david wrote:
> I saw a report mentioned a few years ago saying that (1) the majority of web
> surfing in Japan is done via cell phone, and (2) analysts expect Europe to go
> the same way. Considering that that was a few years ago, Europe may already
> be doing the majority of its web surfing via
Jason Crosse wrote:
> Shark Attack Design wrote:
>> I wonder what proportion of web users ever bother to adjust the default text
>> size of their browser(s)? The preset default size is generally 16 (I think
>> Safari is different?) although I'm not sure what the units are for that
>> default --
Please don't top post!
Susan Grossman wrote:
> As an FYI - I sent out a survey at my last position to state workers who
> used computers for specific tasks and personal use and this was one of the
> questions. Out of 67 responses back, no one had ever changed the default
> font size or their defa
As an FYI - I sent out a survey at my last position to state workers who
used computers for specific tasks and personal use and this was one of the
questions. Out of 67 responses back, no one had ever changed the default
font size or their default resolution. A very small study, but
interesting.
Shark Attack Design wrote:
> I wonder what proportion of web users ever bother to adjust the default text
> size of their browser(s)? The preset default size is generally 16 (I think
> Safari is different?) although I'm not sure what the units are for that
> default -- pixels? Points?
It's been
trevor bayliss wrote:
> Hi David and all,
>Sorry I put up the wrong link
> http://216.219.94.105/indextest.cfm
>
> I am playing around with all the great pointers I have been given.
> There seem to be a lot fo different opinions on this one so I will
> always be doing it wrong in somebody´s
Hi David and all,
Sorry I put up the wrong link
http://216.219.94.105/indextest.cfm
I am playing around with all the great pointers I have been given. There seem
to be a lot fo different opinions on this one so I will always be doing it
wrong in somebody´s eyes I suppose!
Re-writi
From: trevor bayliss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> However, even though I have avoided ems in my present code it seems
> impossible to get IE to resize text. I know that IE has a bug but I was told
> it would work with anything other than px. Here´s the offending css and a
> link to the page http://21
trevor bayliss wrote:
> Thanks a lot for all your replies what a large topic but essential to
> understand. I have been playing around with various percentages, medium, em
> for sizes and I am still on the case and before I rewrite the design
> again,settling at present for 100% for body text. H
Thanks a lot for all your replies what a large topic but essential to
understand. I have been playing around with various percentages, medium, em for
sizes and I am still on the case and before I rewrite the design again,settling
at present for 100% for body text. However, even though I have avo
On 6/21/07, Shark Attack Design <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I wonder what proportion of web users ever bother to adjust the default
> text size of their browser(s)? The preset default size is generally 16
> (I think Safari is different?) although I'm not sure what the units are
> for that defaul
I wonder what proportion of web users ever bother to adjust the default
text size of their browser(s)? The preset default size is generally 16
(I think Safari is different?) although I'm not sure what the units are
for that default -- pixels? Points?
I think that most people, if they were browsing
On 2007/06/21 13:00 (GMT-0400) Brian Crescimanno apparently typed:
> That's a lot of great information arguing in favor of allowing for
> complete user control over text size and I'll be the first to say that
> I love the concept. However, the difficulty comes in reconciling that
> desire with th
> complete user control over text size
> Example: I have a fixed width design
mutually exclusive parameters. if the width is fixed, at some point I
can enlarge the text enough to break it.
it's about balance - *how much* can they enlarge it before it breaks? is
it really 'broken' or just not t
On 6/21/07, David Laakso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Let's see what you've got. Provide a uri to your example.
> Best,
> ~dL
Oh, I'm speaking in a purely academic sense here based on my
experience of layouts that don't really account for text resizing (as
an aside, I am not a designer, I work o
Brian Crescimanno wrote:
> That's a lot of great information arguing in favor of allowing for
> complete user control over text size and I'll be the first to say that
> I love the concept. However, the difficulty comes in reconciling that
> desire with the design at hand.
>
> Example: I have a fix
That's a lot of great information arguing in favor of allowing for
complete user control over text size and I'll be the first to say that
I love the concept. However, the difficulty comes in reconciling that
desire with the design at hand.
Example: I have a fixed width design that is 760px wide a
On 2007/06/20 12:09 (GMT-0700) trevor bayliss apparently typed:
> The text breaks up the page when I increase it´s size.
> On the body part of the css at the moment it is font 11px -what should I
> change it to some percent value?
Yes. Do:
> body {... font: /*11px <- mousetype on high resolut
On 2007/06/20 17:07 (GMT-0400) Rick Faircloth apparently typed:
> What establishes the baseline size of 100% ?
This is a web browser setting.
> Do all browsers use the same baseline size?
They mostly used to be close, and still are, but less so than in the past. The
reasons for the divergence
Thanks for the info, Rob!
Rick
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert O'Rourke
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 5:51 PM
To: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org
Subject: Re: [css-d] Best way for text when enlarged
There is a good argumen
lf Of Luc
> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 4:03 PM
> To: trevor on css-discuss
> Subject: Re: [css-d] Best way for text when enlarged
>
> Good afternoon trevor,
> It was foretold that on 20/6/2007 @ 12:09:17 GMT-0700 (PDT) (which was
> 16:09:17 where I live) trevor bayliss
Thanks Luc!
Luc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Good afternoon trevor,
It was foretold that on 20/6/2007 @ 12:09:17 GMT-0700 (PDT) (which was
16:09:17 where I live) trevor bayliss would write:
> On the body part of the css at the moment it is font 11px -what
> should I change it to some percent va
-discuss
Subject: Re: [css-d] Best way for text when enlarged
Good afternoon trevor,
It was foretold that on 20/6/2007 @ 12:09:17 GMT-0700 (PDT) (which was
16:09:17 where I live) trevor bayliss would write:
> On the body part of the css at the moment it is font 11px -what
> should I
Good afternoon trevor,
It was foretold that on 20/6/2007 @ 12:09:17 GMT-0700 (PDT) (which was
16:09:17 where I live) trevor bayliss would write:
> On the body part of the css at the moment it is font 11px -what
> should I change it to some percent value?
I use a minimum of 76%.
--
Best
Hi all,
The text breaks up the page when I increase it´s size.
On the body part of the css at the moment it is font 11px -what should I change
it to some percent value?
Thanks for any pointers
body {padding-right: 0px; padding-left: 0px; background: #ff repeat-x 50%
top; padding-bottom:
25 matches
Mail list logo