Re: [WSG] Clearleft.com
Webmaster wrote:
Georg, the fix doesn't suggest putting different values on html and
body (or did I miss the whole point?).
I understood the solution to be setting body and/or html to 100.01%
and then setting any other styles and text-level attributes with ems
or %. Did I get it wrong?
Not necessarily, but the fix for that particular IE-bug is to define
font-size in percentage on the highest level, html *or* body *or*
'another element', and not to define font-size in em above it. This can
be achieved in (at least) two ways.
Therefore:
html {font-size: 100%;}
body {font-size: (whatever-value)em;}
...is a perfect bug-fix with cross-browser reliable results.
and the usual:
html {/* no font-size defined at all */}
body {font-size: (whatever-value)%;}
...is also a perfect bug-fix with cross-browser reliable results.
My point was/is that any other value-combination that can be calculated
to end up as the right base-size will also fix the bug -- but seems to
only give the calculated results in IE/win.
---
My reason for mentioning the whole thing is that there are always the
possibility that some may try to be smart and rearrange those values
in the first example without running a thorough cross-browser test.
They may end up with a perfectly valid human bug in their page-code--
banging its head against against some nasty human bugs that ended up
as browser-code, and such wars of logic can give pretty unpredictable
endings. So, reason enough to mention it.
Sorry if I complicated the matter for some, but after 25 years of
trouble-shooting solutions around buggy software, the tendency to go in
depth is irresistible. Must be a human bug-- somewhere :-)
---
I've just done a complete run of screenshots using the above method
and can still see some variations in size, particularly at larger
sizes (h1-h3).
Minor variations are usually caused by browsers having different
'tip-over' values for recalculating em/% into physical screen-units.
Some 'tip over' between .99 and .00, while other 'tip over' around
.40-.50. A few levels of inheritance and such differences can become
quite noticeable, but they are more or less unavoidable--apart from by
keeping the number of levels low.
Aside from such minor variations; I got some really huge variations
during my own testing with different 'html+body' values. My need for
killing human bugs during any debugging-process is why I asked for
confirmations or corrections.
---
For the record: my own extreme font-resizing bug fix is to feed
standard-compliant browsers a 'pixel-defined font-size on body', and
feed IE/win a 'percentage-defined font-size on body' through a
'conditional commented' stylesheet that I'm using anyway. That seems to
work quite well across browser-land -- and the bug is dead.
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
**
Re: [WSG] Clearleft.com
I thought it was a quite descriptive name for an old bug. Must be a
flaw in my Norwenglish... :-)
Your Norwenglish is good. Much better than my Englegen. I'd just
never heard the bug name before so was curious.
I normally just do
body {
font-size: 62.5%;
}
The size everything else as ems.
I officially don't care about Opera so am happy to avoid using 100.0%;
Yours
Andy Budd
http://www.andybudd.com/
01273 241355
07880 636677
**
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] Clearleft.com
Andy Budd wrote: I officially don't care about Opera so am happy to avoid using 100.0%; Brighton designer in browser snub shocker...news at 11 ;) -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.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] Clearleft.com
Andy Budd wrote:
Your Norwenglish is good. Much better than my Englegen. I'd just
never heard the bug name before so was curious.
No wonder they spoke funny over in Brighton. Oh well, that was a long
time ago...
I normally just do
body { font-size: 62.5%; }
The size everything else as ems.
I just broke a few pages that used that method--in Safari. User-control,
you know. Worked well in other browsers. That just to say that the
method isn't bullet-proof, but I guess you knew that.
I officially don't care about Opera so am happy to avoid using
100.0%;
Gosh, had I known that...
Get yourself a decent browser, man!
Good thing Opera is most often well in line with Safari then -- apart
from the former having fewer bugs. Besides, the mentioned font-size bug
in Opera was fixed a long time ago. Have they fixed the 'clear: none;'
bug in Safari yet?
