On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Mario Theodorou wrote:
Try using font-size:0.8em this is a better method for font-size
accessibility
Which will be too small for me (and many other people) to read comfortably.
-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.o
Hi Nick,
- Original Message -
From: "Nick Fitzsimons"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: [WSG] font size - was [ Accessible websites]
Different fonts have different sized letter forms; _of course_ they
look different. Look up x-height
<http://en.
Try using font-size:0.8em this is a better method for font-size
accessibility
-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] On
Behalf Of designer
Sent: 07 July 2009 12:20
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: [WSG] font size - was [ Accessibl
2009/7/7 designer :
> I've been reading (and trying to learn from) the discussions on
> accessibility and particularly font size. I have never had any success at
> using ways other than pixels. When I read:
>
> http://informationarchitects.jp/100e2r/?v=4
>
> I agreed with the author that the text s
Hi,
check the link you will find the soln :)
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Safari-Font-Rendering-Scares-Windows-Users-57815.shtml
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2007/06/12.html
regards,
- hariharan k -
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Rimantas Liubertas wrote:
> > I've been reading (and t
> I've been reading (and trying to learn from) the discussions on
> accessibility and particularly font size. I have never had any success at
> using ways other than pixels.
<…>
> So, whilst the idea of text at 100% sounds reasonable, I always get a mixed
> bag of results. I feel as a designer(sugg
To err is human - typos happen :-) but this is yet another example
where running the W3C validator on the page would have immediately
identified the cause of what looked like a "CSS display issue".
You are SO right, Hassan -it is usually the first thing I do when I have
a problem - I can only bl
Hi Aaron,
I'm more than happy to supply a CSS menu tutorial for a standard or
drop down menu.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Aaron Wheeler
Sent: 25 October 2008 18:57
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] Font
Hi all my name is Aaron and I own the new site cssboard.co.uk I am writing
to you all today to see if anyone could help me out with 3 minutes of their
time. I am startinga new magazine (FREE) called Css& Design it is a magazine
designed at reaching the designers of the web world who loved and will
Lynette Smith wrote:
Won't guarantee this is the source of your woes, but on the Operations page,
the OPERATIONS isn't closed.
Yes - how embarrassing! Can't believe I did that!
To err is human - typos happen :-) but this is yet another example
where running the W3C validator on the page woul
Hi Elizabeth.
Won't guarantee this is the source of your woes, but on the Operations page,
the OPERATIONS isn't closed.
Yes - how embarrassing! Can't believe I did that!
Another couple of minor points - I'd
suggest adjusting the line spacing on your s - in Firefox they look
crowded by compari
Hi Lyn
Won't guarantee this is the source of your woes, but on the Operations page,
the OPERATIONS isn't closed. Another couple of minor points - I'd
suggest adjusting the line spacing on your s - in Firefox they look
crowded by comparison with the para above; I'd also suggest using spaced
endashe
Thanks Johan - stupid of me!
Lyn
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Because all the paragraphs are wrapped into a h2
OPERATION
The network has an executive committee who have been meeting monthly
since 1996. This committee discusses and acts on
EWAN busin
The after OPERATION hasn't been closed.
Cheers,
Johan
PS. I don't think this is a Support mailing li
On 12/3/07, Philippe Wittenbergh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If, in laymans terms, font-size-adjust allows you to specify the
> > font-size based on the x-height of a preferred font-family, how is a
> > rendering engine supposed to deal with this if said font is missing?
My thinking was way off
On Dec 3, 2007, at 6:05 AM, Terrence Wood wrote:
If, in laymans terms, font-size-adjust allows you to specify the
font-size based on the x-height of a preferred font-family, how is a
rendering engine supposed to deal with this if said font is missing?
Font-size-adjust works based on the first
Thanks for your replies everyone.
My target would be Firefox, Safari, IE, Opera. This seems to have
worked in the past on those browsers. It has worked fine for me in the
past.
