Re: [WSG] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Andrew Cunningham]

Philip Kiff wrote:

Felix Miata wrote:

BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/home/d/
body {font-size: 62.5%}

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ was recently overhauled. It used to be 13px.
Here's a look at before: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/bbcSS.html



Compare:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/
body {font-size: 62.5%}

http://news.bbc.co.uk/
body {font-size: 13px}



Lets add to the confusion, BBC publishes in multiple languages. If we 
take a look at the body text of news stories in some of the other 
languages covered on the BBC site:


Tamil12px
Pashto   15px
Hindi, Nepali13px/17px
Bengali  16px
Uzbek,Vietnamese 13px
Simplified Chinese   13px
Persian  15px/19px
Arabic   16px/19px

--
Andrew Cunningham
Research and Development Coordinator
Vicnet, Public Libraries and Communications
State Library of Victoria
328 Swanston Street
Melbourne  VIC  3000
Australia

andrewc+AEA-vicnet.net.au

Ph. 3-8664-7430
Fax: 3-9639-2175

http://www.openroad.net.au/
http://www.libraries.vic.gov.au/
http://www.vicnet.net.au/


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***begin:vcard
fn:Andrew Cunningham
n:Cunningham;Andrew
org:State Library of Victoria;Vicnet
adr:;;328 Swanston Street;Melbourne;VIC;3000;Australia
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Research and Development Coordinator
tel;work:+61-3-8664-7430
tel;fax:+61-3-9639-2175
tel;cell:0421-450-816
note;quoted-printable:Current projects:=0D=0A=
	=0D=0A=
	Open Road=E2=80=94http://www.openroad.net.au/=0D=0A=
	=0D=0A=
	MyLanguage=E2=80=94http://www.mylanguage.gov.au/=0D=0A=
	=0D=0A=
	WoVG Multilingual portal research project=E2=80=94http://www.mylanguage.v=
	ic.gov.au/wovgdemo/
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://home.vicnet.net.au/~andrewc/
version:2.1
end:vcard

RE: [WSG] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Philip Kiff]

Felix Miata wrote:
> On 2007/05/28 02:43 (GMT-0400) Philip Kiff apparently typed:
>
>> 1. Use Percentage on body font-size, then apply ems on the rest
>> Owen Briggs
>> The Noodle Incident - Sane CSS Sizes
>> http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/typography/
>
> This is the method of undersizing that is least visitor unfriendly.
> Gecko browsers don't compound an enforced minimum font size as badly
> as on Clagnut pages. More importantly, a simple user stylesheet with
> 'body {font-size: medium !important}' fixes all or substantially all
> of most pages that strictly use this method.
>
>> The last major position, of course, is the one advocating against any
>> changes to the default base font sizes for the body text.  This is
>> the "100% Easy-2-Read Standard" advocated by Felix Miata:
>> http://www.informationarchitects.jp/100e2r?v=4
>
> There is at least one rather significant other proponent. From
> http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/font-size
>
> 'Size: respect the users' preferences, avoid small size for content
> * As a base font size for a document, 1em (or 100%) is equivalent
> to setting the font size to the user's preference. Use this as a
> basis for your font sizes, and avoid setting a smaller base font
> size * Avoid sizes in em smaller than 1em for text body, except
> maybe for copyright statements or other kinds of "fine print."'

I was not aware of this document.  Thanks for highlighting it.  I note that
it is merely a "tips" document and therefore "should not be seen as anything
else than informative bits of wisdom, and especially, they are not normative
W3C technical specifications."  But having noted that, I think you are right
that it suggests that the W3C collective wisdom on this topic is to
recommend leaving the base font sizes unchanged, especially given that their
own site follows that policy as well.

I guess that means that now I'm not sure if I agree with the W3C either (!).
I know some people are quite comfortable occupying that position, but for
me, I'm not so sure...   G...

Phil.



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

Re: [WSG] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Felix Miata]

On 2007/05/28 02:44 (GMT-0400) Philip Kiff apparently typed:

> Felix Miata wrote:

> I included the 2nd link to the Briggs article because I thought that perhaps
> the first link might not have been understood since it went directly to the
> a page of Briggs's images.  I realize that you have spent considerable time
> studying this issue, but your explanation of Briggs's technique seems
> misleading to me.  Under Briggs's technique, the body font-size is set to
> 76% and then the p font-size is set to 1.0 em.  All other elements are then
> sized with ems.  This should not produce tiny fonts on most people's
> systems: that is the whole purpose of his going through the exercise of
> producing all the screenshots using different browsers and operating
> systems.  Although the screenshots date back to 2002, they do include IE 6,
> and I doubt there are differences in font-size rendering between IE 6 and 7
> that would make Briggs technique suddenly unusable.

Context was largely my point. Start by catching up with other bits that
Briggs has to say on
http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/typography/incremental_differences.html
and http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/box_lesson/font/index.html
and note his rather strong bias against the defaults, and the date of the
original writings:

"most browsers default to a text size that I have to back up to the kitchen
to read"

"the browser defaults are huge, like 200% of program toolbar font. Absurd."

The windoz UI default is 8pt, while its browser default is 12pt (the Linux
desktops I've used seem to have standardized on 10pt as the UI default).
Even though it appears he's exaggerating, as 12 is 150% of 8 and not 200%,
those numbers are of nominal sizes, not real sizes. Size is a function of
area, which is determined by both height and width. At 96 DPI an average
12pt letter lives in a box of about 128px (8px wide, 16px tall), while an
8pt letter in about 72px (6px wide, 12px tall), or 77.7% bigger in real size
for IE content default compared to windoz UI.

So he's exaggerating only somewhat for the difference, but he's way off base
for his characterization, even back in the period. The UI doesn't need to be
and shouldn't be as large as the content. Content is unfamiliar territory,
and generally there's a lot more of it, and it's commanding a lot more
effort and attention. UI is mostly just little bits grabbed here and there.
They're presumably familiar, and command little time. Your back won't suffer
the same pain of leaning forward to see UI that it would leaning forward
through whole web sites. The eyes can usually adjust readily to the
difference between UI and content. Smaller they should be, in order not to
distract from content, and to distinguish from content.

When you focus on the results represented by his screenshots, the validity
of the samples are primarily valid for the context of the pre- and early-CSS
period, when display PPI didn't vary a whole lot from one local environment
to the next, when sub-16px sizes were presumably still reasonably legible
for most users, and when 16px was indeed "too big" for the average user.
When deviating merely 1% from his recommended 76%, the consistency at
sub-100% that was his purpose breaks down.

Today we have considerably wider PPI variation and significantly smaller
average size of a pixel. He effort has traveled considerably down the path
between highly practical value to wholly academic relic. The major point
that remains valid is that setting a size in body cascades down into
everything else, but that's the inherent nature of CSS.

> Briggs's method will produce pages where fonts appear similar to what they
> appear like if you use 12pt text as your base font-size. 

Surely you meant 12px.

> This is the size
> that is still used today by millions of websites.  No doubt some people find
> that size too small, but that is still the norm on the web these days.  I

Obviously you meant 12px. If the majority of sites were using 12pt we
wouldn't be having this discussion, as 12pt is what most ordinary users
prefer. http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/2S/font.htm

> don't quite understand the issue with the different dpi displays.  Won't
> that have the same affect on all browsers, regardless of what method is used
> to size fonts -- unless you use pixel sizes, of course?

The method of sizing via body remains valid. The presumption that the
defaults are too big no longer fits.

> I agree wholeheartedly.  Different viewports and preferred sizes are
> perfectly OK.  But if a designer finds a way to make sites appear almost
> identical across all major browsers and platforms at a screen resolution of
> 1024x768 on a 17" monitor with everything else set at default settings, and
> those sites are STILL scalable for other users, then shouldn't that be OK
> too?

When done right, there's no need to depend on a particular size as a
starting point, and thus no reason to shift overall text size up 

RE: [WSG] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Philip Kiff]

Felix Miata wrote:
>> BBC
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/home/d/
>> body {font-size: 62.5%}
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/ was recently overhauled. It used to be 13px.
> Here's a look at before: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/bbcSS.html

Ooops.  My mistake, your screenshots are right.  The BBC news site uses the
same 13px setting that you based your screenshots on.  Those are useful
screenshots for understanding the differences across screen resolutions and
screen sizes.

I guess I reviewed the BBC site too quickly and assumed incorrectly that the
BBC used a uniform set of styles across their site.  It turns out that they
different settings for different sections of their site.  The main front
page uses the body font-size 62.5% that I found, but the news site uses the
13px setting that you identify.

Compare:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/
body {font-size: 62.5%}

http://news.bbc.co.uk/
body {font-size: 13px}

Phil.



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

Re: [WSG] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Felix Miata]

On 2007/05/28 02:43 (GMT-0400) Philip Kiff apparently typed:

> 1. Use Percentage on body font-size, then apply ems on the rest
> Owen Briggs
> The Noodle Incident - Sane CSS Sizes
> http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/typography/

This is the method of undersizing that is least visitor unfriendly. Gecko
browsers don't compound an enforced minimum font size as badly as on Clagnut
pages. More importantly, a simple user stylesheet with 'body {font-size:
medium !important}' fixes all or substantially all of most pages that
strictly use this method.

> The last major position, of course, is the one advocating against any
> changes to the default base font sizes for the body text.  This is the "100%
> Easy-2-Read Standard" advocated by Felix Miata:
> http://www.informationarchitects.jp/100e2r?v=4

There is at least one rather significant other proponent. From
http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/font-size

'Size: respect the users' preferences, avoid small size for content
* As a base font size for a document, 1em (or 100%) is equivalent
to setting the font size to the user's preference. Use this as a
basis for your font sizes, and avoid setting a smaller base font size
* Avoid sizes in em smaller than 1em for text body, except maybe for
copyright statements or other kinds of "fine print."'

