Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
Peter Firminger wrote: [verdana] It won't ever bother the users that hate the font so much they remove it from their system. That's their choice. On the contrary. Because authors using Verdana as primary size according to their own taste for the giant font, when people without it see the fallback, whatever that may be, it is a virtual certainty that whatever replaces it will be smaller. Have you not read http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html? -- Surely God would not have created such a being as man to exist only a day! No, no, man was made for immortality. President Abraham Lincoln Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
So you're saying we should all just use black default font on white pages then? Not going to happen! It's a pathetic argument Felix. Really not worth bothering with. Peter On the contrary. Because authors using Verdana as primary size according to their own taste for the giant font, when people without it see the fallback, whatever that may be, it is a virtual certainty that whatever replaces it will be smaller. Have you not read http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html? * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
When you make both height and width 76.1% of the default, the result is
less than 58% of the original.
But in the end, it seems to me the user gets the same font size as if 'body
{font-size: 100%;}, given that all the other font-sizes are set above 1em
for regular paragraphs and above 0.9em for footnotes, for instance.
Can you see the test at:
http://cb2web.com/tests/testing.shtml ?
I have tested it in Opera 7.23, IE6 and Firebird and, IMO, the fonts within
the div76 (blue box) and div100 (red box) containers look the same at text
size medium (or 100%) and in fact, for the div76 container, the normal
paragraph is more readable at the largest setting in IE6 and the p.note is
still readable at smallest.
What do you think?
The stylesheet is something like:
#div76 {
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 76.1%;
...
}
#div76 p{
font-size: 1.1em;
}
#div76 p.note{
font-size: 0.94em;
}
#div100 {
font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: 100%;
...
}
#div100 p{
font-size: 0.8em;
}
#div100 p.note{
font-size: 0.7em;
}
#div76 p.smaller , #div100 p.smaller{
font-size: smaller;
}
Carlos
- Original Message -
From: Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 3:20 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
Cb2 Web Design wrote:
I tend to agree with such suggestion: applying a percentage in the body
and
then work with the remaining sizes in ems.
I have done that in here:
http://www.excellentsite.org/
Do you think font size is to small?
It certainly starts out that way. With 'body {font-size: 76.1%;}' what
you are saying is this:
I don't have any way to know what size your default is, or whether it
bears any relationship to what you like or need, so whatever that size
happens to be, 12px or 18px or 28px or anything else, I'm making it more
than 42% smaller than your browser preference.
In case you're wondering where the 42% comes from, it's because your
rule on its face is a height, but implicitly also applies to the width.
When you make both height and width 76.1% of the default, the result is
less than 58% of the original.
--
Surely God would not have created such a being as man to exist only
a day! No, no, man was made for immortality.
President Abraham Lincoln
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/
$0 Bannerless Web Hosting, 10 POP and Web Email Accounts, more
Get It Now At www.doteasy.com
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
When you make both height and width 76.1% of the default, the result is
less than 58% of the original.
But in the end, it seems to me the user gets the same font size as if
'body
{font-size: 100%;}, given that all the other font-sizes are set above 1em
for regular paragraphs and above 0.9em for footnotes, for instance.
Can you see the test at:
http://cb2web.com/tests/testing.shtml ?
The blue box's fonts size correctly (using IE 6 here at work). The red
box, the small font is larger than the middle font.