Kepler, I tried adding it inline to the body tag, still can't get it
to work. Tony, I tried getting rid of the minimum
Paul Collins wrote:
The font stays slightly larger than 11px, when
I set it to 1.1em. this has worked fine on other sites, so not sure
why it isn't working here. Any ideas?
check that you haven't set a minimum font size in your browser preferences.
;)
On 2 Jul 2007, at 3:10 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
Paul Collins apparently typed:
I seem to be having trouble assigning the font-size:62.5%
Please note that...
Toldja.
N
___
omnivision. websight.
http://www.omnivision.com.au/
On 2007/07/01 23:40 (GMT+0100) Paul Collins apparently typed:
> I seem to be having trouble assigning the font-size:62.5%
Please note that if and when you do get it fixed to your liking, it
won't be to the liking of normal web users[1], particularly those who
employ a Gecko minimum font size, or
Jermayn Parker wrote:
personally I have always had trouble with percentages and hence only
use em's
Maybe if you switch over to all em's it may help.
There's been frequent discussions here in the past on this topic - and
the consensus is that ems are good *once* you've set a size on the body
> I seem to be having trouble assigning the font-size:62.5%; property to
> the body of my document. Basically, it doesn't seem to be working and
> I can't figure out why. The font stays slightly larger than 11px, when
> I set it to 1.1em. this has worked fine on other sites, so not sure
> why it is
personally I have always had trouble with percentages and hence only use
em's
Maybe if you switch over to all em's it may help.
On 7/2/07, Paul Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi all,
I seem to be having trouble assigning the font-size:62.5%; property to
the body of my document. Basically
2006
2:38 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Font size menu
Cheers Ted!
Even as I read ;-)
What are the browser issues with ol's? I would go and research but I gotta get
this project out the door by Friday :-o
As an unordered list would it not loose meaning especially if I signfy
know others do.
You can then use CSS to define the look of
those letters
ted
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darren West
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2006
2:38 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Font size menu
Cheers Ted!
Even as I
Cheers Ted!Even as I read ;-)What are the browser issues with ol's? I would go and research but I gotta get this project out the door by Friday :-oAs an unordered list would it not loose meaning especially if I signfy the choices visually using the same letter A? I could always use for the current
Why an ordered list?
Regardless of semantic purposes, you may
come across some cross-browser compatibility issues if you are doing any kind
of image replacement or background images. I would go with an unordered list as
you don’t need to go to the smallest size before getting to the medium
On Aug 26, 2005, at 5:12 PM, Lea de Groot wrote:
I didn't write the rule under scorn, the original thread follows this
reply.
I'm not a fan of inline styling or piling up values. I've worked
with stylesheets since "Designing Killer Websites" by Dave Siegel;
having quickly embraced the n
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 05:53:20 -0700, Chris Kennon wrote:
>
> Some text
>
> More text
>
> Some text
>
Generally I tend to think its 'bad typography' to have different sizes
all over the page.
In the rare case where this was what I actually wanted to achieve, I
would set
mall and xx-small are the same size because they will not go beyond
the 9px mark when using keywords.
Buddy
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Patrick Lauke
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 11:05 AM
> To: wsg@webstanda
Jeff wrote:
> I have tested this on my local machine (a PC running Windows XP
> Professional). I have looked at it in 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x720, 1280x1024
> and 1600x1200 and I find no difference. I am using IE 6.0.2 and Firefox
> 1.0.6 for testing and this page dispalys exactly the same i
> Tom Livingston
> So, using keywords, what happens when a user sets his/her
> browser pref. to
> 'small', and an author specifies 'medium'? Is the users text
> size changed?
A user doesn't choose between small/medium/large as their preference.
They'd set what size they want their 'medium' to
Tom Livingston wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:40:55 -0400, Felix Miata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My browser preference is set to "midway between extremes", which is
> > exactly the right size (not too big and not too small) when pages use
> > medium/100%/1em (or do not size at all) normal
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:40:55 -0400, Felix Miata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My browser preference is set to "midway between extremes", which is
exactly the right size (not too big and not too small) when pages use
medium/100%/1em (or do not size at all) normal paragraph text.