[relocated]
> 3. Use some combination of percentage and em sizing on all elements
> Note that if you avoid changing the default base font-size setting, then
> this method can be used to create a fully scalable/zoomable design while
> still addressing the objections of those who believe that the default text
> font size should be left unchanged.
...
> it seems to me that the best practice in
> this area is already covered by the WCAG, which simply asks that font sizes
> be set using relative units so that users can increase them or zoom the page
> size without causing the page layout to break.

The method and the WCAG dodge the basic issue of respect - users shouldn't
need to do anything more than arrive in order to use a page - plus a not
insignificant other issue. Those using the overwhelmingly most common web
browser have a narrow range of adjustment possible via their browser's
standard font sizer widget. It's common for people in trying to compensate
for initial x-small/small/65%-80% body text to run out of range with its
maximum 2 steps of possible increase, particularly when their preferred
starting point is already larger.

> So, for example, I wonder if it would help if the user CSS files attempted
> to set the default font size in two different ways:
> body {font-size: 100% !important}
> html>body {font-size: 16pt !important}

That ruleset in site styles would mean IE users get 12pt body text, and most
everybody else would get much larger 16pt body text. In a user stylesheet
context, the end result depends on which browser is given those rules.

In order to have the greatest possible chance of having the intended effect,
a user stylesheet needs something like the following:

body, p, td, li, dd {font-size: 100% !important}

with possible additions for textarea, input and a few other elements.

Overall though, simple user stylesheets have a limited intended impact. A
vast number of sites set a size on a multitude of unique classes and ids on
which a simple stylesheet can hope to have no impact. On many sites I have
to disable site styles entirely when zoom and minimum font size result in
hidden and/or overlapping text. On quite a number I frequent. I make
site-specific user stylesheets based upon the site styles to override each
of the class and id rules.
-- 
"The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining
ever brighter till the full light of day."  Proverbs 4:18 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] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Felix Miata]

On 2007/05/28 02:44 (GMT-0400) Philip Kiff apparently typed:

> Felix Miata wrote:

>> Your mission, should you choose to embrace it, is to convince the
>> client that maintaining an anachronistic practice is the wrong thing
>> to do, and that doing the right thing is always the right thing to
>> do. Maybe this will help whenever that discussion ensues.
>> http://www.lighthouse.org/accessibility/top-10/

> Perhaps not the best example to provide for this thread...from their default
> stylesheet:
> body {font-size: 80%;}

The list of others that don't practice what they preach is legion. They used
to do it, but recently redesigned, and probably didn't reconcile content to
presentation. I emailed them to point this out, but haven't yet received any
acknowledgement.
-- 
"The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining
ever brighter till the full light of day."  Proverbs 4:18 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] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Felix Miata]

On 2007/05/28 20:14 (GMT+1000) Steve Olive apparently typed:

> sizes and hasn't been raised. Australian, New Zealand, UK and European 
> default printed font size when word processing is 12 pt Times New Roman 
> whilst the US uses 10 pt Times New Roman,

Where did this statistic come from?

> so they are used to smaller text
> with more information crammed into each page.

> This is a personal opinion of the font sizes displayed on a 19" 1280 x 1024 @ 
> 96 PPI LCD monitor in relation to the default printed font size. My eyes are 
> approximately 65 cm from the screen and I do wear glasses for mild myopia 
> (short sightedness).

96 would be your system setting. A 19" SXGA (1280x1024) display is 86,
slightly lower than the modern average. http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/dpi.html

* http://blogs.msdn.com/fontblog/archive/2005/11/08/490490.aspx explains the
doz 96 DPI genesis.

> So, how do you solve this issue?

That most others do something wrong is not justification to not do the right
thing yourself. Web pages text sizes have a much too wide range. Reduce the
problem by always doing the right thing, and respecting the visitors'
decisions what sizES are best.

Don't make your site a #1 usability problem.
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html

Don't make visitors have to do anything more than read and select links to
open. Zoom is a defense mechanism. Don't make them need to use it.

> You can't - that's what makes us "web designers". We all have preferences for 
> font sizes, colours, screen layout and more; then we have to deal with a 
> clients' preconceived ideas on what THEIR web site should look like.

When the client inquires about the starting point being "wrong", teach him
how to set his own so that it's just right for him, as everyone is presumed
to have done. Do this with a small laptop to highlight the potential problem
with doing otherwise than 100%. If he's an exclusively IE user, show him how
to put the text sizer on the toolbar where M$ should have put it in the
first place, or do it for him.

Don't make visitors want to send you to "Morons in Web Space"
http://www.cameratim.com/personal/soapbox/morons-in-webspace .

> However we need to be aware that many people using the Internet won't have 
> 19" 
> LCD, 21" LCD, 20" widescreens, 24" widescreens or 30" widescreens or dual 

Absolutely.

> monitor setups. We need to make sure that our designs look OK on 17" CRT 
> monitors at 1024 x 768 and 800 x 600 (hopefully it will still look OK on a 
> 15" CRT monitor too if it passes these tests).

We also need to try to be realistic about user environments. DPI/PPI isn't
what it was when the defaults-are-wrong mantra began many years ago. Before
CSS, the standard was a mix of , , 
and . In the beginning of that period, there were no LCDs. Few
knew of the existence of larger than 17" displays, much less used or could
afford them. Typical were 14" nominal/13" actual CRT's at 640x480 or
800x600. A little later in the presentational-markup-as-standard period the
use of 15"/14" and 17"/16" as well as 1024x768 grew, along with 640x480
dying off and 1152x864 and 1280xXXX making their almost statistically
significant appearances. This period with mostly 13"-16" displays and
640x480-1024x768 resolutions saw a vast majority DPI range of roughly only
20, with an average probably somewhere in the mid-'70s.

Today the average is higher, and the range is much higher. The former makes
yesteryear's average 16px significantly bigger than today's, and while the
latter makes it less likely to be close in physical size to the physical
size on the designer's screen.

Today, the bottom end of display size range is represented by the biggest
selling market share - laptops. Laptops stop around 19", and start at a
diminuitive 8" . Like with other LCDs, they should be
run only at their native resolutions, which is how they are shipped. It
means users are instructed they shouldn't lower resolution in order to make
things bigger. Their DPIs range from about 85 (1024x768 on 15") to 150
(1024x640 on 8") to 119 (1920x1200 on 19") to 100 (1440x900 on 17"; 1280x800
on 15"), with other variations in between the low of 85 and the high of 150.
Weighing the higher end stuff less heavily, a conservative estimate of the
sales-weighted average is probably at least 100. From the old average of
about 75, that's a 1/3 increase in DPI/PPI, which translates to a
correspondingly lower pixel size, and correspondingly smaller default
12pt/16px font size (often 12pt/20px on mid- and high-end models). Plus
there's that much wider range between low and high.

With desktop system displays the sizes are bigger and the DPIs are lower,
but they still represent a wider range between smallest and largest, and a
higher average DPI, than yesteryear - somewhere around 90. As examples, the
low price end is dominated by 1024x768 on 15" (85 DPI), 1280x1024 on 17" (96
DPI) and 1280x1024 on 19" (86 DPI). The middle has 1440x900 on 

Re: [WSG] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Felix Miata]

On 2007/05/28 02:43 (GMT-0400) Philip Kiff apparently typed:

> Here are a list of some example sites that apply a percentage to their body
> font-size.  These sites were selected because of their popularity, or their
> interest in web accessibility and CSS design issues.

Here's a longer list (not updated for a while, so some sites may have had
facelifts). Mouseover produces a titletip describing font sizing method
and/or date I last visited on most: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/shame.html

> Microsoft
> http://www.microsoft.com/en/us/default.aspx
> body {font-size: 70%; }

Probably many take their lead from this bad example. :-p If M$'s browser's
default is wrong, M$ should make it default to something else. Making body
text the same size as the system/browser UI text is wrong. The UI is little
bits of familiar territory. Most web pages are anything but.

> BBC
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/home/d/
> body {font-size: 62.5%}

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ was recently overhauled. It used to be 13px. Here's a
look at before: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/bbcSS.html

> Web Standards Project
> http://www.webstandards.org/
> body {font: 72%/160%}

:-( It's all too common that sites purporting to promote accessibility think
everyone's default is too big, and don't practice what they preach. One that
does the latter: http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/font-size
-- 
"The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining
ever brighter till the full light of day."  Proverbs 4:18 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] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Steve Olive]

There is one issue that will always cause conjecture and arguments with font 
sizes and hasn't been raised. Australian, New Zealand, UK and European 
default printed font size when word processing is 12 pt Times New Roman 
whilst the US uses 10 pt Times New Roman, so they are used to smaller text 
with more information crammed into each page.

This is a personal opinion of the font sizes displayed on a 19" 1280 x 1024 @ 
96 PPI LCD monitor in relation to the default printed font size. My eyes are 
approximately 65 cm from the screen and I do wear glasses for mild myopia 
(short sightedness).

On Mon, 28 May 2007 04:43:23 pm Philip Kiff wrote:
> 4. Sample Sites
> --
>
> Here are a list of some example sites that apply a percentage to their body
> font-size.  These sites were selected because of their popularity, or their
> interest in web accessibility and CSS design issues.
>
> Digg
> http://www.digg.com/
> body {font: 83%/1.4}
Only just acceptable size due to other elements being scaled smaller.
>
> Wired
> http://www.wired.com/
> body {font-size:62.5%;}
The body font is OK but the menus are way too small.
>
> Salon
> http://www.salon.com/
> body {font-size: 70%;}
The body font was OK but other sections like menus and "Current Opinion" 
sections are smaller.
>
> Microsoft
> http://www.microsoft.com/en/us/default.aspx
> body {font-size: 70%; }
Too small like many US based web sites.
>
> BBC
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/home/d/
> body {font-size: 62.5%}
Too smal but lots of "white" space around all text elements makes it easier to 
read. 
>
> Web Standards Project
> http://www.webstandards.org/
> body {font: 72%/160%}
Again too small.
>
> Clagnut
> http://clagnut.com/
> body {font-size:81.25%;}
> html>body {font-size:13px;}
The main content was OK but I have a large monitor. 17" LCD at 1280 x 1024 was 
still OK.
>
> Jim Thatcher
> http://jimthatcher.com/
> body {font-size: 86%;}
Not too bad, but sideboxes had smaller text again.
>
> Juicy Studio
> http://juicystudio.com/
> body {font-size: 95%;}
Easy to read even though only half my screen was used - large yellow slab down 
the right half of the screen.
>
> The Man in Blue
> http://themaninblue.com/
> body {font-size: 80%;}
Main content just OK but many sections are much smaller.
>
> CSS Beauty
> http://www.cssbeauty.com/
> body {font: 76%}
Too small and light blue & light green on white has contrast problems.
>
> End of email.
>
> Phil.
>

So, how do you solve this issue?