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
**
Re: [WSG] Clearleft.com
It gets worse... W3C gave you a CSS ERROR, which means they checked your site just as you were editing, I'm sure... so the name is wrong, the listing is wrong, and now you are disqualified from the featured list. Hate it when that happens!On 9/22/05, Stuart Sherwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi Andy,You might want to edit your listing on W3C Sites. You have called yourself: 1. *Clearkleft Ltd http://www.clearleft.com* by Andy Budd http://www.w3csites.com/profile.asp?u=clearleftThat has a certain ring to it though!;)Stuart**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] Clearleft.com
You're doing well Andy. You made it onto Screenspire... http://screenspire.com/go-image/www.clearleft.com/ Congrats! ** 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] Clearleft.com
Christian Montoya wrote: It gets worse... W3C gave you a CSS ERROR, which means they checked your site just as you were editing, I'm sure... so the name is wrong, the listing is wrong, and now you are disqualified from the featured list. Hate it when that happens! Just goes to show you that it's a good idea to have a staging/development area before pushing any unvalidated or untested code (such as ColdFusion, PHP or ASP.net, etc.) to a production server. -- Peter J. Farrell :: Maestro Publishing http://blog.maestropublishing.com Rooibos Generator - New Version! - Version 2.1 Create boilerplate beans and transfer objects for ColdFusion! http://rooibos.maestropublishing.com/ Member Team Mach-II - It's coming... ** 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] Clearleft.com
Christian Montoya wrote: It gets worse... W3C gave you a CSS ERROR, which means they checked your site just as you were editing, I'm sure... so the name is wrong, the listing is wrong, and now you are disqualified from the featured list. Hate it when that happens! That's very odd. Anybody got any idea why the CSS validator should be throwing up an error on: line-height: 1; but is happy with line-height: 1.0; ? Looks like a bug in the validator to me. Yours Andy Budd http://www.andybudd.com/ 01273 241355 07880 636677 ** 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] Clearleft.com
Hey Andy, Nice looking site, simple, clean, well laid out and easy to read, good stuff. That's very odd. Anybody got any idea why the CSS validator should be throwing up an error on: line-height: 1; but is happy with line-height: 1.0; ? Looks like a bug in the validator to me. I'd say so, but wouldn't the error have more to do with the fact that the value of line-height needs a unit of reference (px, % or em)? Best Regards, Ryno -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy Budd Sent: Thursday, 22 September 2005 6:09 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Clearleft.com Christian Montoya wrote: It gets worse... W3C gave you a CSS ERROR, which means they checked your site just as you were editing, I'm sure... so the name is wrong, the listing is wrong, and now you are disqualified from the featured list. Hate it when that happens! That's very odd. Anybody got any idea why the CSS validator should be throwing up an error on: line-height: 1; but is happy with line-height: 1.0; ? Looks like a bug in the validator to me. Yours Andy Budd http://www.andybudd.com/ 01273 241355 07880 636677 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** __ NOD32 1.1229 (20050921) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 Antivirus System. http://www.nod32.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] Clearleft.com
I'd say so, but wouldn't the error have more to do with the fact that the value of line-height needs a unit of reference (px, % or em)? No, line height is one of the few properties that can take a number without a unit. The unit acts as a multiplier, whereas an em say, is based on the parent font size. So line-height: 1em; and line-height: 1; can produce very different results. In general, most people mean the latter, but use the former. Yours Andy Budd http://www.andybudd.com/ 01273 241355 07880 636677 ** 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] Clearleft.com
Ryan Blunden wrote: Andy Budd wrote: That's very odd. Anybody got any idea why the CSS validator should be throwing up an error on: line-height: 1; but is happy with line-height: 1.0; Looks like a bug in the validator to me. I'd say so, but wouldn't the error have more to do with the fact that the value of line-height needs a unit of reference (px, % or em)? Actually, using a unit for line-height can get you into trouble: http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/line-height.html -- Cast your cares on the Lord and He will sustain you. Psalm 55:22 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/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] Clearleft.com
Thanks guys for pointing that out, very useful. Ryno -Original Message- Ryan Blunden wrote: Andy Budd wrote: That's very odd. Anybody got any idea why the CSS validator should be throwing up an error on: line-height: 1; but is happy with line-height: 1.0; Looks like a bug in the validator to me. I'd say so, but wouldn't the error have more to do with the fact that the value of line-height needs a unit of reference (px, % or em)? Actually, using a unit for line-height can get you into trouble: http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/line-height.html -- Cast your cares on the Lord and He will sustain you. Psalm 55:22 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/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 ** __ NOD32 1.1229 (20050921) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 Antivirus System. http://www.nod32.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 **
[WSG] RE: [WSG] Clearleft.com
cool! i meant MISHA'S friend. dunno what happened maggie galbraith maggiesmeanderings.com On Thu Sep 22 4:27 , 'Ryan Blunden' [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent: Thanks guys for pointing that out, very useful. Ryno -Original Message- Ryan Blunden wrote: Andy Budd wrote: That's very odd. Anybody got any idea why the CSS validator should be throwing up an error on: line-height: 1; but is happy with line-height: 1.0; Looks like a bug in the validator to me. I'd say so, but wouldn't the error have more to do with the fact that the value of line-height needs a unit of reference (px, % or em)? Actually, using a unit for line-height can get you into trouble: http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/line-height.html -- "Cast your cares on the Lord and He will sustain you." Psalm 55:22 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/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 __ NOD32 1.1229 (20050921) Information __ This message was checked by NOD32 Antivirus System. http://www.nod32.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 ** 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] Clearleft.com
Andy Budd wrote:
Why don't you ask mister Rutter? http://www.clagnut.com/blog/348/
You know what, I must have known this at some stage as I always set %
on the body tag to avoid problems with font sizing in IE. I just
didn't put two and two together and realise it was the same issue. I
think the name extreme font-resizing bug just threw me as I've
never heard it called that before.