So, using keywords
Tom Livingston wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:22:33 -0400, Felix Miata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > properly preferenced medium
> according to who/what?
According to what you failed to quote from what I wrote:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=medium shows the
appl
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:22:33 -0400, Felix Miata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
properly preferenced medium
according to who/what?
--
Tom Livingston
Senior Multimedia Artist
Media Logic
www.mlinc.com
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
***
wendy wrote:
> After reading a well-known css author's statement in his brand-new book
> that keywords worked best for him, I just went the keyword way
> (including the Tan hack for Windows/IE) using "small" as the base font,
> with all the rest specified in %. (http://www.birchhillaccommodations.
Hi,
An experiment revealed this recursive down slide.
C
On Aug 25, 2005, at 5:38 PM, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Chris Kennon wrote:
div#something *{
font-size: 0.9em;
}
That's the quickest way of producing an ever decreasing cascade of
font sizes for every level of nesting you have with
Hi,
So would is this the solution to the original problem:
Some text
More text
Some text
or an aside?
C
On Aug 25, 2005, at 5:43 PM, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Geoff Deering wrote:
I'm just wondering how people handle the IE text resizing problem,
where IE hand
After reading a well-known css author's statement in his brand-new book
that keywords worked best for him, I just went the keyword way
(including the Tan hack for Windows/IE) using "small" as the base font,
with all the rest specified in %. (http://www.birchhillaccommodations.com/)
Got comment
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Geoff Deering wrote:
I'm just wondering how people handle the IE text resizing problem,
where IE handles percentages much more accurately than em?
You can safely use ems as long as your "highest" font size is
something else, like %.
For instance, as long as you hav
Geoff Deering wrote:
I'm just wondering how people handle the IE text resizing problem, where
IE handles percentages much more accurately than em?
You can safely use ems as long as your "highest" font size is something
else, like %.
For instance, as long as you have something like
html { fo
Chris Kennon wrote:
div#something *{
font-size: 0.9em;
}
That's the quickest way of producing an ever decreasing cascade of font
sizes for every level of nesting you have within div#something...so not
really.
--
Patrick H. Lauke
__
r
Lea de Groot wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 14:51:00 -0700, Janelle Clemens wrote:
If you are using em with font-size is there is a way to clear the font-size
of a box element (stop the inheritance)?
No, not really.
I normally get around this by only setting font-size in two places, as
a
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 14:51:00 -0700, Janelle Clemens wrote:
> If you are using em with font-size is there is a way to clear the font-size
> of a box element (stop the inheritance)?
No, not really.
I normally get around this by only setting font-size in two places, as
a general rule (which always h
I don't believe you can stop the inheritance. You should try using the
keywords which are relative to the users font-size setting. Xx-small
x-small small etc... Otherwise you might can try mixing and matching
percentages with ems? I have not tried it but maybe something like:
Some text
Hi,
Maybe something like:
div#something *{
font-size: 0.9em;
}
On Aug 25, 2005, at 2:51 PM, Janelle Clemens wrote:
If you are using em with font-size is there is a way to clear the
font-size
of a box element (stop the inheritance)?I am having a hard time
explaining myself so maybe
Janelle Clemens wrote:
> Oh, another quick question. Is it better to use % for line-height versus
> pixel?Like I said I am used to using set sizes (pt & px) for everything.
> This css is such a learning/breaking bad habits adventure.