You can't - that's what makes us "web designers". We all have preferences for 
font sizes, colours, screen layout and more; then we have to deal with a 
clients' preconceived ideas on what THEIR web site should look like.

However we need to be aware that many people using the Internet won't have 19" 
LCD, 21" LCD, 20" widescreens, 24" widescreens or 30" widescreens or dual 
monitor setups. We need to make sure that our designs look OK on 17" CRT 
monitors at 1024 x 768 and 800 x 600 (hopefully it will still look OK on a 
15" CRT monitor too if it passes these tests).

Then we need to consider how much should a page zoom in before breaking. This 
really means using proportional measurements and not pixels, mostly due to 
IEs well documented problems, but also for containers.

The hard part is to not assume that bigger is always better. I have had a 
vision impaired student who needed all text at 18 pt Times New Roman - any 
larger and he could not see all of the individual letters, any smaller and it 
got too hard to read.

Just my $0.02 worth - the most important point is that we are aware of the 
issues, even if we can't agree on the "perfect solution".


-- 
Regards,

Steve
Bathurst Computer Solutions
URL: www.bathurstcomputers.com.au
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mobile: 0407 224 251
 _
... (0)>
... / / \
.. / / . )
.. V__/_
Linux Powered!
Registered Linux User #355382
*
"If you read the same things as others
and say the same things they say, then
you're perceived as intelligent. I'm a
bit more independent and radical and
consider intelligence the ability to
think about matters on your own and
ask a lot of skeptical questions to 
get at the real truth, not just what
you're told it is."
Apple's Inventor - Steve Wozniak 2006
*


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

Re: [WSG] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Raine]

I size fonts in percentage or em, on a base-font in percentage - 100% on html, 
usually.

Here's an excellent article for reference: 
http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_additions_13.html

(thanks, George).





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

RE: [WSG] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Philip Kiff]

I spent some time carousing through various sites and email lists and ended
up trying to pull together some of the disparate techniques, arguments, and
references about page font sizing into a single document.  Because this
message grew to an unwieldy size, I've divided it up into 5 sections:

1. Common Body Font Size Settings
2. Best Practices with Respect to Web Standards
3. User CSS Stylesheets
4. Sample Sites
5. Additional References


--
1. Common Body Font Size Settings
--

Christian Montoya wrote:
> I hate to make a quick reply to a long post, but not all designers set
> body font size to 62.5% when creating websites...

Out of curiosity, I did some browsing through the style sheets of some major
websites and some other selected sites with an interest in design and
standards, and it would appear that Christian is right here.  I did not of
course think that "all designers set body font size to 62.5%", but I did
think that I would find default body font-size settings of 60-75% being
quite common, if not the norm.  From what I can tell, however, body
font-size settings are all over the map.

Some of the biggest major sites, like Google, Flickr, YouTube, and Amazon
use keywords (usually, font-size: x-small) and then scale up from there.
Lots and lots of the other big sites also set the body font-size to a point
size (12 and 13 seem to be the most common).  Of those that are setting body
font-sizes to a percentage value, the numbers range from the 62.5% that Paul
mentions right up to 95%, and there does not seem to be any trend towards
one number or another.

Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
> Though I agree with the sentiment, the fact remains that the large
> majority of websites out there do size text below 100% (and yes, more
> often than not around the 75%ish mark).

It appears that Patrick is right here: the number of sites that leave the
body font-size element untouched (and so allow the browser defaults to stay
at the usual defaults of medium, 16pt, and 100%) is a clear minority.  I
think that this statistical fact is an important piece of information for
designers who are weighing the advantages and disadvantages of leaving the
default body font sizes untouched in their stylesheets since it forms the
"real world" usage background against which such decisions are made.

For reference purposes, in section 4 below, I've provided links to a
selection of significant sites that set body font-size to a percentage
value.


--
2. Best Practices with Respect to Web Standards
--

Sagnik Dey wrote:
> I'm developing a website that have some standards defined. The font
> size specified is 9pt. But due to accessibility standards I wanted to
> convert that in % or em. Can anybody tell what do i need to use to
> view the same size in different browsers?

To respond to the original poster's question, I would say that there are at
least three general techniques for converting page styles from point-based
font sizes to a relative font size system:

1. Use Percentage on body font-size, then apply ems on the rest
Owen Briggs
The Noodle Incident - Sane CSS Sizes
http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/typography/

2.. Use Keywords on body font-size element, then apply relative sizing on
rest
Dive Into Accessibility: 30 days to a more accessible web site
Day 26: Using relative font sizes
http://diveintoaccessibility.org/day_26_using_relative_font_sizes.html

3. Use some combination of percentage and em sizing on all elements
Note that if you avoid changing the default base font-size setting, then
this method can be used to create a fully scalable/zoomable design while
still addressing the objections of those who believe that the default text
font size should be left unchanged.

The one clear no-no, is that "absolute" font sizes, like points, should not
be used.  As the original poster points out, the use of point sizes can
cause accessibility issues for some users.  For more information about this,
see:
CSS Techniques for Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0
Units of Measure:
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-CSS-TECHS/#units

There has been considerable discussion about the potential use of pixel
sizes because pixels can be technically described as a "relative" font size.
Unfortunately, Internet Explorer does not treat pixels as such, and using
pixel sizes will break the View -> Increase Text Size function on most
versions of Internet Explorer, and so pixel sizing is not a viable option at
present.

The last major position, of course, is the one advocating against any
changes to the default base font sizes for the body text.  This is the "100%
Easy-2-Read Standard" advocated by Felix Miata:
http://www.informationarchitects.jp/100e2r?v=4

>From my browsing around, I learned that the debate over this position is a
recurring discussion in various communities of coders and designers.  I find
some of the arguments in favour of Felix's position compelling.  For
instance, I had not fully examined the 

RE: [WSG] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Philip Kiff]

Felix Miata wrote:
> On 2007/05/25 17:47 (GMT-0400) Philip Kiff apparently typed:
>
>> Felix Miata wrote:
>
>>> What matters is:
>>> [...]
>>> 5-that any deviation a designer makes from 100% is
>>> arbitrary, as it's made from an entirely unknown starting point
>
>>> 100% of the visitor's choice equals respect for the visitor.
>
>> I'm not really convinced that this is an issue of "respect" for the
>> users of one's site.
>
>> The reference that Kane provided to Owen Briggs's charts over at
>> thenoodleincident.com I think demonstrates how the operating system
>> manufacturers and browser companies are the ones who have been
>> arbitrary about what 100% font size on the body element means.  Here
>> is a link to Owen Briggs's page discussing Sane CSS Typography:
>> http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/typography/index.html
>
> That's the 2nd time in this thread that poison-pill anachronism has
> been included. Its focus is on pixel perfection with tiny fonts that
> provides at most marginal utility when applied to the much larger
> pixel sizes necessary on modern high resolution/high PPI displays. It
> only applied when the very overwhelming majority of browsers had 16px
> defaults *and* most users were running sub-~72DPI displays. It
> misleads the uninitiated into thinking mousetype is an OK standard
> for web pages.

I included the 2nd link to the Briggs article because I thought that perhaps
the first link might not have been understood since it went directly to the
a page of Briggs's images.  I realize that you have spent considerable time
studying this issue, but your explanation of Briggs's technique seems
misleading to me.  Under Briggs's technique, the body font-size is set to
76% and then the p font-size is set to 1.0 em.  All other elements are then
sized with ems.  This should not produce tiny fonts on most people's
systems: that is the whole purpose of his going through the exercise of
producing all the screenshots using different browsers and operating
systems.  Although the screenshots date back to 2002, they do include IE 6,
and I doubt there are differences in font-size rendering between IE 6 and 7
that would make Briggs technique suddenly unusable.

Briggs's method will produce pages where fonts appear similar to what they
appear like if you use 12pt text as your base font-size.  This is the size
that is still used today by millions of websites.  No doubt some people find
that size too small, but that is still the norm on the web these days.  I
don't quite understand the issue with the different dpi displays.  Won't
that have the same affect on all browsers, regardless of what method is used
to size fonts -- unless you use pixel sizes, of course?

I would also add that the reason I found the Briggs method attractive was
that there is a certain elegance to the code involved, and some other
designers may have been attracted for the same reason.  Under Briggs, your
base site font text is 1.0 em.  Headings, lists, and other elements can all
be set in relation to that 1.0em base.  Whenever you are working on the CSS
file, you can immediately grasp what the relative size of any element will
be in comparison to your base body text (2.5em = two and a half times).
Also, you can upsize your entire website simply by changing the body
font-size from 76% to a larger number.  There is no need to go through and
change each and every percentage or em value of your other elements since
the whole site should scale with the body font-size setting.

>> As Kane pointed out, and as Owen Briggs's screenshot studies
>> demonstrate, the use of 76% as the body font size is "to create a
>> more even base-line size across multiple browsers".  This 76% figure
>> is not therefore entirely arbitrary:
>
> The arbitrariness is an illusion induced by a mindset that all
> browsers should make every web look like a clone of that page in
> every other web browser. Modern browsers do a remarkable job of
> providing the similarity among themselves that they do, which is due
> in no small part to the standards bodies considerable efforts to
> create sensible and achievable standards. Different, within reason,
> should be a perfectly OK standard.

I agree wholeheartedly.  Different viewports and preferred sizes are
perfectly OK.  But if a designer finds a way to make sites appear almost
identical across all major browsers and platforms at a screen resolution of
1024x768 on a 17" monitor with everything else set at default settings, and
those sites are STILL scalable for other users, then shouldn't that be OK
too?