I thought it was a quite descriptive name for an old bug. Must be a
flaw in my Norwenglish... :-)
Seriously though; if solving it by setting 'font-size: 100%;' on 'html'
and em-value on 'body', then better make sure it _is_ '100%' and _no_
other value on 'html'. Otherwise it looks like we may have a nice, but
unwanted, variation of font-sizes across browser-land.
Test 1:
html {font-size: 100%;}
body {font-size: 1em;}
... should result in 1em as base.
Test 2:
html {font-size: 200%;}
body {font-size: 0.5em;}
... should result in 1em as base.
Test 3:
html {font-size: 50%;}
body {font-size: 2em;}
... should result in 1em as base.
Only IE/win gave me the indicated results (1em).
Opera)8.50) and Firefox(1.5b1) didn't agree on anything but test 1.
- Can anyone confirm (or correct) this result?
- What about other browsers?
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
**
Re: [WSG] Clearleft.com
On 21 Sep 2005, at 00:56, Lindsay Evans wrote: Hi Andy, Site looks great, nice and clean. And don't listen to any of these 'the font is too big' comments, it's just about perfect for my aging eyes (great, now I feel old : Thanks. Glad you like it. * I kind of expected the entire green background of the navigation items to be clickable, not a biggy though. Yes, I agree. A few people have mentioned this so its on the todo list. Cheers Andy Budd http://www.andybudd.com/ 01273 241355 07880 636677 ** 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] Clearleft.com
No surprise that you didn't find it. The bug is mentioned here and there, but not in great details, AFAIK. Even ALA has triggered that bug with their last re-design, so it is easy to get it wrong. As others have mentioned already: it's the 'em' on body that triggers that IE bug. More exactly, em-values less than 1.01 em is the usual trigger, while larger em-values on body may work just fine. A percentage-value on body is safe, regardless of value. 100.01% is fine, but any other value will do as well, as long as differences regarding the exact 'tip-over' points for converting em/% into px is taken into account so all browsers display text (more or less) in the same size to begin with. It doesn't matter whether 'em' or '%' are used for text-elements further in, since the IE-bug bug is only triggered on body itself. Thanks for the feedback on this IE bug. As I said I've not experienced this before, so I'm kind of intrigued. Out of interest, how does the bug manifest its self on our site? It seems that a lot of people know about it and know the fix. However there doesn't really seem to be much in the way of documentation. If anybody can find some URL's, I'd appreciate it. Yours Andy Budd http://www.andybudd.com/ 01273 241355 07880 636677 ** 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] Clearleft.com
... Part of the point of web standards in general is that the user and user agent have final control of the layout, not the designer. So if the page is too wide on a 21 inch monitor, why not reduce the window size? ... Two questions - then what are designers for? Maybe just throw the info and leave all the rest for the users to control? Paint it yourself style of web. And the second one: why do you assume users WANT control? I want to get info, not to fiddle with my browser's window size. To quotes Steve Krug (or his wife): If something is hard to use I just don't use it as much. Sure, web is not print, but our eyes are still the same, and the same rules apply (at least regarding line length). So if fixed width is absolute no-no, then there is a good compromise - elastic layout. 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] Clearleft.com
Andy Budd wrote: As I said I've not experienced this before, so I'm kind of intrigued. Out of interest, how does the bug manifest its self on our site? Screenshots of original page on IE6/win2K-pro, window w:700/h:860: -2: http://www.gunlaug.no/tos/alien/size_smallest.png -1: http://www.gunlaug.no/tos/alien/size_smaller.png 0: http://www.gunlaug.no/tos/alien/normal.png +1: http://www.gunlaug.no/tos/alien/size_larger.png +2: http://www.gunlaug.no/tos/alien/size_largest.png Apart from being able to accommodate any an all wishes for 'really large' or 'really small' text :-) this bug is one we better not trigger. It seems that a lot of people know about it and know the fix. However there doesn't really seem to be much in the way of documentation. If anybody can find some URL's, I'd appreciate it. It is mentioned everywhere, but in few details because there isn't much to write about that bug. Googling for THE PROBLEM WITH EMS will give you a lot of hits. One here: http://www.alistapart.com/articles/elastic ...one should think those who re-designed ALA could find it ;-) 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 **
RE: [WSG] Clearleft.com
Rimantas Liubertas Maybe just throw the info and leave all the rest for the users to control? Paint it yourself style of web. Oh, and incidentally, that seems to be what some people on the WWW Style list (Orion being the loudest proponent) would like to see in the future *shudder* http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2005Sep/0105.html Patrick __ Patrick H. Lauke Webmaster / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.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] Clearleft.com
Screenshots of original page on IE6/win2K-pro, window w:700/h:860: -2: http://www.gunlaug.no/tos/alien/size_smallest.png -1: http://www.gunlaug.no/tos/alien/size_smaller.png 0: http://www.gunlaug.no/tos/alien/normal.png +1: http://www.gunlaug.no/tos/alien/size_larger.png +2: http://www.gunlaug.no/tos/alien/size_largest.png Apart from being able to accommodate any an all wishes for 'really large' or 'really small' text :-) this bug is one we better not trigger. That does suck. Bloody IE! I changed the font size on the body from ems to % early this morning, so would you mind letting me know if those screenshots were prior to the change, or if the problem is still there? Sorry to be a pain Yours Andy Budd http://www.andybudd.com/ 01273 241355 07880 636677 ** 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] Clearleft.com