Actually the best answer should be neither, but due to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The following is my current set of rules for allowing visitors to zoom text:
body
{margin: 0;
padding: 0;
font-size: 76%;
background: #6A6A8F;}
#container
{width: 100%;
font: normal 1em/14pt verdana, arial, sans-serif;
text-align: justify;
background: #fff;}
Any advice
Mario,
/* use percentile on html to prevent IE from seemingly using a logrimthic increase and decrease
in font size when scaling (IE
Bug) and use 100.1% to prevent a bug in Opera, and then set your font
sizes in em's after that. Declare Body and Table Font size together to
compensate for
MAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Brian Cummiskey
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 2:25 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Font Size Re-sizing
Janelle Clemens wrote:
Can you explain what the slash in your example is (body {font:
> x-small/130% Veranda, Arial, san-serif;}).Is this a
, August 16, 2005 2:25 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Font Size Re-sizing
Janelle Clemens wrote:
Can you explain what the slash in your example is (body {font:
> x-small/130% Veranda, Arial, san-serif;}).Is this a browser hack?
130% in this case is the line height. i
om: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Darren
> Wood
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 1:55 PM
> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
> Subject: Re: [WSG] Font Size Re-sizing
>
> I know there are a lot of old school designers out there (and when I say
> designer I m
EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Janelle Clemens
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 2:15 PM
To: 'wsg@webstandardsgroup.org'
Subject: RE: [WSG] Font Size Re-sizing
We are in the middle of redesigning our company's website and after using pt
for so long ems have bee
Janelle Clemens wrote:
Can you explain what the slash in your example is (body {font:
x-small/130% Veranda, Arial, san-serif;}).Is this a browser hack?
130% in this case is the line height. it's short hand for:
body {
font-family: verdana, sans-serif;
font-size: x-small;
line-height: 13
(body {font:
x-small/130% Veranda, Arial, san-serif;}).Is this a browser hack?
Thanks,
Janelle
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Darren Wood
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 1:55 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Font Si
I know there are a lot of old school designers out there (and when I
say designer I mean those people who spend their hours in photoshop
and NOT doing the markup) who still insist that font-sizes be in point
size. That is simply not practical in the web-space (as, I'm sure you
know)...generally I
On 4/7/05 2:42 PM, "russ - maxdesign" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hope could just have easily changed from an incomplete HTML4.01 Transitional
> doctype to a complete version. This is not a criticism of Hope, as she may
> have had other reasons for moving to XHML.
This was not a conscience nor e
Paul,
To switch to standards compliant mode, you must have a full and complete
doctype but it does NOT have to be XHTML at all.
Hope could just have easily changed from an incomplete HTML4.01 Transitional
doctype to a complete version. This is not a criticism of Hope, as she may
have had other rea
PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Hope Stewart
Sent: Monday, 4 July 2005 1:54 PM
To: Web Standards Group
Subject: Re: [WSG] font size in a table
On 4/7/05 1:23 PM, "Webmaster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This was bugging me for ages too. I don't know _why_ it does it but my
> workaround
On 4/7/05 1:23 PM, "Webmaster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This was bugging me for ages too. I don't know _why_ it does it but my
> workaround to-date has simply been to implicitly set font-size for p, td and
> li. My table and list text usually display larger when I only set the
> font-size in t
On 7/4/05, Webmaster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Hope,
>
> This was bugging me for ages too. I don't know _why_ it does it but my
> workaround to-date has simply been to implicitly set font-size for p, td and
> li. My table and list text usually display larger when I only set the
> font-size i
Hi Hope,
This was bugging me for ages too. I don't know _why_ it does it but my
workaround to-date has simply been to implicitly set font-size for p, td and
li. My table and list text usually display larger when I only set the
font-size in the body element.
I've asked this question before but is
Thanks, Russ! I've fixed the doctype on the real page and it works
beautifully now.
The page is on a site with a non-web standards design that I've "inherited".
It's due for a revamp in a couple of months when I plan to introduce
standards. I thought I'd start to experiment with this new page but
You have an incomplete doctype which makes browsers go into quicks mode and
then font size inheritance is ignored inside a table.
Russ
> I created a simple webpage containing a few paragraphs, a list and a table
> (for tabular data). For some reason that I cannot for the life of me work
> out, t
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
* from what I remember, Opera has some rounding problems when
calculating font sizes that make it display text just a shade smaller
than other browsers; this is the reason for the additional 1 percent,
resulting in 101% (I think even 100.1% would do the trick, not sure.