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've decided to stick with Verdana (_) The world shall have Verdana. Heaven forbid any mere mortal user gets to see the default he selected. If you visit www.cabotconsultants.com.au It'd be nice if people would provided a URL, something *everyone* could click on to reach your page. www.blablabla.com is NOT a URL. URLs begin ftp:// or http:// or irc:// or any of a few other prefixes ending in ://. If you select the contents of the urlbar and copy its contents into your email, you are pretty well guaranteed against typos as well. ;-) I've also been sure not to use any pt or px font sizes so if need be, the viewer can change the font size with the browser setting. Anyways, please give me feedback if you find my font/size/css to cause you any problems. This thread has caused me to do some updates and additions to my site that at least in part amount to additional feedback: http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/defaultsize.html http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/fonts-face-index.html http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/font-comps-pt.html http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/font-comps-px.html -- Surely God would not have created such a being as man to exist only a day! No, no, man was made for immortality. President Abraham Lincoln Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
This is my list of cross platform fonts (Mac PC). It may not be in line with most, ...but what to he!! -chuck Arial 'Arial Black' 'Comic Sans MS' 'Courier New' Georgia Helvetica Hobo Impact Stencil Symbol 'Times New Roman' 'Trebuchet MS' Verdana Webdings = On Tuesday, March 23, 2004, at 10:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wow I wasn't aware of this! thanks for the link. Just out of curiosity... would you know the percentage of pcs without verdana? I mean, is it on mac etc? I like the font so much(_) would it be worth converting to arial? for the sake of i dunno 5%??? and even if they don;t have verdana, although the backup font will be arial, all they'll need to do is change their browser font size the next setting up. What are your thoughts? Darian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've tested the webpage on 3 differnet monitor on anything from 800X600 up. I've also tested it in Netscape, IE, Opera and FireFox. I noticed the Gecko browsers did display the font fairly small. If you are on windoze and seeing Gecko at default 16px rendering these sizes smaller than IE, then you are using either IE5 or IE4, or you are using IE6 in quirks mode, which renders the same as IE4 IE5 (these only have quirks mode regardless of doctype). In standards mode, IE6 matches Gecko, as long as you are using the standard 96 DPI windoze small fonts system setting. Gecko is not impacted by changing the windoze system font size/DPI, while IE is, which makes everything in relative sizes larger, as that's why one chooses something other than small fonts as the system setting. I chose Verdana as it is very clean for both print and display. More about Verdana: http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html -- Surely God would not have created such a being as man to exist only a day! No, no, man was made for immortality. President Abraham Lincoln Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
www.cabotconsultants.com.au is fine as a web addy I think. If there is
not 'http://', 'ftp://', or whatever one usually assumes http but you
don't need to type it.
The small attachment should show the difference. You come here asking
for help. Don't make it harder than necessary for those who wish to help
you. Most of the time, when someone posting here can't be bothered to
make the link clickable, I can't be bothered to cut and paste in order
to visit that URL.
If for some reason you don't get the attachment, here is the U R L :
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/images/URLorNOT.png
Now I get to the point. VERDANA is my preferred font for the website!!!
Ok shoot me, flame me, or suggest a million other sites to dissagree but
I've tested my site fairly well and even *without* verdana supported.
Everything was fine, so I'm using it. I understand that you've obviously
visited one too many font offending sites Felix, but as far as I can tell,
I'm not an offender.
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/fonts-face-index.html
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/font-comps-pt.html
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/font-comps-px.html
The U R L s above were intended in part to show that
body {font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;}
falls short of getting you the you the imposing results you're after.
Assuming you are compelled to impose on any visitor some font other than
the default the visitor has selected for himself, you might as well do a
good job of it and make the fallback font one the CLOSELY RESEMBLES your
primary font. Arial and Helvetica AIN'T that font. There's a font in
those URL's that is practically a twin to Verdana that is popular on
systems that don't have Verdana. Can you see which one that is?
--
Surely God would not have created such a being as man to exist only
a day! No, no, man was made for immortality.
President Abraham Lincoln
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/
inline: URLorNOT.png
Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
I've looked at these links earlier and my point was *phew* here we go
AGAIN...
Verdana is POPULAR! Most people have that. Arial is probably more popular,
so that is next in line as a backup. I understand that they are different
fonts, and I also understand that there are fonts that closer resemble
verdana, but are they as popular as verdana? I dare to say that if the
viewer doesn't have verdana, they won't have these other similar fonts
either... Maybe they do? But I'm gonna live life on the 'typography' edge,
so don't try this at home kids :P
Afterall they are only fonts. I know that comment may offend you but I
have been careful to selelct legible and clear fonts.
Thanks for your concern, but I'm quite happy how the wesite functions.
Regards,
Darian Cabot
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Software Engineer - Website Design
http://www.cabotconsultants.com.au
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
PS: Ok that was the last post on that thread. I promise! (_)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
www.cabotconsultants.com.au is fine as a web addy I think. If there is
not 'http://', 'ftp://', or whatever one usually assumes http but you
don't need to type it.
The small attachment should show the difference. You come here asking
for help. Don't make it harder than necessary for those who wish to help
you. Most of the time, when someone posting here can't be bothered to
make the link clickable, I can't be bothered to cut and paste in order
to visit that URL.
If for some reason you don't get the attachment, here is the U R L :
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/images/URLorNOT.png
Now I get to the point. VERDANA is my preferred font for the website!!!
Ok shoot me, flame me, or suggest a million other sites to dissagree but
I've tested my site fairly well and even *without* verdana supported.
Everything was fine, so I'm using it. I understand that you've
obviously
visited one too many font offending sites Felix, but as far as I can
tell,
I'm not an offender.