Rimantas Liubertas wrote: ... Part of the point of web standards in general is that the user and user agent have final control of the layout, not the designer. So if the page is too wide on a 21 inch monitor, why not reduce the window size? ... Two questions - then what are designers for? Maybe just throw the info and leave all the rest for the users to control? Paint it yourself style of web. You've got that one partially backwards. - Users should have access to the info -- regardless of the design. - A good designer makes the most out of the design, while making sure the design don't get in the way of the content *if* the user wants control. And the second one: why do you assume users WANT control? I want to get info, not to fiddle with my browser's window size. Most don't want control of anything--anywhere, and very few know that they can take control--anywhere. Some users want *some* control, so why not let them have it? The web is well suited for user-control, unless designers make it impossible. Sites that can't take *some* user-control without breaking, are not well designed. Why fiddle when you can define your basic control once, and make it apply to nearly all sites? If designers care to test, and take into account, at least the most basic options in the most used browsers, then there shouldn't be any real problems. Sure, web is not print, but our eyes are still the same, and the same rules apply (at least regarding line length). Our eyes are the same, but comfortable reading from screens is usually not the same as comfortable reading from paper. Distances are often different, and printing on reflective media have been developed to suit our needs (our eyes) over hundreds of years, while web design still has a long way to go. So if fixed width is absolute no-no, then there is a good compromise - elastic layout. Don't think there are any 'no-no' regarding fixed width (as long as it works), but defining 'min/max width' on a fluid layout will do in most cases. Elastic layouts do have the disadvantage of 'going off screen' in some (badly designed) cases, which to me mean I'll have to apply the 'fit to window' option (in Opera) to make them readable. Well, I, as a user, am back in control then. 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 **
Re: [WSG] Clearleft.com
Andy Budd wrote: Screenshots of original page on IE6/win2K-pro, window w:700/h:860: ... That does suck. Bloody IE! Oh, it's such a nice little bugger :-) I changed the font size on the body from ems to % early this morning, so would you mind letting me know if those screenshots were prior to the change, or if the problem is still there? Screenshots were from the 'original' with ems. I've checked the page with %, and it is just fine. Sorry to be a pain No pain, just pure fun. BTW: can I keep/use those screenshots in case I want to write something about that old bug on my own site? They sure got the point through! 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 **
Re: [WSG] Clearleft.com
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: BTW: can I keep/use those screenshots in case I want to write something about that old bug on my own site? They sure got the point through! As long as you mention that we fixed the problem and provide a link to the site, I don't see any problem with it. Yours Andy Budd http://www.andybudd.com/ 01273 241355 07880 636677 ** 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] Clearleft.com
Maybe just throw the info and leave all the rest for the users to control? Paint it yourself style of web. Oh, and incidentally, that seems to be what some people on the WWW Style list (Orion being the loudest proponent) would like to see in the future Uhh, Patrick - it might be nice, but Orion Adrian's visions are based mostly on academic thouhgts, ideal world and sci-fi future... ;) -- Jan Brasna aka JohnyB :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.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] Clearleft.com
Andy Budd wrote: Well I wanted to make the logo spin, but the others thought it was a bad idea ;-) If it was spinning, the name clear:left would have to change to clear:right at every 180 degrees. :) (Very nice site, although the orange text box could be 'misaligned' a bit more on the left, stretching it further out which would give it more contrast IMO.) Titanilla ** 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] Clearleft.com
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:29:54 -0400, Titanilla [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If it was spinning, the name clear:left would have to change to clear:right at every 180 degrees. or clear:both :o) -- Tom Livingston Senior Multimedia Artist Media Logic www.mlinc.com Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ ** 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] Clearleft.com
If it was spinning, the name clear:left would have to change to clear:right at every 180 degrees. or clear:both :o) You guys are just s 80s. ;) ** 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] Clearleft.com
Hi Andy, You might want to edit your listing on W3C Sites. You have called yourself: 1. *Clearkleft Ltd http://www.clearleft.com* by Andy Budd http://www.w3csites.com/profile.asp?u=clearleft That has a certain ring to it though! ;) Stuart ** 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] Clearleft.com
Suggestion #1: Spell-check Suggestion #2: Why 100% table design? You can't control the way your user sees your site. I have a 21 inch monitor and it stretches all the way across and is somewhat overwhelming. Suggestion #3: Font size it too big...try dropping the size a little. I know accessibility is a concern, but it coming off as trying too hard. This is just my opinion...I might be wrong, good job overall however. PS - your personal website is quite nice however, clean, crisp, and the user will have the same experience every time they visit, regardless of the machine. Komal Komal Agrawal Web Developer II 713.743.7220 Office # 102F [EMAIL PROTECTED] C. T. Bauer College of Business U N I V E R S I T Y of H O U S T O N -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy Budd Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 10:59 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Clearleft.com Hi folks, We've just launched our new company website, and would love your feedback. http://www.clearleft.com/ Yours Andy Budd http://www.andybudd.com/ 01273 241355 07880 636677 ** 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] Clearleft.com