>
>> .body {font: 100%; }
>
> You probably mean body {...} without the full stop in front
> Unless you have a class called .body
Yes :)
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelin
>
>> .body {font: 100%; }
>
> You probably mean body {...} without the full stop in front
I meant YES for this.
tee
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hi
> .body {font: 100%; }
You probably mean body {...} without the full stop in front
Unless you have a class called .body
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hi
> * IE has a problem resizing font sizes properly if the topmost size is
> set in ems, but has no trouble with percentages. Setting the body in %
> (or even the HTML element itself) will fix this problem. You can set
> your base size to 100%, and then safely use ems for anything below that;
Hi Pat
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 21:41:02 -0400, Patrick H. Lauke
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Cole Kuryakin - x7m wrote:
So, what's the deal? is it better/safer to user 101% vs 1em to set the
initial font sizing for maximum cross browser compatiblility, or is
this just a matter of style and preference?
Cole Kuryakin - x7m wrote:
So, what's the deal? is it better/safer to user 101% vs 1em to set the
initial font sizing for maximum cross browser compatiblility, or is this
just a matter of style and preference?
Two things:
* IE has a problem resizing font sizes properly if the topmost size is
personally I always use the default font sized provided by css...if I
need it bigger then I use em values. here's an example:
body {
font: small Arial, sans-serif;
}
p { 1em; }
h1 {2em; }
h2 {1.8em; }
etc...
That way you know that the font will _always_ be readable. Even if
you start off wit
regarding the balance between type readability and aesthetics in general and
with this site.
I think that large blocks of text should be comfortable to read for everyone
maybe at the expense of aesthetics, but in this case its only small amounts
of type that can be read quickly and wont cause disc
Maybe it's just a coincidence, but I was validating a web page today and
the validators
'tip of the day' was Care With Font Size.
http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/font-size
There are some interesting, and surprisingly relevant comments in it.
John.
=
Felix.
A thread closed by a core member is not to be opened again. Period!
The topic has been exhausted.
If you have fresh information on the topic after a thread has been closed,
send it directly to the person and not to the list.
Peter
**
Terrence Wood wrote on Fri, 19 Nov 2004 00:50:17 +1300:
> People get off making this assumption because 10-12pt type is the most
> common font size used in the print world,
Web pages aren't printed on fixed size paper. Browser viewports are for
all practical purposes infinitely adjustable in si
Lothar B. Baier wrote on Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:47:16 +0100:
> But is it my fault, that dell or hp ore other produce laptops, which
> screensize and screen resolution are set to a default which makes it
> impossible to read a text easy?
One size cannot fit all. With defaults come a means to change
Michael Wilson wrote on Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:07:43 -0500:
> For example, the page you provided earlier
> (http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/defaultsize.html) is a prime example
> of how the author simultaneously champions and ignores the importance of
> the user's preferences. To my eyes, the pag
designer wrote on Thu, 18 Nov 2004 18:28:45 -:
> When you buy wallpaper, how on earth do you manage to change the default
> size of the pattern?
I don't. If I don't like it, I don't buy it.
> Also, when you buy someone a coffee table book, say, of
> great art works, do you buy them seven cop
Javier wrote on Wed, 17 Nov 2004 10:25:51 +0100:
> I'm trying to develope a site with proportional font size.
> When I start to test what I did, I falled in problems with Firefox/IE
> differences. Fonts that in Firefox appears big or normal in IE appear so
> small. Then I tried to check other s
Lothar B. Baier wrote on Thu, 18 Nov 2004 21:06:50 +0100:
> Somebody buys a laptop with a 14 inch screen and puts it 1400 by 1050
> pixel screenresolution. Then he complains, that all of the text ist to
> small to read. That reminds me of the man, who choose a two-seated
> spider car because he l
Terrence Wood wrote on Fri, 19 Nov 2004 12:04:19 +1300:
> I also note that Felix has not stepped up to the plate to support any of
> his opinions with research based results despite demanding (and getting)
> the same from the ``designer's side'' of the debate.
