to resize their text and  
automatically goes for the menu options will be out of luck with the  
specific example given. As the original poster seemed to believe that  
IE 7 would not have a problem with his pixel-sized text, I was just  
pointing out that it in fact would.


To me, the zoom feature of IE7 (or firefox, or Opera)  means that  
you can resize a page constructed in pixels without hurting  
anyone.  Doesn't it?


You can, and I can; but with the specific CSS on which I was  
commenting, a user who expected to be able to use the traditional  
menu options would be out of luck. Most users never explore new  
features; they tend to just do what they were taught by somebody else.


I'm not arguing that IE (and others') zoom features are a bad thing -  
just pointing out that IE is still broken in its text sizing. Lots of  
people seem to think that the new feature fixes the old bug, but it  
doesn't.


Cheers,

Nick.
--
Nick Fitzsimons
http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please

[Barney Carroll]

Designer wrote:
To me, the zoom feature of IE7 (or firefox, or Opera)  means that you 
can resize a page constructed in pixels without hurting anyone.  Doesn't 
it?


I find the zoom function to have very little practical application. It 
is essentially like taking a microscope to the screen and slowly panning 
accross it - the rendering is awful and even if this weren't the case, 
it's tiresome and callous.


The beauty of em-sizing (and even if IE's image resizing is nasty, I can 
still appreciate the inherent value of em-sized pics) is that you can 
make specific elements larger or smaller, while keeping certain elements 
of the layout intact - this is essential when it comes to keeping the 
body from taking up too much horizontal space.


I often reduce my default text size on the fly when looking at 
pseudo-minimalist big friendly 'web 2.0 design' sites, and I'm also 
accustomed to turning it up for a lot of news sites.


At its core, it accomodates the fact that different people have 
different reading habits - and to an extent larger images may be useful 
for the visually impaired. But the whole thing, just bigger? Not so nice.



Regards,
Barney


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please

[Designer]

Nick Fitzsimons wrote:

This is a common misconception. IE7 _cannot_ resize text whose size is 
specified in pixels, in precisely the same way that IE6 can't.


The use of the page zoom tool will enlarge or shrink it along with the 
other content of the page, but using the menu options to adjust text 
size won't work.


Regards,

Nick.



Paul Novitski wrote few days ago, to point out a method which resizes 
the images as well as the text on page zoom. (using ems for the images). 
Good idea. So, I'm now curious as to why you think (infer) that IE's 
zoom (which does exactly that) won't replace text resizing?


To me, the zoom feature of IE7 (or firefox, or Opera)  means that you 
can resize a page constructed in pixels without hurting anyone.  Doesn't it?



--
Bob

www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please

[Nick Fitzsimons]

On 5 Jun 2007, at 12:09:44, Designer wrote:


so the decent browsers work properly  (even IE7!)


This is a common misconception. IE7 _cannot_ resize text whose size  
is specified in pixels, in precisely the same way that IE6 can't.


The use of the page zoom tool will enlarge or shrink it along with  
the other content of the page, but using the menu options to adjust  
text size won't work.


Regards,

Nick.
--
Nick Fitzsimons
http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please

[Designer]

Philippe Wittenbergh wrote:


On Jun 5, 2007, at 8:09 PM, Designer wrote:


... the html>body is ignored by all except IE6


I hope this is a typo. IE 6 ignores this (and NN4 in case you worry) as 
it doesn't understand the '>' selector. All other browsers, including IE 
7 support the child selector.


Philippe
---


Thanks Philippe - yes it is a 'typo'. I did of course mean the other way 
around!


--
Bob

www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please

[Philippe Wittenbergh]

On Jun 5, 2007, at 8:09 PM, Designer wrote:


... the html>body is ignored by all except IE6


I hope this is a typo. IE 6 ignores this (and NN4 in case you worry)  
as it doesn't understand the '>' selector. All other browsers,  
including IE 7 support the child selector.


Philippe
---
Philippe Wittenbergh






***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please

[Designer]

Philip Kiff wrote:


As Felix points out, your current template breaks IE's built-in font resizer
(View -> Text Size -> Larger/Largest).  This problem is caused by your
definition of the default body text size as 14px.  The use of “px”
measurements for font sizes is not scalable under Microsoft Internet
Explorer.

Here is the specific line in your CSS file that is causing this problem:
html>body { font-size : 14px; }

In terms of standards, using a px-based measurement is not technically
against the font and unit guidelines of the W3C Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines version 1.0, since the error is actually caused by Internet
Explorer’s misunderstanding of px units.  But since the W3C WCAG also
recommends testing with actual users of actual browsers, then the use of
px-based font sizes becomes an identifiable barrier for users of Internet
Explorer, and so ends up as something that goes against the WCAG in the end.