>> setting the body font size to 65%-76% or so is the size that
>
> 76% was a particular sweet spot for a particular period that has since
> passed. Any deviation from 76% did and does move the result out of
> that anachronistic sweet spot.
>
>> designers have come up with over the years that allows them the most
>> freedom to produce designs that appear similar across different
>> browsers and different operatin

RE: [WSG] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Philip Kiff]

Felix Miata wrote:
> Your mission, should you choose to embrace it, is to convince the
> client that maintaining an anachronistic practice is the wrong thing
> to do, and that doing the right thing is always the right thing to
> do. Maybe this will help whenever that discussion ensues.
> http://www.lighthouse.org/accessibility/top-10/

Perhaps not the best example to provide for this thread...from their default
stylesheet:
body {font-size: 80%;}

Phil.



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

Re: [WSG] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Andrew Cunningham]

Paul Novitski wrote:

At 5/27/2007 07:44 PM, Andrew Cunningham wrote:
The practice of setting body font size to 62.5% has some very 
interesting assumptions built in. Any style sheet designed using this 
supposition would be inappropriate for a fully internationalised site.



Please elaborate on this point.  Is your statement based on the 
assumption that body text will be sized at 1em, or that the column 
widths will be fixed?




Neither. My assumption is that not all fonts in all scripts are measured 
the same way and mixed script situations are even more problematic.


For Thai body text at 1.0 em with English words or phrases within the 
text, the English content would need to be approximately 0.75em  to 
match the Thai text. Setting body type to a value significantly less 
that one em will make Thai and English text (if English text is resized) 
potentially illegible.


--
Andrew Cunningham
Research and Development Coordinator
Vicnet, Public Libraries and Communications
State Library of Victoria
328 Swanston Street
Melbourne  VIC  3000
Australia

andrewc+AEA-vicnet.net.au

Ph. 3-8664-7430
Fax: 3-9639-2175

http://www.openroad.net.au/
http://www.libraries.vic.gov.au/
http://www.vicnet.net.au/


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***begin:vcard
fn:Andrew Cunningham
n:Cunningham;Andrew
org:State Library of Victoria;Vicnet
adr:;;328 Swanston Street;Melbourne;VIC;3000;Australia
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Research and Development Coordinator
tel;work:+61-3-8664-7430
tel;fax:+61-3-9639-2175
tel;cell:0421-450-816
note;quoted-printable:Current projects:=0D=0A=
	=0D=0A=
	Open Road=E2=80=94http://www.openroad.net.au/=0D=0A=
	=0D=0A=
	MyLanguage=E2=80=94http://www.mylanguage.gov.au/=0D=0A=
	=0D=0A=
	WoVG Multilingual portal research project=E2=80=94http://www.mylanguage.v=
	ic.gov.au/wovgdemo/
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://home.vicnet.net.au/~andrewc/
version:2.1
end:vcard

Re: [WSG] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Paul Novitski]

At 5/27/2007 07:44 PM, Andrew Cunningham wrote:
The practice of setting body font size to 62.5% has some very 
interesting assumptions built in. Any style sheet designed using 
this supposition would be inappropriate for a fully internationalised site.



Please elaborate on this point.  Is your statement based on the 
assumption that body text will be sized at 1em, or that the column 
widths will be fixed?


Thanks,

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] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Andrew Cunningham]

Christian Montoya wrote:



I hate to make a quick reply to a long post, but not all designers set
body font size to 62.5% when creating websites. It's enough to start
at 100% and set nested containers to fractions of that... just do the
math starting off from 16px. The point that Felix is making is that
setting the body to something small like 62.5% is very destructive,
since user stylesheets and user settings usually just override the
body rule (and ruin all your specific rules).



The practice of setting body font size to 62.5% has some very 
interesting assumptions built in. Any style sheet designed using this 
supposition would be inappropriate for a fully internationalised site.


Andrew

--
Andrew Cunningham
Research and Development Coordinator
Vicnet, Public Libraries and Communications
State Library of Victoria
328 Swanston Street
Melbourne  VIC  3000
Australia

andrewc+AEA-vicnet.net.au

Ph. 3-8664-7430
Fax: 3-9639-2175

http://www.openroad.net.au/
http://www.libraries.vic.gov.au/
http://www.vicnet.net.au/


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***begin:vcard
fn:Andrew Cunningham
n:Cunningham;Andrew
org:State Library of Victoria;Vicnet
adr:;;328 Swanston Street;Melbourne;VIC;3000;Australia
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:Research and Development Coordinator
tel;work:+61-3-8664-7430
tel;fax:+61-3-9639-2175
tel;cell:0421-450-816
note;quoted-printable:Current projects:=0D=0A=
	=0D=0A=
	Open Road=E2=80=94http://www.openroad.net.au/=0D=0A=
	=0D=0A=
	MyLanguage=E2=80=94http://www.mylanguage.gov.au/=0D=0A=
	=0D=0A=
	WoVG Multilingual portal research project=E2=80=94http://www.mylanguage.v=
	ic.gov.au/wovgdemo/
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://home.vicnet.net.au/~andrewc/
version:2.1
end:vcard

Re: [WSG] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Felix Miata]

On 2007/05/25 17:54 (GMT-0700) Paul Novitski apparently typed:

> At 5/25/2007 03:10 PM, Christian Montoya wrote:

>>not all designers set
>>body font size to 62.5% when creating websites. It's enough to start
>>at 100% and set nested containers to fractions of that... just do the
>>math starting off from 16px. The point that Felix is making is that
>>setting the body to something small like 62.5% is very destructive,
>>since user stylesheets and user settings usually just override the
>>body rule (and ruin all your specific rules).

> "ruin"?  Wouldn't it just make everything larger if they overrode the 
> stylesheet with, say, body {font-size: 100%}?

Sort of, but Gecko browsers behave somewhat like IE does when it encounters
no explicit non-em font-size set on HTML or BODY and child elements are
sized in em, compounding the intended effect of the em-specified sizes.
That's what the images, particularly the last two, in my upthread post at
http://webstandardsgroup.org/manage/archive.cfm?uid=C46B1968-B1CC-B29E-B1E7CE11FA5AD23C
were supposed to demonstrate.

> I guess it will depend on which aspects of the layout are widthed in 
> ems, but for most pages I'd think it would just start you out at a 
> larger degree of [text and/or layout] magnification.

It's pretty routine that I must on 62.5% pages turn off author styles in
order to use the page, this due to content being allocated inadequate width
to fit without hiding or overlapping.
-- 
"The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining
ever brighter till the full light of day."  Proverbs 4:18 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] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Felix Miata]

On 2007/05/27 23:33 (GMT+0100) Patrick H. Lauke apparently typed:

> Felix Miata wrote:

>> Because no designer knows the real world starting point outside his local
>> world, any deviation from 100% is inherently arbitrary.

>> OTOH, the "100% Easy-2-Read Standard" is a standard worthy of embracing to
>> the fullest. http://www.informationarchitects.jp/100e2r?v=4

> Though I agree with the sentiment, the fact remains that the large 
> majority of websites out there do size text below 100% (and yes, more 
> often than not around the 75%ish mark). If a user perceives that size to 
> be a problem, she more likely than not has bumped up the default text 
> size of the browser to compensate for her daily browsing activity. Going 

Probably so with users of modern browsers, but the most common browser in
use remains IE6, which with many users don't bother to try to bump the text
size up on due to its inexplicable inability to make text bigger on the
unfortunate mass of sites that still undersize text using px.

> to 100% could then, potentially, go the opposite way and make the text 
> too big for her.

Too big is not the same class of problem that is too small. It happens to me
routinely on 62.5% body sites, but it's a magnitudes smaller problem than
mousetype and px-width containers.

> Couple that with a client's habit of comparing the site
> they're commissioning with the majority of other sites out there (and 
> the resultant moaning of "why is the text on our site bigger than on 
> competitor X's site?")...

Your mission, should you choose to embrace it, is to convince the client
that maintaining an anachronistic practice is the wrong thing to do, and
that doing the right thing is always the right thing to do. Maybe this will
help whenever that discussion ensues.
http://www.lighthouse.org/accessibility/top-10/
-- 
"The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining
ever brighter till the full light of day."  Proverbs 4:18 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] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Patrick H. Lauke]

Felix Miata wrote:


Because no designer knows the real world starting point outside his local
world, any deviation from 100% is inherently arbitrary.

OTOH, the "100% Easy-2-Read Standard" is a standard worthy of embracing to
the fullest. http://www.informationarchitects.jp/100e2r?v=4


Though I agree with the sentiment, the fact remains that the large 
majority of websites out there do size text below 100% (and yes, more 
often than not around the 75%ish mark). If a user perceives that size to 
be a problem, she more likely than not has bumped up the default text 
size of the browser to compensate for her daily browsing activity. Going 
to 100% could then, potentially, go the opposite way and make the text 
too big for her. Couple that with a client's habit of comparing the site 
they're commissioning with the majority of other sites out there (and 
the resultant moaning of "why is the text on our site bigger than on 
competitor X's site?")...


P
--
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
__
Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
__
Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team
http://streetteam.webstandards.org/
__


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

Re: [WSG] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Felix Miata]

On 2007/05/25 17:47 (GMT-0400) Philip Kiff apparently typed:

> Felix Miata wrote:

>> What matters is:
>> [...]
>> 5-that any deviation a designer makes from 100% is
>> arbitrary, as it's made from an entirely unknown starting point

>> 100% of the visitor's choice equals respect for the visitor.

> I'm not really convinced that this is an issue of "respect" for the users of
> one's site.

