Re: [css-d] request: a thorough going over

On Aug 29, 2009, at 11:57 AM, Michael Venables wrote: > Was that a tyop, or are you saying that either Apple or Mozilla are > including the M$ web fonts? The MS fonts have been installed by default on OS X since forever [1]. First as part of IE 5.2 on 10.0~10.1, which was then the default br

Re: [css-d] request: a thorough going over

On 2009/08/28 19:57 (GMT-0700) Michael Venables composed: > On 8/28/2009 3:26 PM, Felix Miata wrote: >> I did a fresh Tiger install last week, and immediately updated to 10.4.11. I >> installed no other software except for SeaMonkey 1.1.7& Firefox 3.5.2. This >> left me with 100% of the M$ web f

Re: [css-d] request: a thorough going over

On 8/28/2009 3:26 PM, Felix Miata wrote: >> Now that I think about it, I don't really know what the font situation >> on Mac OS is, either. Should probably do a bit of looking into that. >> > I did a fresh Tiger install last week, and immediately updated to 10.4.11. I > installed no other sof

Re: [css-d] request: a thorough going over

On 2009/08/28 08:22 (GMT-0700) Michael Venables composed: > Felix Miata wrote: >> Installing the Windows fonts isn't much help. You don't see what Linux users >> without them see. > True, but the standard suggestion for the better part of a decade (at > least) was to install the Windows web fon

Re: [css-d] request: a thorough going over

Felix, Sorry it took so long to reply. I had mail client problems yesterday. On 8/26/2009 10:54 AM, Felix Miata wrote: >> Ah, yes -- Linux... I have to admit, I cheated here, and this was a good >> reminder. I've got a Linux box, and I do a lot of work on it. >> Unfortunately, font support on L

Re: [css-d] request: a thorough going over

David Hucklesby wrote: > FWIW - I work at a computer training lab that has workstations with 19" > monitors, natively running at 1280 x 1024. I have noticed several > students switching to 800 x 600 over the last year. I don't think this > is necessarily age-related, either, as students doing this

Re: [css-d] request: a thorough going over

David Laakso wrote: >>> 6/ Gray on gray is sometimes difficult for some users to read. Have >>> you checked your site with a color contrast analyzer? >> No, I haven't. This is the first I've heard of such a creature. I'll >> look into them. > > > FWIW, here's one... >

Re: [css-d] request: a thorough going over

On 8/25/2009 9:20 PM, David Laakso wrote: > Generally you're doing alright. She's relatively consistent > cross-browser. IE 6/7 on a cursory glance go along with your program. > Same for IE/8. Opera, Safari, SeaMonkey, and FF. > > On a more specific level, just some random thoughts that you may,

Re: [css-d] request: a thorough going over

David Laakso wrote: > Michael Venables wrote: > > > RE: > > Michael, > > My comments below have little if anything to do with CSS. They are > personal opinion... take them as such, and do with them as will... > [...] > > >>> 2/ Check your site in a 640 x 480, 800 x

Re: [css-d] request: a thorough going over

On 8/25/2009 9:20 PM, David Laakso wrote: > Generally you're doing alright. She's relatively consistent > cross-browser. IE 6/7 on a cursory glance go along with your program. > Same for IE/8. Opera, Safari, SeaMonkey, and FF. > > On a more specific level, just some random thoughts that you may, /o

Re: [css-d] request: a thorough going over

On 2009/08/26 08:52 (GMT-0700) Michael Venables composed: > david wrote: >> Looked at it in FF3 on Linux. The serif font against the background >> had me squinting until I kicked the font size up a couple of steps >> (the strokes of the letters are thin, the color contrast between the >> thin

Re: [css-d] request: a thorough going over

On 8/26/2009 9:22 AM, David Laakso wrote: > My comments below have little if anything to do with CSS. They are > personal opinion... take them as such, and do with them as will... > Understood. Please don't feel like I don't appreciate them. I'm purely self-taught, and there's a lot that I can

Re: [css-d] request: a thorough going over

>>> 1/ I think you'll want to use an xhtml 1.0 strict, or an html 4.01 >>> strict doctype. Someone else can tell why xhtml 1.1 is not such a >>> good idea. >> If it has to do with the issue of serving the correct MIME type (i.e. >> "application/xhtml+xml" vs. "text/html"), I think I've got tha

Re: [css-d] request: a thorough going over

Michael Venables wrote: RE: Michael, My comments below have little if anything to do with CSS. They are personal opinion... take them as such, and do with them as will... > On 8/25/2009 9:20 PM, David Laakso wrote: >> >> 1/ I think you'll want to use an xhtml 1.0 s

Re: [css-d] request: a thorough going over

On 8/26/2009 1:30 AM, david wrote: > Nice, cool color selection. Almost made me wish for a bright color > somewhere! I know what you mean about the absence of bright colors. I wrestle with that issue, but never really seem to come up with a solution that I like. Since I'm not a graphic designer,

Re: [css-d] request: a thorough going over

Michael Venables wrote: > I've been working on a CSS3 / XHTML 1.1 Strict redesign of my site for > awhile. Due to circumstances at my host, I had to push it over to the > new server sooner than I'd intended. I was hoping to get some feedback > if anyone has time to kick the tires on the site. At