To resolve this issue, you should use a different kind of relative font
measurement (like em or percentage), or better, leave the default body font
size untouched -- you’ve already set the body font size to a percentage
value in your body { font-size } setting anyways.

Phil.


Hi Phil,

My philosophy on this is that the html>body is ignored by all except 
IE6. so the decent browsers work properly  (even IE7!), so I'm hoping 
that IE7 soon becomes the common IE.


Maybe I'm being optimistic, esp in view of the apparent contradiction of 
my supporting NS4.02!   Of course, I'm not actually ignoring IE6, just 
not 'allowing' users to resize the text- a feature which, one assumes, 
they are well used to!  :-)



--
Bob

www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] layout/font site test - please

[Philip Kiff]

Designer wrote:
> Sparked partly by the recent discussions on elasticity, I've been
> attempting to put together a 'template', based on em's and with a
> max-width.  I've used an expression for max-width in IE <7 (pinched
> from Georg!). I've tested it in FF1.5, IE6 IE7, Opera 9, and Netscape
> 4.02.
> []
> http://www.marscovista.fsnet.co.uk/newtemplate/template.html

Felix Miata wrote:
> http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Sites/ksc/dancesrqb.html is the same
> basic layout, but without breaking IE's font resizer [...]

As Felix points out, your current template breaks IE's built-in font resizer
(View -> Text Size -> Larger/Largest).  This problem is caused by your
definition of the default body text size as 14px.  The use of “px”
measurements for font sizes is not scalable under Microsoft Internet
Explorer.

Here is the specific line in your CSS file that is causing this problem:
html>body { font-size : 14px; }

In terms of standards, using a px-based measurement is not technically
against the font and unit guidelines of the W3C Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines version 1.0, since the error is actually caused by Internet
Explorer’s misunderstanding of px units.  But since the W3C WCAG also
recommends testing with actual users of actual browsers, then the use of
px-based font sizes becomes an identifiable barrier for users of Internet
Explorer, and so ends up as something that goes against the WCAG in the end.

To resolve this issue, you should use a different kind of relative font
measurement (like em or percentage), or better, leave the default body font
size untouched -- you’ve already set the body font size to a percentage
value in your body { font-size } setting anyways.

Phil.



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please

[Paul Novitski]

> At 6/3/2007 08:36 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
>>http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Sites/ksc/dancesrqb.html



On 2007/06/04 01:41 (GMT-0700) Paul Novitski apparently typed:
> In Firefox 2, when the window width becomes too narrow and/or the
> text size becomes too large to allow the headline "The Dancer's
> Product Resource" to fit on one line, the headline wraps around with
> such a high line-length that the new line overlaps the content below
> the header.


At 6/4/2007 09:13 AM, Felix Miata wrote:

The question remains what, if anything, to do about that missing H1 content.

One option is to simply dismiss it as a problem of inadequate 
consequence. As grounds to support this option:

1-Its title text contains the missing portion.
2-It's really only a subtitle to the real title contained in the graphic.
3-The dearth of people who actually need such giant text in 
proportion to the viewport width would likely be satisfied that the 
meat of the page is fully accessible.


Another option would be to use JS to remove the graphic, reduce H1 
font-size, and/or remove the added H1 letter-spacing when some 
chosen ratio of font-size to viewport width is found to be exceeded.



Sorry, I don't see the problem.  Why not simply allow the header 
block to naturally expand vertically when the headline wraps?


The fact that the header contains both text and image isn't a 
show-stopper.  In a case like this when the image has a monochrome 
background (here, white), simply apply that background color to the 
header block and position the image as desired (left top, left 
center, etc.).  If the logo has a more complex background, simply 
extend the image to the side and below to give it a chance to fade to 
a repeatable monochrome or gradient which can be a repeating 
background image of its container.  Here's a simple example:

http://i-edu.org/

Regards,

Paul
__

Paul Novitski
Juniper Webcraft Ltd.
http://juniperwebcraft.com 




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] layout/font site test - please

[Philip Kiff]

Felix Miata <> wrote on  EDT:
> On 2007/06/02 11:06 (GMT+0100) Designer apparently typed:
>
>> Sparked partly by the recent discussions on elasticity, I've been
>> attempting to put together a 'template', based on em's and with a
>> max-width.
>> []
>> You can see it at:
>> http://www.marscovista.fsnet.co.uk/newtemplate/template.html
>
> I only looked in IE7 & FF. Pretty good, although the line lengths are
> on the long side of what I like, and the text is too small.
>
> http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Sites/ksc/dancesrqb.html is the same
> basic layout, but without breaking IE's font resizer, with no special
> treatment for antique browsers, and without disrespecting the
> visitor's choice of font size.