Eh? What tables? Do you mean 100% width? Fixed-width layouts are less accessible than fluid-width layouts, although an elastic approach may be better. I have a 21" monitor (running 1280x1024) and I don't find it overwhelming at all. By the way, I absolutely love the two-cube logo design. It even looks pretty call as a favicon. Simon Jessey Business Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Personal Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Business Site: http://keystonewebsites.com/ Personal Site: http://jessey.net/ - Original Message - From: Komal Agrawal To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 12:15 PM Subject: RE: [WSG] Clearleft.com Suggestion #2: Why 100% table design? You can't control the way your usersees your site. I have a 21 inch monitor and it stretches all the way acrossand is somewhat overwhelming.
RE: [WSG] Clearleft.com
Title: RE: [WSG] Clearleft.com Hi Komal, where are the tables in that site??? Are you sure your looking at the right site? w From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Komal AgrawalSent: Tue 20/09/2005 17:15To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: RE: [WSG] Clearleft.com Suggestion #1: Spell-checkSuggestion #2: Why 100% table design? You can't control the way your usersees your site. I have a 21 inch monitor and it stretches all the way acrossand is somewhat overwhelming.Suggestion #3: Font size it too big...try dropping the size a little. I knowaccessibility is a concern, but it coming off as trying too hard.This is just my opinion...I might be wrong, good job overall however.PS - your personal website is quite nice however, clean, crisp, and the userwill have the same experience every time they visit, regardless of themachine.KomalKomal AgrawalWeb Developer II713.743.7220Office # 102F[EMAIL PROTECTED]C. T. Bauer College of BusinessU N I V E R S I T Y of H O U S T O N-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andy BuddSent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 10:59 AMTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.orgSubject: [WSG] Clearleft.comHi folks,We've just launched our new company website, and would love yourfeedback.http://www.clearleft.com/YoursAndy Buddhttp://www.andybudd.com/01273 24135507880 636677**The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list getting helpThe discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] Clearleft.com
Komal Agrawal wrote: Suggestion #2: Why 100% table design? Just to clarify though: it's not a table design...it's css... Suggestion #3: Font size it too big...try dropping the size a little. PS - your personal website is quite nice however, clean, crisp, and the user will have the same experience every time they visit, regardless of the machine. Just to stoke the fire a bit: is the same experience on any machine really a good thing? Should the design not adapt to different screen sizes and capabilities? -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.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] Clearleft.com
Hi Andy, Great look and feel. I like the font sizes, they're refreshingly readable. One wierd issue though. In Firefox on Debian (sarge), trying to use the mousewheel dies half way down the page. I usually only encounter problems like this with things like google ads and flash animations, but with those if I move the mouse away and resume using the wheel it works. With clearleft I can't continue to scroll at all with the wheel until I move the vertical scroll bar manually. It's a small issue to be sure, but if anyone can figure it out, I guess it would be the 'web-design supergroup' ;-). I'll check the behaviour on my Mac at work when I get in. Just went to check in a couple of other browsers - Opera is fine, but the site dropped off the radar when trying to test in anything else. Cheers, Damian We've just launched our new company website, and would love your feedback. http://www.clearleft.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] Clearleft.com
We've just launched our new company website, and would love your feedback. http://www.clearleft.com/ Server issues? Won't come up now... - 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] Clearleft.com
Andy Budd wrote: http://www.clearleft.com/ Looking and working well in Op, Moz/FF ,IE6 on normal windows/screens (800 to 1280). Q: do you trigger the 'extreme font-resizing bug' in IE/win on purpose? Sure makes 'largest' large enough, but 'smallest' ends up a bit too small. 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 **
Re: [WSG] Clearleft.com
Komal Agrawal wrote: From: Andy Budd We've just launched our new company website, and would love your feedback. http://www.clearleft.com/ http://www.andybudd.com/ Suggestion #3: Font size it too big...try dropping the size a little. I know accessibility is a concern, but it coming off as trying too hard. Actually more web sites should be using larger than default where emphasis is desired. It is a much too rare treat to not need to zoom to see most of a page in my default size without a user stylesheet forcing it to be so. If that page needs smaller text, it is only because your own default is wrong for you. It looks equally nice whether the viewport rectangle is horizontal or vertical, though it's easy to make it narrow enough to force H1 to wrap with that 2.4em size. I'd probably use 'impact, arial bold, sans-serif' at 2em or maybe 1.8em. The only noteworthy fault I see on that page is some grammar in the #highlight paragraph. Epiphany has a peekaboo problem with it. If I scroll the page up and down with the keyboard, Make Websites Better following We disappears. If I hit end and home keys it reappears. -- Cast your cares on the Lord and He will sustain you. Psalm 55:22 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/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] Clearleft.com