> The reference that Kane provided to Owen Briggs's charts over at
> thenoodleincident.com I think demonstrates how the operating system
> manufacturers and browser companies are the ones who have been arbitrary
> about what 100% font size on the body element means.  Here is a link to Owen
> Briggs's page discussing Sane CSS Typography:
> http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/typography/index.html

That's the 2nd time in this thread that poison-pill anachronism has been
included. Its focus is on pixel perfection with tiny fonts that provides at
most marginal utility when applied to the much larger pixel sizes necessary
on modern high resolution/high PPI displays. It only applied when the very
overwhelming majority of browsers had 16px defaults *and* most users were
running sub-~72DPI displays. It misleads the uninitiated into thinking
mousetype is an OK standard for web pages.

> As Kane pointed out, and as Owen Briggs's screenshot studies demonstrate,
> the use of 76% as the body font size is "to create a more even base-line
> size across multiple browsers".  This 76% figure is not therefore entirely
> arbitrary:

The arbitrariness is an illusion induced by a mindset that all browsers
should make every web look like a clone of that page in every other web
browser. Modern browsers do a remarkable job of providing the similarity
among themselves that they do, which is due in no small part to the
standards bodies considerable efforts to create sensible and achievable
standards. Different, within reason, should be a perfectly OK standard.

> setting the body font size to 65%-76% or so is the size that

76% was a particular sweet spot for a particular period that has since
passed. Any deviation from 76% did and does move the result out of that
anachronistic sweet spot.

> designers have come up with over the years that allows them the most freedom
> to produce designs that appear similiar across different browsers and
> different operating platforms.

That particular basis doesn't make it any less arbitrary with regard to
users. A designer does not know the particulars of particular visitors'
local environments, and has no basis to know anything other than 100% basing
could possibly be more usable or more accessible for any environment outside
the one he is currently situated in.

> These levels don't come from any disrespect
> felt towards site visitors, but from a disrespect for the arbitrariness of
> different browser defaults and a desire to override the choices made by
> those browsers.

65%-80% produces a uniformity of substantially reduced accessibility and
usability that 100% basing does not do. Whether 65%-80% is intended to
disrespect visitors is irrelevant; only the fact that it does is.

It's unrealistic to strive for pixel perfection across all browsers, so to
use undersized fonts purely in the interest of achieving that goal is
fighting the inherent nature and strength of the web rather than embracing
it, besides disrespecting visitors.

> apparent arbitrariness of the 100% alternative.

Because no designer knows the real world starting point outside his local
world, any deviation from 100% is inherently arbitrary.

OTOH, the "100% Easy-2-Read Standard" is a standard worthy of embracing to
the fullest. http://www.informationarchitects.jp/100e2r?v=4
-- 
"The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining
ever brighter till the full light of day."  Proverbs 4:18 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] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Philippe Wittenbergh]

On May 26, 2007, at 11:16 AM, Paul Novitski wrote:

Do you mean no elegant way to scale them in a user stylesheet or no  
elegant way to scale them in real time, e.g. with a mouse wheel?
I have my minimum font-size set to 12px [1] (Gecko browser), or  
sometimes 14px (when I'm tired, and really p*** by mouse type and the  
need to zoom in way to often)
* No elegant way to scale the whole thing correctly in a user  
stylesheet, short of rewriting the whole author stylesheet [2]: with  
the 62.5% 'trick', the base for all computation will be 12px in my  
case. Say I reset the font-size to 16px for a particular site (using  
@-moz-document), all scaling in that author style-sheet will be  
oversized, as I thing Christian explained).
* No nice way to zoom out in real time, due to the clash between  
minimum font-size and the author specified miniscule base.


[1] that is my minimum font-size, below which I cannot read text. It  
is _not_ my preferred font-size.
[2] user stylesheets are already a pain for the average user, image  
if they have to rewrite the author stylesheet completely...
(even for me it would be serious nuisance - and I have a 3000 lines  
long user stylesheet)


---
While in theory, I, as a user, should like that method of setting  
font-size - combined with my minimum font-size is should guarantee  
readable text, in practice it is a pain: many more sites break (even  
some where e.g width is set to ems or the like), or quickly become  
way to wide for my preferred window width.


Philippe
---
Philippe Wittenbergh






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

Re: [WSG] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[David Hucklesby]

On Fri, 25 May 2007 10:48:29 +0530, Sagnik Dey wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> I'm developing a website that have some standards defined. The font size 
> specified is
> 9pt. But due to accessibility standards I wanted to  convert that in % or em. 
> Can
> anybody tell what do i need to use to view the same size in different 
> browsers?

Experimenting in IE7, Opera 9, FF2, and NS 7.2 on a Win xp PC running at 
120 DPI shows all of them display text specified as 9pt to be 15px in size.
I think this will be the same at 96 DPI.

Same size in different browsers is not really achievable. But you do raise
an interesting question, as I have been reading Richard Rutter's ideas
on "composing to a rhythm".[1]. He employs a "scale" of font sizes that
are measured in points.

It occurred to me that a "base" of ten points would make it easy to use
percents or ems - along the lines of the (problematic) idea of using 62.5%
as a base font size to represent ten pixels. 10pt translates to 17px if
my browsers interpretation of "points" is to be trusted.

Now comes the tricky bit that I need help with. We could use 17px as the
base font size, but IE Win will not resize the results. We could use a base
of 104.2% to help IE users, but at 120 DPI the results are 25% bigger in
both IE and Opera.

The bigger text may not affect the "scale" I am attempting - I need to
do more experiments.


[1] 

Cordially,
David
--




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

Re: [WSG] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Paul Novitski]

At 5/25/2007 03:10 PM, Christian Montoya wrote:
>The point that Felix is making is that
>setting the body to something small like 62.5% is very destructive,
>since user stylesheets and user settings usually just override the
>body rule (and ruin all your specific rules).



On 5/25/07, Paul Novitski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

"ruin"?  Wouldn't it just make everything larger if they overrode the
stylesheet with, say, body {font-size: 100%}?


At 5/25/2007 06:16 PM, Christian Montoya wrote:

It can ruin text if it means that things suddenly get much bigger than
the user or designer ever expected and (sometimes) breaks out of
containers. If I enforce 18px as a default because I have a high
resolution display and no elegant way of scaling fonts, I would expect
all text to be just a step larger than the default 16px that most
users at 96 dpi would get. But then you are talking about a page where
the default was intended to start at 10px getting enlarged by a factor
of 1.4, for example, on a container, and with my default of 18px
suddenly I'm getting 25 or 26 px, much much bigger than what I wanted
and bigger than what the designer expected. That's ruined in my book.

IMO it's not hard to just leave the default body size alone and size
from there, which is why I do that in my own stylesheets.


OK, I'm being persuaded.


I have a high resolution display and no elegant way of scaling fonts


Do you mean no elegant way to scale them in a user stylesheet or no 
elegant way to scale them in real time, e.g. with a mouse wheel?  In 
either case I'm curious for an elaboration on this.  (I assume you're 
talking about a hypothetical user here and not yourself...)


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] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Christian Montoya]

On 5/25/07, Paul Novitski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

At 5/25/2007 03:10 PM, Christian Montoya wrote:
>I hate to make a quick reply to a long post, but not all designers set
>body font size to 62.5% when creating websites. It's enough to start
>at 100% and set nested containers to fractions of that... just do the
>math starting off from 16px. The point that Felix is making is that
>setting the body to something small like 62.5% is very destructive,
>since user stylesheets and user settings usually just override the
>body rule (and ruin all your specific rules).


"ruin"?  Wouldn't it just make everything larger if they overrode the
stylesheet with, say, body {font-size: 100%}?

I guess it will depend on which aspects of the layout are widthed in
ems, but for most pages I'd think it would just start you out at a
larger degree of [text and/or layout] magnification.

(The past tense of the verb "to width" I just coined is so difficult
to pronounce I just had to use it.)


It can ruin text if it means that things suddenly get much bigger than
the user or designer ever expected and (sometimes) breaks out of
containers. If I enforce 18px as a default because I have a high
resolution display and no elegant way of scaling fonts, I would expect
all text to be just a step larger than the default 16px that most
users at 96 dpi would get. But then you are talking about a page where
the default was intended to start at 10px getting enlarged by a factor
of 1.4, for example, on a container, and with my default of 18px
suddenly I'm getting 25 or 26 px, much much bigger than what I wanted
and bigger than what the designer expected. That's ruined in my book.

IMO it's not hard to just leave the default body size alone and size
from there, which is why I do that in my own stylesheets.

--
--
Christian Montoya
christianmontoya.net .. designtocss.com


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

Re: [WSG] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Paul Novitski]

At 5/25/2007 03:10 PM, Christian Montoya wrote:

I hate to make a quick reply to a long post, but not all designers set
body font size to 62.5% when creating websites. It's enough to start
at 100% and set nested containers to fractions of that... just do the
math starting off from 16px. The point that Felix is making is that
setting the body to something small like 62.5% is very destructive,
since user stylesheets and user settings usually just override the
body rule (and ruin all your specific rules).



"ruin"?  Wouldn't it just make everything larger if they overrode the 
stylesheet with, say, body {font-size: 100%}?


I guess it will depend on which aspects of the layout are widthed in 
ems, but for most pages I'd think it would just start you out at a 
larger degree of [text and/or layout] magnification.


(The past tense of the verb "to width" I just coined is so difficult 
to pronounce I just had to use it.)


Regardth,

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] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Christian Montoya]

On 5/25/07, Philip Kiff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Felix Miata wrote:
> What matters is:
> [...]
> 5-that any deviation a designer makes from 100% is
> arbitrary, as it's made from an entirely unknown starting point
>
> 100% of the visitor's choice equals respect for the visitor.

I'm not really convinced that this is an issue of "respect" for the users of
one's site.

The reference that Kane provided to Owen Briggs's charts over at
thenoodleincident.com I think demonstrates how the operating system
manufacturers and browser companies are the ones who have been arbitrary
about what 100% font size on the body element means.  Here is a link to Owen
Briggs's page discussing Sane CSS Typography:
http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/typography/index.html

As Kane pointed out, and as Owen Briggs's screenshot studies demonstrate,
the use of 76% as the body font size is "to create a more even base-line
size across multiple browsers".  This 76% figure is not therefore entirely
arbitrary: setting the body font size to 65%-76% or so is the size that
designers have come up with over the years that allows them the most freedom
to produce designs that appear similiar across different browsers and
different operating platforms.  These levels don't come from any disrespect
felt towards site visitors, but from a disrespect for the arbitrariness of
different browser defaults and a desire to override the choices made by
those browsers.