Just FYI, on my default browser settings, the font sizes used on Designer's
site provide better readability than those on the DancesSRQ site.  In
particular, the subheading tag line on the DancesSRQ is just a wee bit too
small for my tastes -- my browser computes it as 10px.  The same size font
is displayed in the bottom copyright statement.  By contrast, the smallest
size that appears on Designer's site shows up as 12px.  No doubt it is a
matter of taste and personal preference, but I would be cautious in
promoting the current DancesSRQ design over the one used by Designer as far
as font sizes are concerned.

Phil.



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please

[Felix Miata]

On 2007/06/04 01:41 (GMT-0700) Paul Novitski apparently typed:

> At 6/3/2007 08:36 PM, Felix Miata wrote:

>>http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Sites/ksc/dancesrqb.html is the same 
>>basic layout, but without breaking IE's font resizer, with no 
>>special treatment for antique browsers, and without disrespecting the
>>visitor's choice of font size.

> In Firefox 2, when the window width becomes too narrow and/or the 
> text size becomes too large to allow the headline "The Dancer's 
> Product Resource" to fit on one line, the headline wraps around with 
> such a high line-length that the new line overlaps the content below 
> the header.

I knew that, but didn't get around to deciding what, beyond the title text I 
added, if anything, to do about it before the hour got any later last night, 
and I wanted to resurrect the thread before
another night slipped by.

I also noticed that in IE7 the part seen as overlap in FF simply disappears.

Note that by the time that happens that the line length to viewport width 
relationship is pretty well deteriorated. That is, #primarycontent text is down 
to about 6 words per line, and less than about
40% or so of the viewport width. When that size is reached it is more than 
double the *size* most web designers think is appropriate for web page content. 
IOW, from the ~12px size most designers seem
to think is appropriate for a 800x600 resolution full screen window, it takes 
about an 18px default (or text zoom equivalent) for it to not fit. 18px is 
actually ~9pxX18px for a 162px character box,
while 12px is actually ~6pxX12px for a 72px character box, making 18px 225% of 
the size of 12px. Proportionally the impact is the same as the actual default 
size and viewport size are increased.

Overlapping text is a definite no-no, so I've set the overflow to hidden in the 
current version. That makes FF seem to behave like IE.

The question remains what, if anything, to do about that missing H1 content.

One option is to simply dismiss it as a problem of inadequate consequence. As 
grounds to support this option:
1-Its title text contains the missing portion.
2-It's really only a subtitle to the real title contained in the graphic.
3-The dearth of people who actually need such giant text in proportion to the 
viewport width would likely be satisfied that the meat of the page is fully 
accessible.

Another option would be to use JS to remove the graphic, reduce H1 font-size, 
and/or remove the added H1 letter-spacing when some chosen ratio of font-size 
to viewport width is found to be exceeded.

The option I prefer is in the alternate stylesheet reachable from the view menu 
of the browsers that offer direct alternate stylesheet support - dispensing 
with the viewport width constraint entirely.
I suspect most who choose truly giant text have little or no problem with 
horizontal scroll as long as the scroll isn't necessary to easily use the 
primary content.

My original fluid revision of the original author's Homestead Sitebuilder 
original  is at: 
http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Sites/ksc/dancesrq.html
Last night's version without alternate stylesheet remains temporarily at: 
http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Sites/ksc/dancesrqb.html
Current version: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Sites/ksc/
-- 
"Respect everyone." I Peter 2:17 NIV

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

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


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please

[Paul Novitski]

At 6/3/2007 08:36 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Sites/ksc/dancesrqb.html is the same 
basic layout, but without breaking IE's font resizer, with no 
special treatment for antique browsers, and without disrespecting the

visitor's choice of font size.



In Firefox 2, when the window width becomes too narrow and/or the 
text size becomes too large to allow the headline "The Dancer's 
Product Resource" to fit on one line, the headline wraps around with 
such a high line-length that the new line overlaps the content below 
the header.