On Sep 20, 2005, at 11:58 AM, Andy Budd wrote: http://www.clearleft.com/ One really minor comment... the 'clear:left' text used in paragraphs is bold (and rather tight - O8.5 Mac), whereas the type in the logo is not. I'm pretty sure I know why, but it's just something I noticed. I had some time on my hands, what can I say... :o) - 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] Clearleft.com
Site looks great. Slightly OT but the user survey is using a TIFF image that is not showing up in Word (Office 2003 WinXP Pro) - says something about needing Quicktime installed! I'm sure you could make it work without! James Andy Budd wrote: Hi folks, We've just launched our new company website, and would love your feedback. http://www.clearleft.com/ Yours Andy Budd http://www.andybudd.com/ 01273 241355 07880 636677 ** 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] Clearleft.com
I like the fluid layout and the large text. Very nice site. Thanks for not following the cliched fixed width layout. On 9/20/05, Andy Budd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Hi folks,We've just launched our new company website, and would love your feedback.http://www.clearleft.com/YoursAndy Buddhttp://www.andybudd.com/01273 24135507880 636677 **The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] Clearleft.com
A little on the boring side, where are the images, the site is just text. - Original Message - From: Andy Budd [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 11:58 AM Subject: [WSG] Clearleft.com Hi folks, We've just launched our new company website, and would love your feedback. http://www.clearleft.com/ Yours Andy Budd http://www.andybudd.com/ 01273 241355 07880 636677 ** 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] Clearleft.com
I was going mention something about that (it is a bit OT...). The only other time I have seen this issue was when I used Mac OSX's Grab application and pasted the image into Word (on Mac OSX) and then opened it on a PC. A solution is to to apply some formatting like scratch removal or a little red-eye remover. Somehow this makes Word on the Mac store the image as something our PC friends can see... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Gollan Sent: Wednesday, 21 September 2005 9:20 a.m. To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Clearleft.com Site looks great. Slightly OT but the user survey is using a TIFF image that is not showing up in Word (Office 2003 WinXP Pro) - says something about needing Quicktime installed! I'm sure you could make it work without! James Andy Budd wrote: Hi folks, We've just launched our new company website, and would love your feedback. http://www.clearleft.com/ Yours Andy Budd http://www.andybudd.com/ 01273 241355 07880 636677 ** 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 ** ** 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] Clearleft.com
Try to have a look at Jello layout, I think it will boost the usability in some exteme conditions. -- Jan Brasna aka JohnyB :: www.alphanumeric.cz | www.janbrasna.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] Clearleft.com
Suggestion #1: Spell-check We have gone over the site a couple of times, however nothing on the web is ever finished. If you've found some particular typos, it would be great if you could let me know what they are. Suggestion #2: Why 100% table design? You can't control the way your user sees your site. I have a 21 inch monitor and it stretches all the way across and is somewhat overwhelming. Um, its actually a pure CSS layout, so no tables were harmed. Part of the point of web standards in general is that the user and user agent have final control of the layout, not the designer. So if the page is too wide on a 21 inch monitor, why not reduce the window size? However I don't want to get into the whole fixed vs flexible layout debate or we'll be here all night :-) Suggestion #3: Font size it too big...try dropping the size a little. I know accessibility is a concern, but it coming off as trying too hard. Not trying hard at all. We liked the big fonts size partly for accessibility, but also partly because we were fed up with tiny designer sized fonts. I do wonder if the size is a little to big, especially on lower screen resolutions. However on large screen resolutions I think it works well. I guess if you personally find it too big, you could always knock it down a notch. This is just my opinion...I might be wrong, good job overall however. Always good to hear this kind of feedback as its a good way to test your beliefs and assumptions. Cheers PS - your personal website is quite nice however, clean, crisp, and the user will have the same experience every time they visit, regardless of the machine. Yes, I must sort that out. About due for a redesign :-) Yours Andy Budd http://www.andybudd.com/ 01273 241355 07880 636677 ** 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] Clearleft.com
On 20 Sep 2005, at 18:33, Damian Sweeney wrote: Hi Andy, Great look and feel. I like the font sizes, they're refreshingly readable. One wierd issue though. In Firefox on Debian (sarge), trying to use the mousewheel dies half way down the page. I usually only encounter problems like this with things like google ads and flash animations, but with those if I move the mouse away and resume using the wheel it works. With clearleft I can't continue to scroll at all with the wheel until I move the vertical scroll bar manually. It's a small issue to be sure, but if anyone can figure it out, I guess it would be the 'web-design supergroup' ;-). I'll check the behaviour on my Mac at work when I get in. Apparently it's a Firefox bug relating to overflow:auto. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=97283 Just went to check in a couple of other browsers - Opera is fine, but the site dropped off the radar when trying to test in anything else. Um, do you mean that the site doesn't work in any other browser other than Opera or Firefox? Can I ask what you tested it on? Yours Andy Budd http://www.andybudd.com/ 01273 241355 07880 636677 ** 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] Clearleft.com