Isn't this basically the same kind of thing that a designer does when they
apply "zeroing" to the body margins or body padding or to any other CSS
element that different browsers set differently.  Designers modify the
default settings of CSS elements all the time - that is what a designer does
in order to create a design.  Sure, designers should create designs that
scale nicely and play well with user specified font sizes, and of course web
designers should learn to embrace the idea that the sites they create will
be accessed in different ways and with different technologies that will not
permit pixel-perfect identical versions to be served to all users.  However,
that doesn't mean that they have to give up on trying to produce designs
that look almost identical to the way they want in the default settings of
the browsers that appear most frequently in their site traffic logs.

I wonder, is it possible that 65%-76% base size body font is in fact the
level that has become a kind of standard on the web?  Or perhaps the web has
a dual standard: one is 65-76% and the other is 100%?  In any case, I'm not
convinced that the choice by many web designers to use 65-76% will be easily
overcome, especially given its usefulness from a design standpoint, and the
apparent arbitrariness of the 100% alternative.


I hate to make a quick reply to a long post, but not all designers set
body font size to 62.5% when creating websites. It's enough to start
at 100% and set nested containers to fractions of that... just do the
math starting off from 16px. The point that Felix is making is that
setting the body to something small like 62.5% is very destructive,
since user stylesheets and user settings usually just override the
body rule (and ruin all your specific rules).

--
--
Christian Montoya
christianmontoya.net .. designtocss.com


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

RE: [WSG] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Philip Kiff]

Felix Miata wrote:
> What matters is:
> [...]
> 5-that any deviation a designer makes from 100% is
> arbitrary, as it's made from an entirely unknown starting point
>
> 100% of the visitor's choice equals respect for the visitor.

I'm not really convinced that this is an issue of "respect" for the users of
one's site.

The reference that Kane provided to Owen Briggs's charts over at
thenoodleincident.com I think demonstrates how the operating system
manufacturers and browser companies are the ones who have been arbitrary
about what 100% font size on the body element means.  Here is a link to Owen
Briggs's page discussing Sane CSS Typography:
http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/typography/index.html

As Kane pointed out, and as Owen Briggs's screenshot studies demonstrate,
the use of 76% as the body font size is "to create a more even base-line
size across multiple browsers".  This 76% figure is not therefore entirely
arbitrary: setting the body font size to 65%-76% or so is the size that
designers have come up with over the years that allows them the most freedom
to produce designs that appear similiar across different browsers and
different operating platforms.  These levels don't come from any disrespect
felt towards site visitors, but from a disrespect for the arbitrariness of
different browser defaults and a desire to override the choices made by
those browsers.

Isn't this basically the same kind of thing that a designer does when they
apply "zeroing" to the body margins or body padding or to any other CSS
element that different browsers set differently.  Designers modify the
default settings of CSS elements all the time - that is what a designer does
in order to create a design.  Sure, designers should create designs that
scale nicely and play well with user specified font sizes, and of course web
designers should learn to embrace the idea that the sites they create will
be accessed in different ways and with different technologies that will not
permit pixel-perfect identical versions to be served to all users.  However,
that doesn't mean that they have to give up on trying to produce designs
that look almost identical to the way they want in the default settings of
the browsers that appear most frequently in their site traffic logs.

I wonder, is it possible that 65%-76% base size body font is in fact the
level that has become a kind of standard on the web?  Or perhaps the web has
a dual standard: one is 65-76% and the other is 100%?  In any case, I'm not
convinced that the choice by many web designers to use 65-76% will be easily
overcome, especially given its usefulness from a design standpoint, and the
apparent arbitrariness of the 100% alternative.

Phil.



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

Re: [WSG] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Paul Novitski]

On 2007/05/25 00:58 (GMT-0700) Paul Novitski apparently typed:

> In my efforts to build zoomable layouts [max-width at window width]
> I've found it convenient to declare a body font-size of 62.5%


At 5/25/2007 10:16 AM, Felix Miata wrote:

The Clagnutt 62.5% scourge or bane of user stylesheets. :-(


Felix, thanks for your lucid reply, but you apparently didn't 
actually read my posting even as you quoted it.  I'm talking about 
creating zoomable pages and you lecture me about the disadvantages of 
fixed width!  Sheesh.


The reason I'm needing to convert from pixels to ems is that I'm 
implementing designs mocked up as bitmapped images in Photoshop & 
InDesign.  The designer creates the mockup to depict the page as they 
want to see it, which I interpret as the way the page should look at 
normal zoom.  I translate all their pixel measurements to ems so that 
the page is zoomable.  The arithmetic on this gets tedious, so I use 
62.5% to make 1em = 10px to make my life easier.  I could as easily 
have set the body font-size to 6.25% so that 1 page em = 1 mockup 
pixel but I thought I might break something.


The pages I craft this way are not absolutely zoomable -- I halt the 
layout zoom at window width to avoid the pitfalls of horizontal 
scrollbar and hidden content which I consider to be accessibility 
concerns.  But I want the pages to be zoomable within that constraint 
to enable people to enlarge their text to the greatest extent 
possible without breaking the layout (i.e. enlarging single words 
beyond the width of their containers).


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] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Felix Miata]

On 2007/05/25 18:07 (GMT+1000) Kane Tapping apparently typed:

> Felix Miata wrote:

>>arbitrarily assuming that there's something wrong with the user's choice 
> of default ...

> I guess we also shouldnt be second guessing our users choice of font, 
> weight, spacing, color ... positioning ?

Those are part of a continuum of things that have a greater or lesser impact
on legibility/usability compared to the foundational element that is text
size. CSS provides both users and authors a great deal of power. The wise
exercise restraint is utilizing that power.
-- 
"The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining
ever brighter till the full light of day."  Proverbs 4:18 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] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Felix Miata]

On 2007/05/25 00:58 (GMT-0700) Paul Novitski apparently typed:

> At 5/25/2007 12:15 AM, Felix Miata wrote:

>>On 2007/05/25 15:31 (GMT+1000) Kane Tapping apparently typed:

>> > Setting the body to font size to 65% - 70% is a good start.

>>Actually it's a bad start, arbitrarily assuming that there's something wrong
>>with the user's choice of default, and reducing it by some arbitrary amount,
>>even though you don't have a clue what it was to start with.

> In my efforts to build zoomable layouts [max-width at window width] 
> I've found it convenient to declare a body font-size of 62.5%

The Clagnutt 62.5% scourge or bane of user stylesheets. :-(

> so that, on a PC with a default font size of 16px, 1em = 10px at normal 
> zoom.  It makes calculations very easy.  For example, if you begin 
> with a content column of 790px, that converts to 79em and becomes 
> zoomable.  An image that's 100px wide becomes 10em wide.

It may be convenient as long as you find it necessary to fight the inherent
nature of the web instead of embracing it. Pixels are a purely arbitrary
size that bear no relationship to any particular physical size, and
certainly not one that bears any useful relationship to "right" sized fonts
from a typical web user's perspective.

Instead of wanting a content column of Xpx, you should want a column of Xem
or Xex or Xwords, from which you set sizes in em or ex or %, and let the
user agents futz over how many pixels to use to do it. The web isn't print.

> In that context, one can make one's base font size 1.6em (16px at 
> normal zoom on a PC).  This presents body text at the same size it 
> would have been had font-size not been styled, yet at the same time 
> makes scaling calculations much easier for the designer.

But not easier for the visitor

> It seems like a win-win situation.  Can you see a flaw?

Every day

> Even on Mac monitors running at 96dpi, reducing the text to 62.5% and 
> then increasing to 1.6 should bring it back to 100% of the default 
> size, whatever that may be.

Here's a site probably pretty typical of Clagnutt 62.5% sites: http://eons.com/

Here's what its designers probably expect it to look like (same in FF and
Safari):
http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/eons-16ms.jpg

Here's what it looks like when the user has bumped his default up from 16px
to 20px (same in FF and Safari): http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/eons-20ms.jpg

Here's what it looks like in Safari with the 20px default size enforced as a
minimum: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/eons-20ms-m20.jpg

And here's what it looks like in FF with the 20px default size enforced as a
minimum: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/eons-20mf-m20.jpg

Note the radical difference between the latter two applies also when a user
stylesheet employs the simple 'body {font-size: 100% !important}' rule
designed to counteract web sites that employ the more common methods of
undersizing content text.

Since neither Opera nor Safari are available on my OS of choice, and thus
have only SeaMonkey and Firefox to choose from, I get to choose between
gigantic fonts on Clagnut pages, or turning off author styles entirely.

Clearly Eons is a site designed neither for its own users (people over 50,
whose eyesight is poorer than average), nor for cross-browser compatibility,
nor to accommodate users generally who need text to be big enough to read
and who use text zoom and/or user stylesheets and/or minimum text size
and/or a higher than 96 DPI system setting to do it.

One thing that is standard about the web is there is no standard
relationship between the size text a designer sees on his screen and the
size a visitor sees on his own screen on that same page.
http://pages.prodigy.net/chris_beall/TC/You%20don't%20know.html
-- 
"The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining
ever brighter till the full light of day."  Proverbs 4:18 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] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Christian Montoya]

On 2007/05/25 15:24 (GMT+0800) Nick Cowie apparently typed:

> 1em =  100% = 16px = 16pt (yes 1px = 1pt for the screen) in all  PC based
> browsers since 2000


Not true. On high resolution displays (widescreen laptops, for
example) that use 120 dpi instead of the standard, classic 96 dpi and
use Windows' font-scaling to compensate,

1em = 100% = 18px = ?pt.