Regards,

Paul
__

Paul Novitski
Juniper Webcraft Ltd.
http://juniperwebcraft.com 




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please

[Felix Miata]

On 2007/06/02 11:06 (GMT+0100) Designer apparently typed:

> Sparked partly by the recent discussions on elasticity, I've been 
> attempting to put together a 'template', based on em's and with a 
> max-width.  I've used an expression for max-width in IE <7 (pinched from 
> Georg!). I've tested it in FF1.5, IE6 IE7, Opera 9, and Netscape 4.02. 
> To accommodate the latter I've used a simple table instead of floating, 
> but ignore this please - my main concern at this point is that the 
> basics work without falling apart in other browsers.

> If you have time to do a check and comment I'd be really grateful.  The 
> links are dummies, apart from 'projects'.  You can see it at:

> http://www.marscovista.fsnet.co.uk/newtemplate/template.html

I only looked in IE7 & FF. Pretty good, although the line lengths are on the 
long side of what I like, and the text is too small.

http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Sites/ksc/dancesrqb.html is the same basic 
layout, but without breaking IE's font resizer, with no special treatment for 
antique browsers, and without disrespecting the
visitor's choice of font size.
-- 
"Respect everyone." I Peter 2:17 NIV

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

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


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please

[Designer]

Paul Novitski wrote:



Paul Novitski wrote:
You chose a background image for the header that nicely repeats 
horizontally as the page expands.  To be more versatile I think it 
ought to repeat vertically as well to support high enlargement in 
modest window widths.


At 6/2/2007 11:08 AM, Designer wrote:
I think I'm too tired. I simply can't get the thing to repeat on 
enlargement.  I've put it in a div and put it as the background there, 
but it still won't go vertical as well. I'm Confused!  It's 123 by 
236px in size.  Maybe it's too high for this.


You must be tired!  I can totally relate to that.  Your stylesheet says:

#header {background : #830 url(../graphics/fencing.jpg) repeat-x left 
top;}


Change "repeat-x" to simply "repeat" to go both directions.

Regards,

Paul



Duh!  I did that, but I obviously didn't save it . . .  Duh!
Obviously cracking up, as well as tired.

Thanks
--
Bob

www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please

[Nick Gleitzman]

On 2 Jun 2007, at 8:06 PM, Designer wrote:


 I've used a simple table


Nothing wrong with that, if NN4.x is in your group of target browsers. 
But you might like to consider adding a rule to your css so that the 
content of the RH column is anchored to the top of the cell - at 
present it's displaying default behaviour of "valign=middle", making it 
drop lower as the viewport is narrowed...


N
___
omnivision. websight.
http://www.omnivision.com.au/



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please

[Paul Novitski]

Paul Novitski wrote:
You chose a background image for the header that nicely repeats 
horizontally as the page expands.  To be more versatile I think it 
ought to repeat vertically as well to support high enlargement in 
modest window widths.


At 6/2/2007 11:08 AM, Designer wrote:
I think I'm too tired. I simply can't get the thing to repeat on 
enlargement.  I've put it in a div and put it as the background 
there, but it still won't go vertical as well. I'm Confused!  It's 
123 by 236px in size.  Maybe it's too high for this.


You must be tired!  I can totally relate to that.  Your stylesheet says:


#header {background : #830 url(../graphics/fencing.jpg) repeat-x left top;}


Change "repeat-x" to simply "repeat" to go both directions.

Regards,

Paul
__

Paul Novitski
Juniper Webcraft Ltd.
http://juniperwebcraft.com 




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please

[Designer]

Paul Novitski wrote:

At 6/2/2007 03:06 AM, Designer wrote:
Sparked partly by the recent discussions on elasticity, I've been 
attempting to put together a 'template', based on em's and with a 
max-width.  I've used an expression for max-width in IE <7 (pinched 
from Georg!). I've tested it in FF1.5, IE6 IE7, Opera 9, and Netscape 
4.02. To accommodate the latter I've used a simple table instead of 
floating, but ignore this please - my main concern at this point is 
that the basics work without falling apart in other browsers.


If you have time to do a check and comment I'd be really grateful.  
The links are dummies, apart from 'projects'.  You can see it at:


http://www.marscovista.fsnet.co.uk/newtemplate/template.html



Nice work!


Thanks!


In FF2 I can narrow the window to about 348 pixels before I get a 
horizontal scrollbar.


Great!


IE7 doesn't support text enlargement very well.  I'm getting a 
horizontal scrollbar as soon as I start enlarging the text, even when 
the apparent content width doesn't require it.  I've been wrestling with 
that in my own layouts; I'm sure the solution is close at hand.