Q: do you trigger the 'extreme font-resizing bug' in IE/win on purpose? Sure makes 'largest' large enough, but 'smallest' ends up a bit too small. I have to be honest and admit that I haven't come across that bug before. Did a bit of a search but couldn't find any details. Could you elaborate? Yours Andy Budd http://www.andybudd.com/ 01273 241355 07880 636677 ** 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] Clearleft.com
A little on the boring side, where are the images, the site is just text. Well I wanted to make the logo spin, but the others thought it was a bad idea ;-) Seriously though, we will be adding pictures of us on the relevant about pages, as well as creating a case study area in the not too distant future to highlight interesting work. However I do think that the site is about the text rather than superfluous images, so we wanted to put the content at the forefront of the site. Yours Andy Budd http://www.andybudd.com/ 01273 241355 07880 636677 ** 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] Clearleft.com
Dodge the bad and just watch all the good, Andy. It's a great site. It's visual simplicity belies the efforts you've gone to in creating it. I love the testimonial blockquote styling. Tray shiek. I've gotta tell you though, I did notice a few clear: rights in those stylesheets. :) One curious thing I noticed (which only appears if you really scrunch the page size) is that the header actually develops horizontal and vertical scrollbars. No biggie. I was at about 600x480 at that stage. Again, kudos for going with a fluid full-width display. Makes me feel less alone. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy Budd Sent: Wednesday, 21 September 2005 9:19 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Clearleft.com A little on the boring side, where are the images, the site is just text. Well I wanted to make the logo spin, but the others thought it was a bad idea ;-) Seriously though, we will be adding pictures of us on the relevant about pages, as well as creating a case study area in the not too distant future to highlight interesting work. However I do think that the site is about the text rather than superfluous images, so we wanted to put the content at the forefront of the site. Yours Andy Budd http://www.andybudd.com/ 01273 241355 07880 636677 ** 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] Clearleft.com
Apparently it's a Firefox bug relating to overflow:auto. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=97283 Ah, cool. Site is fine in latest Firefox on OS X. Just went to check in a couple of other browsers - Opera is fine, but the site dropped off the radar when trying to test in anything else. Um, do you mean that the site doesn't work in any other browser other than Opera or Firefox? Can I ask what you tested it on? Sorry, my bad. I should have been clearer. The site failed to load from about 3:30am Melbourne for a couple of hours. Can't remember when it came back, but when it did the site worked well on other browsers. Cheers, Damian -- -- Damian Sweeney Learning Skills Adviser (online) Language and Learning Skills Unit Instructional Designer, AIRport Project Equity, Language and Learning Programs University of Melbourne 723 Swanston St Parkville 3010 www.services.unimelb.edu.au/ellp/ www.services.unimelb.edu.au/llsu/ airport.unimelb.edu.au/ ph 03 8344 9370, fax 03 9349 1039 This email and any attachments may contain personal information or information that is otherwise confidential or the subject of copyright. Any unauthorised use, disclosure or copying of any part of it is prohibited. The University does not warrant that this email or any attachments are free from viruses or defects. Please check any attachments for viruses and defects before opening them. If this email is received in error please delete it and notify us by return email or by phoning (03) 8344 9370. ** 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] Clearleft.com
Oh, one small encoding issue (?) which came up as well. For some reason I'm getting the HTML entity and not the in the text below. Download and complete our client worksheet, and weapos;ll send you a proposal within a week. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andy Budd Sent: Wednesday, 21 September 2005 1:59 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: [WSG] Clearleft.com Hi folks, We've just launched our new company website, and would love your feedback. http://www.clearleft.com/ Yours Andy Budd http://www.andybudd.com/ 01273 241355 07880 636677 ** 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] Clearleft.com
Andy Budd wrote: I have to be honest and admit that I haven't come across that bug before. Did a bit of a search but couldn't find any details. Could you elaborate? Change the font-size in body, use 100.01% instead of 1em Thierry | www.TJKDesign.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] Clearleft.com
Andy Budd wrote: Georg wrote: Q: do you trigger the 'extreme font-resizing bug' in IE/win on purpose? Sure makes 'largest' large enough, but 'smallest' ends up a bit too small. I have to be honest and admit that I haven't come across that bug before. Did a bit of a search but couldn't find any details. Could you elaborate? If I'm not mistaken about what Georg meant, Inheritance on http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=InternetExplorerWinBugs has a short explanation. http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/IE/IE6FontInherit.html has an example. -- Cast your cares on the Lord and He will sustain you. Psalm 55:22 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/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] Clearleft.com
Sorry, my bad. I should have been clearer. The site failed to load from about 3:30am Melbourne for a couple of hours. Can't remember when it came back, but when it did the site worked well on other browsers. Phew, had me worried there for a second. I guess our servers must have got stuck with all the traffic from the WSG :-) Yours Andy Budd http://www.andybudd.com/ 01273 241355 07880 636677 ** 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] Clearleft.com
Fluid, simple, clean, valid, green yet warm, big fonts ( like big hair ) Nice work Andy. I like it.