--
--
Christian Montoya
christianmontoya.net .. designtocss.com


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

Re: [WSG] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Felix Miata]

On 2007/05/25 15:24 (GMT+0800) Nick Cowie apparently typed:

> 1em =  100% = 16px = 16pt (yes 1px = 1pt for the screen) in all  PC based
> browsers since 2000

This statement would be technically incorrect even if sic s/16pt/12pt/.
s/16pt/12pt/ because the majority of systems are running a nominal DPI/PPI
of 96, which because points are 72 DPI real, means there is 1.333px per pt
nominal.

Another reason it's incorrect is that not all modern browsers use the common
16px/12pt default. http://archivist.incutio.com/viewlist/css-discuss/68515

The third reason follows.

> unless changed by the user or PC manufacturer (this is
> becoming a little more common with laptops having twice the pixels per inch
> or cm that desktop screens).

While it is true that it is becoming more common, it's been doing so long
enough that it is already very common, particularly since laptops have been
outselling desktops for several years. The higher resolution laptops tend to
have windoz set to 120 DPI instead of 96 DPI, with the result that their
12pt defaults are all 20px instead of 16px. The ones that don't use the 120
setting tend to not sell very well because so many people see everything is
too tiny otherwise compared to the systems they're familiar with.
-- 
"The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining
ever brighter till the full light of day."  Proverbs 4:18 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] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Felix Miata]

On 2007/05/25 08:45 (GMT+0100) Stephen Kelly apparently typed:

> On 25/05/07, Felix Miata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>> On 2007/05/25 15:31 (GMT+1000) Kane Tapping apparently typed:

>> > Setting the body to font size to 65% - 70% is a good start.

>> Actually it's a bad start, arbitrarily assuming that there's something wrong
>> with the user's choice of default, and reducing it by some arbitrary amount,

> The majority of users won't know how to adjust their default browser
> settings though.

That matters not. What matters is:

1-that any do
2-that they are all provided the means to do so (most anyway, since some use
browsers located in public places which have had this ability disabled)
3-that designers not respecting user choice, whether made actively or
passively, means users do not get what they want, and deserve
4-that users are the only ones in good position to do so. The designer is
most assuredly not, since he has no way of knowing any size on a display he
can't see, and isn't using the the eyes of the user.
5-that any deviation a designer makes from 100% is arbitrary, as it's made
from an entirely unknown starting point

100% of the visitor's choice equals respect for the visitor.
-- 
"The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining
ever brighter till the full light of day."  Proverbs 4:18 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] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Stephen Kelly]

On 25/05/07, Stuart Foulstone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Since there are increasingly many different browsers/hardware/OS all of
which will present your design differently, designers "actively styling
pages as they see fit" are not second-guessing users - merely stating
their preference.


Or expressing themselves, or communicating. One text size does not fit all.

And most users don't want to decide for themselves, even if they can.

Stephen
http://www.twoplayer.net


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

Re: [WSG] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Stuart Foulstone]

Hi,

Yes you're absolutely correct - except that "one day" is NOW.

People with certain visual problems do have their own stylesheets to
change fonts/colours to make Webpages accessible to them (and there is no
reason why anyone else could not do so either).

In order to facilitate this you should only use external stylesheets.


Since there are increasingly many different browsers/hardware/OS all of
which will present your design differently, designers "actively styling
pages as they see fit" are not second-guessing users - merely stating
their preference.

Stuart

On Fri, May 25, 2007 9:07 am, Kane Tapping wrote:


> I guess we also shouldnt be second guessing our users choice of font,
> weight, spacing, color ... positioning ?
> And one day all users will view the webpages using their own custom user
> stylesheets... Until that day expect designers to be actively styling
> their pages as they see fit.
>

>
>
> Felix Miata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 25/05/2007 05:15 PM
> Please respond to
> wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
>
>
> To
> wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> cc
>
> Subject
> Re: [WSG] Converting font size from pt to % or em
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2007/05/25 15:31 (GMT+1000) Kane Tapping apparently typed:
>
>> Setting the body to font size to 65% - 70% is a good start.
>
> Actually it's a bad start, arbitrarily assuming that there's something
> wrong
> with the user's choice of default, and reducing it by some arbitrary
> amount,
> even though you don't have a clue what it was to start with. Browser
> default
> sizes are purposely adjustable so that their users can tailor web page
> text
> sizes to suit their own personal needs.
> http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/bigdefaults.html
>
> It's also an excellent definition of disrespect for your site's visitors.
> --
> "The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining
> ever brighter till the full light of day."   Proverbs 4:18 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]
> ***
>
>
>
>
> ***
> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
> Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ***


-- 
Stuart Foulstone.
http://www.bigeasyweb.co.uk
BigEasy Web Design
69 Flockton Court
Rockingham Street
Sheffield
S1 4EB

Tel. 07751 413451


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

Re: [WSG] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Kane Tapping]

Setting the font-size like that is to create a more even base-line size 
across multiple browsers.
http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/box_lesson/font/browser.html

It is not the determining factor on end-user font size. (unless of course 
you never declare the em size for your markup)
 - that is depended on the value of the em declarations used for markup 
and the em declarations used on any container objects.

If you want to complain that 9-11pt text is too small? fine, but you are 
disagreeing with one possible end result, not the body: font-size % 
declaration.

>arbitrarily assuming that there's something wrong with the user's choice 
of default ...
I guess we also shouldnt be second guessing our users choice of font, 
weight, spacing, color ... positioning ?
And one day all users will view the webpages using their own custom user 
stylesheets... Until that day expect designers to be actively styling 
their pages as they see fit.

The point i was trying to make is that you can design your site while also 
allowing scaleability, user preference to impact the design and to also 
ensure your content is usable across a variety of mediums.
- Kane




Felix Miata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
25/05/2007 05:15 PM
Please respond to
wsg@webstandardsgroup.org


To
wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
cc

Subject
Re: [WSG] Converting font size from pt to % or em






On 2007/05/25 15:31 (GMT+1000) Kane Tapping apparently typed:

> Setting the body to font size to 65% - 70% is a good start.

Actually it's a bad start, arbitrarily assuming that there's something 
wrong
with the user's choice of default, and reducing it by some arbitrary 
amount,
even though you don't have a clue what it was to start with. Browser 
default
sizes are purposely adjustable so that their users can tailor web page 
text
sizes to suit their own personal needs.
http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/bigdefaults.html

It's also an excellent definition of disrespect for your site's visitors.
-- 
"The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining
ever brighter till the full light of day."   Proverbs 4:18 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]
***




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

Re: [WSG] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Paul Novitski]

At 5/25/2007 12:15 AM, Felix Miata wrote:

On 2007/05/25 15:31 (GMT+1000) Kane Tapping apparently typed:

> Setting the body to font size to 65% - 70% is a good start.

Actually it's a bad start, arbitrarily assuming that there's something wrong
with the user's choice of default, and reducing it by some arbitrary amount,
even though you don't have a clue what it was to start with.



Isn't that true only if you then use 1em as your base font size?

In my efforts to build zoomable layouts [max-width at window width] 
I've found it convenient to declare a body font-size of 62.5% so 
that, on a PC with a default font size of 16px, 1em = 10px at normal 
zoom.  It makes calculations very easy.  For example, if you begin 
with a content column of 790px, that converts to 79em and becomes 
zoomable.  An image that's 100px wide becomes 10em wide.


In that context, one can make one's base font size 1.6em (16px at 
normal zoom on a PC).  This presents body text at the same size it 
would have been had font-size not been styled, yet at the same time 
makes scaling calculations much easier for the designer.


It seems like a win-win situation.  Can you see a flaw?

Even on Mac monitors running at 96dpi, reducing the text to 62.5% and 
then increasing to 1.6 should bring it back to 100% of the default 
size, whatever that may be.


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] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Stephen Kelly]

On 25/05/07, Felix Miata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 2007/05/25 15:31 (GMT+1000) Kane Tapping apparently typed:

> Setting the body to font size to 65% - 70% is a good start.

Actually it's a bad start, arbitrarily assuming that there's something wrong
with the user's choice of default, and reducing it by some arbitrary amount,


The majority of users won't know how to adjust their default browser
settings though. Providing the changes to text size are being made in
an informed way, are tested and most importantly all of the text can
be resized - then there isn't too much harm in changing the text size.

It's possible to set an absolute size for the body text of some
browsers and a matching relative size for the body text of those
browsers that can't resize absolute text sizes (use some conditional
CSS). If you do that and specify all the text/heading sizes that
follow in ems then you should have few problems with cross browser
consistency.

Stephen
http://www.twoplayer.net


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

Re: [WSG] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[lisa herrod]

nice post nick, that's really interesting, thanks... :)

On 25/05/07, Nick Cowie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


On 25/05/07, Katrina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think you should respect your users' default. Make sure the design
> scales properly when text size is increased, beyond what MIE allows you
> to do.


I disagree a little here, about user defaults. Yes you should respect
them, but not by using 100% or 1em.

1em =  100% = 16px = 16pt (yes 1px = 1pt for the screen) in all  PC based
browsers since 2000 unless changed by the user or PC manufacturer (this is
becoming a little more common with laptops having twice the pixels per inch
or cm that desktop screens).

From experience almost all users do not change the default.

Those that do, tend to push the size up a bit to deal with sites that set
the base pixel size in percentages (usually somewhere between 62 and 76%).
If I as a user want 16px text on sites I visited, I would set my default
size to 20px or 22px.

Due to a bug in an old version of IE most people when choosing to use
scaling fonts is set the body size in percentage and them use ems for all
other font size measurements.

Due to a  rounding error bug in an old old version on Opera some people
tend to push the percentage up by 1%.