Do tell me when you've got the answer . . .  :-)



Did you experiment with floating the menu so that it flips underneath 
the content (or vice versa) when horizontal space is constrained beyond 
a certain point?  I imagine that will be necessary to support people who 
want three or more columns.


It's on the list!


You chose a background image for the header that nicely repeats 
horizontally as the page expands.  To be more versatile I think it ought 
to repeat vertically as well to support high enlargement in modest 
window widths.  Real world logos are most often single fixed image 
rather than a repeating pattern, but in many cases it's easy enough to 
fade them to monochrome to the right and below or blend them to a 
lower-level background image that does repeat (such as a gradient).


I think I'm too tired. I simply can't get the thing to repeat on 
enlargement.  I've put it in a div and put it as the background there, 
but it still won't go vertical as well. I'm Confused!  It's 123 by 236px 
in size.  Maybe it's too high for this.




If you size the cartoon in ems as well, I think you might be pleasantly 
surprised at how well it survives.  Tedd Sperling has been doing a lot 
of that lately () and it seems to 
work pretty well -- as long as the crispness of the images isn't crucial 
to the communication, as it might be for a photographer's or artist's 
website.


Great idea. Done it, works a treat!

Thanks for your help.

--
Bob

www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please

[Paul Novitski]

At 6/2/2007 03:06 AM, Designer wrote:
Sparked partly by the recent discussions on elasticity, I've been 
attempting to put together a 'template', based on em's and with a 
max-width.  I've used an expression for max-width in IE <7 (pinched 
from Georg!). I've tested it in FF1.5, IE6 IE7, Opera 9, and 
Netscape 4.02. To accommodate the latter I've used a simple table 
instead of floating, but ignore this please - my main concern at 
this point is that the basics work without falling apart in other browsers.


If you have time to do a check and comment I'd be really 
grateful.  The links are dummies, apart from 'projects'.  You can see it at:


http://www.marscovista.fsnet.co.uk/newtemplate/template.html



Nice work!

In FF2 I can narrow the window to about 348 pixels before I get a 
horizontal scrollbar.


IE7 doesn't support text enlargement very well.  I'm getting a 
horizontal scrollbar as soon as I start enlarging the text, even when 
the apparent content width doesn't require it.  I've been wrestling 
with that in my own layouts; I'm sure the solution is close at hand.


Did you experiment with floating the menu so that it flips underneath 
the content (or vice versa) when horizontal space is constrained 
beyond a certain point?  I imagine that will be necessary to support 
people who want three or more columns.


You chose a background image for the header that nicely repeats 
horizontally as the page expands.  To be more versatile I think it 
ought to repeat vertically as well to support high enlargement in 
modest window widths.  Real world logos are most often single fixed 
image rather than a repeating pattern, but in many cases it's easy 
enough to fade them to monochrome to the right and below or blend 
them to a lower-level background image that does repeat (such as a gradient).


If you size the cartoon in ems as well, I think you might be 
pleasantly surprised at how well it survives.  Tedd Sperling has been 
doing a lot of that lately () and 
it seems to work pretty well -- as long as the crispness of the 
images isn't crucial to the communication, as it might be for a 
photographer's or artist's website.


Regards,

Paul
__

Paul Novitski
Juniper Webcraft Ltd.
http://juniperwebcraft.com 




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please

[Lyn Patterson]

Designer wrote:
Sparked partly by the recent discussions on elasticity, I've been 
attempting to put together a 'template', based on em's and with a 
max-width.


http://www.marscovista.fsnet.co.uk/newtemplate/template.html



Hi Bob

I think it looks good at 1024x768 and 800x600 but at 1280x1024 it has a 
lot of background around it at the sides and underneath. This is exactly 
the issue I had yesterday with a client hating the look at the higher 
resolution.  I had to re-design to keep her happy.


Kind regards

Lyn

www.westernwebdesign.com.au



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

[WSG] layout/font site test - please

[Designer]

Ladies and gentlemen,

Sparked partly by the recent discussions on elasticity, I've been 
attempting to put together a 'template', based on em's and with a 
max-width.  I've used an expression for max-width in IE <7 (pinched from 
Georg!). I've tested it in FF1.5, IE6 IE7, Opera 9, and Netscape 4.02. 
To accommodate the latter I've used a simple table instead of floating, 
but ignore this please - my main concern at this point is that the 
basics work without falling apart in other browsers.


If you have time to do a check and comment I'd be really grateful.  The 
links are dummies, apart from 'projects'.  You can see it at:


http://www.marscovista.fsnet.co.uk/newtemplate/template.html

Many Thanks,
--
Bob

www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***