Re: [WSG] Clearleft.com
Hi Andy, Site looks great, nice and clean. And don't listen to any of these 'the font is too big' comments, it's just about perfect for my aging eyes (great, now I feel old :) Two things that jumped out at me: * I kind of expected the entire green background of the navigation items to be clickable, not a biggy though. * The 'clear' part of the 'clear:left' text in the body seems to jump out a bit - not neccesarily a bad thing for branding, but it does get a bit distracting on pages that have it occuring a few times. Maybe dropping the colour down a notch (to about #333) in the main content would help. On 9/21/05, Andy Budd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi folks,We've just launched our new company website, and would love yourfeedback.http://www.clearleft.com/-- Lindsay Evans http://lindsayevans.com/
Re: [WSG] Clearleft.com
I think that the fix is 100.01% on the html element and the 1em (or what ever height) on body element. This prevents scaling issues in older versions of Opera and in Internet Explorer. I can try to find you references tomorrow. Looks great! On 9/20/05, Thierry Koblentz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Andy Budd wrote: I have to be honest and admit that I haven't come across that bug before. Did a bit of a search but couldn't find any details. Could you elaborate?Change the font-size in body, use 100.01% instead of 1em-- __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.mozilla.org/products/firefox/Making a Commercial Case for Adopting Web Standardshttp://www.maccaws.org/ Web Standards Projecthttp://www.webstandards.org/Web Standards Grouphttp://www.webstandardsgroup.org/ Guild of Accessible Web Designershttp://www.gawds.org/
Re: [WSG] Clearleft.com
We liked the big fonts size partly for accessibility, but also partly because we were fed up with tiny designer sized fonts. I do wonder if the size is a little to big, especially on lower screen resolutions. However on large screen resolutions I think it works well. I guess if you personally find it too big, you could always knock it down a notch. Hi Andy, I am not a fan of tiny font size. Your body text is perfect for my still-young-eyes however I do feel that the h2s are shouting at me :) Maybe that is your intention to get your audience attention? tee ** 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 size of font was Re: [WSG] Clearleft.com
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 23:58:33 +0100, Andy Budd wrote: We liked the big fonts size partly for accessibility, but also partly because we were fed up with tiny designer sized fonts. I do wonder if the size is a little to big, especially on lower screen resolutions. However on large screen resolutions I think it works well. I guess if you personally find it too big, you could always knock it down a notch. I realise this risks starting a religious war, but I guess I am feeling contentious ;) I like Andy's latest effort - the font size is a literal shock to the eye, but the more I look at it, the more I like it. The 'small font' school is attributed to 20-something designers who don't need specs yet (not me!) but I tend to small-and-tight myself. But when I stop and look at this sort of layout, I think back to some of the explanations I give to prospects of what a website can do for them: One use is as a brochure for your business where you never run out of stock. I always like that simile, and it seems to sit well with the prospects too. Thinking about those brochures we are contemplating replacing, we see that they are always spaciously and nicely laid out. If the customer has to squint at them, they have failed. I think we should try and do that more with our websites. We have an infinite number of pages we can deliver to the customer, I think I will be trying to fill that space a little better in future - less is more :) warmly, Lea -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems - http://elysiansystems.com/ Brisbane, Australia ** 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: the size of font was Re: [WSG] Clearleft.com
Lea de Groot wrote: I like Andy's latest effort - the font size is a literal shock to the eye, but the more I look at it, the more I like it. I like it too. It is good to be able to read a web page without having to correct it first. ... Thinking about those brochures we are contemplating replacing, we see that they are always spaciously and nicely laid out. If the customer has to squint at them, they have failed. I think we should try and do that more with our websites. Most web pages are designed to look at -- not for easy reading. Shouldn't be much of a problem to design them to cover both. Come to think of it: readable fonts don't add to the page-weight, so we can create larger, faster and more impressive pages with a lot less work. :-) Think I'll let further comments come from a little friend of mine: http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/molly_1_01.html 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 **