I would (and regularly do) decided on my base font size for text in px and
set my body font-size to:

percentages to pixels
56.25% or 57% = 9px or 9pt (way too small IMHO)
62.5% or 63% = 10px
69.75, 70 or 71% = 11px
75 or 76% = 12px
81.25 or 82% = 13px
87.5 or 88% = 14px

Then set
p, ol, ul, li, table, tr, td, a, input {font-size: 1em}
h1 {font-size: 2.5em or whatever}

There is another view that you should set your body font-size to 62.5%then 1em 
= 10px and calculate your sizes from there, ie 12px body text, 18px
h1 is:
p { font-size: 1.2em or 120%;}
h1{font-size: 1.8em or 180%;}
I don't like this method, just in case I nest something or make small
mistake in my css.
ie if p, ol, ul, li, table, tr, td, a, input {font-size: 120%;}
would be 12px inside a paragraph, 14px links, 14px list and 17px links in
a list.

hopes that makes sense too much caffeine and other things for lunch

and if you want to scale your design to your font-size google "elastic
design "




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





--
No, you cannot make your navigation out of turtles that move across the
screen and are only available for forty percent of the day
- Sean Madden


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

Re: [WSG] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Nick Cowie]

On 25/05/07, Katrina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


I think you should respect your users' default. Make sure the design
scales properly when text size is increased, beyond what MIE allows you
to do.



I disagree a little here, about user defaults. Yes you should respect them,
but not by using 100% or 1em.

1em =  100% = 16px = 16pt (yes 1px = 1pt for the screen) in all  PC based
browsers since 2000 unless changed by the user or PC manufacturer (this is
becoming a little more common with laptops having twice the pixels per inch
or cm that desktop screens).


From experience almost all users do not change the default.


Those that do, tend to push the size up a bit to deal with sites that set
the base pixel size in percentages (usually somewhere between 62 and 76%).
If I as a user want 16px text on sites I visited, I would set my default
size to 20px or 22px.

Due to a bug in an old version of IE most people when choosing to use
scaling fonts is set the body size in percentage and them use ems for all
other font size measurements.

Due to a  rounding error bug in an old old version on Opera some people tend
to push the percentage up by 1%.

I would (and regularly do) decided on my base font size for text in px and
set my body font-size to:

percentages to pixels
56.25% or 57% = 9px or 9pt (way too small IMHO)
62.5% or 63% = 10px
69.75, 70 or 71% = 11px
75 or 76% = 12px
81.25 or 82% = 13px
87.5 or 88% = 14px

Then set
p, ol, ul, li, table, tr, td, a, input {font-size: 1em}
h1 {font-size: 2.5em or whatever}

There is another view that you should set your body font-size to 62.5% then
1em = 10px and calculate your sizes from there, ie 12px body text, 18px h1
is:
p { font-size: 1.2em or 120%;}
h1{font-size: 1.8em or 180%;}
I don't like this method, just in case I nest something or make small
mistake in my css.
ie if p, ol, ul, li, table, tr, td, a, input {font-size: 120%;}
would be 12px inside a paragraph, 14px links, 14px list and 17px links in a
list.

hopes that makes sense too much caffeine and other things for lunch

and if you want to scale your design to your font-size google "elastic
design "




--
Nick Cowie
http://nickcowie.com


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

Re: [WSG] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Felix Miata]

On 2007/05/25 15:31 (GMT+1000) Kane Tapping apparently typed:

> Setting the body to font size to 65% - 70% is a good start.

Actually it's a bad start, arbitrarily assuming that there's something wrong
with the user's choice of default, and reducing it by some arbitrary amount,
even though you don't have a clue what it was to start with. Browser default
sizes are purposely adjustable so that their users can tailor web page text
sizes to suit their own personal needs.
http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/bigdefaults.html

It's also an excellent definition of disrespect for your site's visitors.
-- 
"The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining
ever brighter till the full light of day."  Proverbs 4:18 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] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Felix Miata]

On 2007/05/25 15:24 (GMT+0930) Katrina apparently typed:

> Sagnik Dey wrote:

>>  I'm developing a website that have some standards defined. The font size
>> specified is 9pt. But due to accessibility standards I wanted to  convert
>> that in % or em. Can anybody tell what do i need to use to view the same
>> size in different browsers?

> I think you should respect your users' default. Make sure the design 
> scales properly when text size is increased, beyond what MIE allows you 
> to do.

> It is so cliche, but the web is not print. You cannot and should not 
> insist that people see things at the font-size you decree.

To go further, the "size you decree" is only the size you decree sitting in
your chair looking at your screen. You don't know whether that size is
bigger or smaller or the same to your visitor, who may:

1-have a different size display
2-have a different resolution setting
3-sit a different distance from the display than you
4-have better (uncommon) or worse (very common) eyesight than you the designer
5-have other local conditions different from yours that affect suitability
of any particular size

While 9pt always means 9pt when printed, 9pt on a computer screen could mean
anything from 15pt on down below to below 6pt on a computer screen. When a
web author specifies 9pt for screen, I see text that is roughly 41% of the
size I find suitable for my screen use, if I'm not using a browser than
enforces a legible size of my choosing.

> What you can do is set relative sizes for various types of text.

Exactly. Set font-size in body to 100%, then set some smaller size for your
footer, some other smaller size for breadcrumbs, some larger sizes for
various headings, etc., but keep main content text at 100% of the size the
user has selected. See:
http://www.informationarchitects.jp/100e2r?v=4
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html
http://css.nu/articles/font-analogy.html
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/essence.html
http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/accessibility.html
-- 
"The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining
ever brighter till the full light of day."  Proverbs 4:18 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] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Kane Tapping]

Hi ,

Yeah, your never going to get an exact match through the browsers using 
ems, you kind of have to let go of pixel perfect design and aim your 
design as a flexible interpretation of your css. This approach will also 
mean your design will cope with users setting larger (or smaller) text 
sizes in their browser (or you could add this feature into your site 
yourself).

When you start using ems you cannot give and exact height or width for 
your text (it will change across browsers), but you can ensure that there 
is a constant ratio between your elements on all browsers. ie your 's 
are ALWAYS 2x the size of your 's.

Another thing that may crop up is that Firefox has absolute s***house 
rounding when calculating em sizes, so you will need to keep a careful eye 
on any borders that are declared on objects sized with ems. quite often it 
will round the border size to 0, and not display a border :-(

Kind Regards,

Kane Tapping
Web Standards Developer
Web and Content Management Services
Griffith University. 4111. Australia.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: +61 (0)7 3735 7630





"Sagnik Dey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
25/05/2007 04:02 PM
Please respond to
wsg@webstandardsgroup.org


To
wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
cc

Subject
Re: [WSG] Converting font size from pt to % or em






Thnx for the suggestion..but i need to define the font size in the body 
itself

I've defined 75% which works well in IE6..but it appears smaller in 
IE6

-Sagnik


On 5/25/07, Kane Tapping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Hi ,

Setting the body to font size to 65% - 70% is a good start. this averages 
out the differences between the browsers, 

body {font-size: 70%;}

>From then on set your font sizes in ems. 

h1 {font-size: 1.8em;} 

And keep in mind that changes to the em size will cascade through 
container objects. 
Kind Regards,
Kane Tapping
Web Standards Developer
Web and Content Management Services
Griffith University. 4111. Australia.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Phone: +61 (0)7 3735 7630 




"Sagnik Dey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
25/05/2007 03:18 PM 

Please respond to
wsg@webstandardsgroup.org



To
wsg@webstandardsgroup.org 
cc

Subject
[WSG] Converting font size from pt to % or em








Hi Guys,

 I'm developing a website that have some standards defined. The font size 
specified is 9pt. But due to accessibility standards I wanted to  convert 
that in % or em. Can anybody tell what do i need to use to view the same 
size in different browsers? 


-- 
:: Sagnik :: 
***
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]
*** 



-- 
:: Sagnik :: 
***
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] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Katrina]

Sagnik Dey wrote:

Hi Guys,

 I'm developing a website that have some standards defined. The font size
specified is 9pt. But due to accessibility standards I wanted to  convert
that in % or em. Can anybody tell what do i need to use to view the same
size in different browsers?



Gday Sagnik,

I think you should respect your users' default. Make sure the design 
scales properly when text size is increased, beyond what MIE allows you 
to do.


It is so cliche, but the web is not print. You cannot and should not 
insist that people see things at the font-size you decree.


What you can do is set relative sizes for various types of text.

Kat



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

Re: [WSG] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Sagnik Dey]

Thnx for the suggestion..but i need to define the font size in the body
itself

I've defined 75% which works well in IE6..but it appears smaller in IE6

-Sagnik


On 5/25/07, Kane Tapping <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:




Hi ,

Setting the body to font size to 65% - 70% is a good start. this averages
out the differences between the browsers,

body {font-size: 70%;}

From then on set your font sizes in ems.

h1 {font-size: 1.8em;}

And keep in mind that changes to the em size will cascade through
container objects.

Kind Regards,

Kane Tapping
Web Standards Developer
Web and Content Management Services
Griffith University. 4111. Australia.*
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Phone: +61 (0)7 3735 7630





 *"Sagnik Dey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>*
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

25/05/2007 03:18 PM  Please respond to
wsg@webstandardsgroup.org

  To
wsg@webstandardsgroup.org  cc

 Subject
[WSG] Converting font size from pt to % or em






Hi Guys,

 I'm developing a website that have some standards defined. The font size
specified is 9pt. But due to accessibility standards I wanted to  convert
that in % or em. Can anybody tell what do i need to use to view the same
size in different browsers?


--
:: Sagnik ::
***
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]
***





--
:: Sagnik ::


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

Re: [WSG] Converting font size from pt to % or em

[Kane Tapping]

Hi ,

Setting the body to font size to 65% - 70% is a good start. this averages 
out the differences between the browsers,

body {  font-size: 70%;}

>From then on set your font sizes in ems.

h1 {font-size: 1.8em;}

And keep in mind that changes to the em size will cascade through 
container objects.

Kind Regards,

Kane Tapping
Web Standards Developer
Web and Content Management Services
Griffith University. 4111. Australia.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: +61 (0)7 3735 7630





"Sagnik Dey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
25/05/2007 03:18 PM
Please respond to
wsg@webstandardsgroup.org


To
wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
cc

Subject
[WSG] Converting font size from pt to % or em






Hi Guys,

  I'm developing a website that have some standards defined. The font size 
specified is 9pt. But due to accessibility standards I wanted to  convert 
that in % or em. Can anybody tell what do i need to use to view the same 
size in different browsers? 


-- 
:: Sagnik :: 
***
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]
***