Your Fri, 19 Nov 2004 00:50:17 +130
Natalie Buxton wrote at Fri, 19 Nov 2004 08:58:25 +1100:
> Selectively quoting and removing the key point I made misrepresents
> what I said in my earlier email:
I normally quote only portions relevant to comments I make.
> I believe that the best the designer can do is ensure their fonts are
Henry Tapia wrote:
Points about allowing the user as much text size control as possible are
well made and I agree, however I don't think I'd have a job as a designer if
I relied upon the average user to change their browser's default text-size
manually. In my several years working on the web, an
On 11/19/04 4:02 AM "Brett Walsh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent this out:
> Here here.
Make that "hear, hear" and you're on! :-)
Best,
Rick Faaberg
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/g
Here here. Bout 30 emails wasting everyones time.
More about standards less about egos!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of russ - maxdesign
Sent: Friday, 19 November 2004 9:21 PM
To: Web Standards Group
Subject: Re: [WSG] Font size ADMIN
THREAD CLOSED
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
**
Javier wrote:
> Now, I'm a web developer that don't want to fall in
> the "tirany" you described. What should I do to be a
> better developer with the user in mine ? Do you have a
> solution or recommendation ?
Start by understanding that the web is a fluid medium, and exactly what
that means.
Jeroen Visser [ vizi ] wrote:
> I go with Owen Briggs, who relates browser
> default size to general OS GUI elements' font size.
Briggs' work is a disaster for web users. Here's my long-ago written
rebuttal: http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/defaultsize.html#note1
--
"Congress shall make no la
as a user prior to
that, I've never witnessed that behaviour, even amongst savvy users
(text-zooming yes, adjusting browser default text-size, no).
hank
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, N
here's some reading you might find useful:
The Dao of Web Design
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/dao/
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting t
also look here: http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/box_lesson/font/
On 2004-11-19 1:02 PM, Ben Curtis wrote:
This has been an interesting, if heated, thread. I think a large part of
it revolves around being unable to measure people's default font size.
The "arrogance" vs. "idealist" porti
Actually, Felix has some interesting studies on his site about font
size, pixel, resolution relationships:
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/
And I couldn't agree more with you about stuff we design today probably
not working tomorrowbut y'know, thankfully seperating content and
presentati
hardware designers to not set the default resolution
of a screen to what is technicaly possible but to just something, which
is compatible with human eyesight.
What size, a pixel?
Engineers have created full-color screens, 400 pixels square, which are
smaller than a dime. Certainly setting a moni
> But is it my fault, that dell or hp ore other produce laptops, which
> screensize and screen resolution are set to a default which makes it
> impossible to read a text easy? Is it my fault, that the designers of
> browsers after about 10 years of webstandards are not able to produce
> browser
rom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Lothar B. Baier
Sent: Friday, 19 November 2004 8:47 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WSG] Font size and arrogance
Hi!
Patrick and Andreas, you both are right on one hand. But on the other
one it's not so simple. My goal is surel
One comment...
> which can be use by everybody
As long as you do that - there wont be any problems.
If the user is an idiot - and they configure their machine in a stupid
way - that's no-one's fault except the user.
Gary
**
The discussion
Absolutely Natalie.
I also note that Felix has not stepped up to the plate to support any of
his opinions with research based results despite demanding (and getting)
the same from the ``designer's side'' of the debate.
Pointing to bug fixes for mozilla doesn't cut it as research. I think if
som
Selectively quoting and removing the key point I made misrepresents
what I said in my earlier email:
"There is nothing arrogant about wanting my design translated as close
as possible across all platforms, for all visitors. There is only
arrogance where the designer (or worse still, the client who
1 - 100 of 184 matches
Mail list logo