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/fonts-face-index.html
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/font-comps-pt.html
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/font-comps-px.html
The U R L s above were intended in part to show that
body {font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;}
falls short of getting you the you the imposing results you're after.
Assuming you are compelled to impose on any visitor some font other than
the default the visitor has selected for himself, you might as well do a
good job of it and make the fallback font one the CLOSELY RESEMBLES your
primary font. Arial and Helvetica AIN'T that font. There's a font in
those URL's that is practically a twin to Verdana that is popular on
systems that don't have Verdana. Can you see which one that is?
--
Surely God would not have created such a being as man to exist only
a day! No, no, man was made for immortality.
President Abraham Lincoln
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
I thought this thread was closed by Russ??
Guys, if you do want to keep fighting a never ending argument, please
take it off the list.
Thanks
Original Message
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 12:48:37 +1000 (EST)
I've looked at these links earlier and my point was *phew* here we go
AGAIN...
Verdana is POPULAR! Most people have that. Arial is probably more
popular,
so that is next in line as a backup. I understand that they are
different
fonts, and I also understand that there are fonts that closer
resemble
verdana, but are they as popular as verdana? I dare to say that if
the
viewer doesn't have verdana, they won't have these other similar
fonts
either... Maybe they do? But I'm gonna live life on the 'typography'
edge,
so don't try this at home kids :P
Afterall they are only fonts. I know that comment may offend you but
I
have been careful to selelct legible and clear fonts.
Thanks for your concern, but I'm quite happy how the wesite
functions.
Regards,
Darian Cabot
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Software Engineer - Website Design
http://www.cabotconsultants.com.au
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
PS: Ok that was the last post on that thread. I promise! (_)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
www.cabotconsultants.com.au is fine as a web addy I think. If
there is
not 'http://', 'ftp://', or whatever one usually assumes http but
you
don't need to type it.
The small attachment should show the difference. You come here
asking
for help. Don't make it harder than necessary for those who wish to
help
you. Most of the time, when someone posting here can't be bothered
to
make the link clickable, I can't be bothered to cut and paste in
order
to visit that URL.
If for some reason you don't get the attachment, here is the U R L
:
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/images/URLorNOT.png
Now I get to the point. VERDANA is my preferred font for the
website!!!
Ok shoot me, flame me, or suggest a million other sites to
dissagree but
I've tested my site fairly well and even *without* verdana
supported.
Everything was fine, so I'm using it. I understand that you've
obviously
visited one too many font offending sites Felix, but as far as I
can
tell,
I'm not an offender.
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/fonts-face-index.html
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/font-comps-pt.html
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/font-comps-px.html
The U R L s above were intended in part to show that
body {font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;}
falls short of getting you the you the imposing results you're
after.
Assuming you are compelled to impose on any visitor some font other
than
the default the visitor has selected for himself, you might as well
do a
good job of it and make the fallback font one the CLOSELY RESEMBLES
your
primary font. Arial and Helvetica AIN'T that font. There's a font
in
those URL's that is practically a twin to Verdana that is popular
on
systems that don't have Verdana. Can you see which one that is?
--
Surely God would not have created such a being as man to exist
only
a day! No, no, man was made for immortality.
President Abraham Lincoln
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
Regards,
David McDonald
Web Designer
http://www.davidmcdonald.org
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
On Tuesday 23 March 2004 09:08, Neerav wrote:
2. I'd be happy with +- 25%
I tend to agree - I'm a fan of the
p, .etc
{
font-size: 0.75em;
line-height 1.5;
}
... combination. It's roomy and easy to read, especially when used in
conjunction with Georgia or Verdana.
While relative sizing allows for text zooming (Ctrl+ / Ctrl-), it ultimately
runs the risk of having a font that appears too small in the user's browser
(i.e. if their default font size is already small).
In this case, educating the user about text zooming is your best bet. Perhaps
pre-empt her complaint by having the explaination as an accessibility
side-note on the site itself. Check with your client first though. ;)
--
_/\/¯¯\/\_.
(w) www.quirk.co.za
(e) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(h) +27 (0)86 11 021 33
(t) +27 (0)21 462 7353
(f) +27 (0)21 462 7354
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
On Tuesday 23 March 2004 15:55, Lorenzo Gabba | Quirk wrote:
I tend to agree - I'm a fan of the
p, .etc
{
font-size: 0.75em;
line-height 1.5;
}
I forgot to mention that it's probably a good idea (from a usability POV) to
declare:
body {font-size: 100%;} /* user defined default size */
... and relate the rest from there.
- Lorenzo
--
_/\/¯¯\/\_.
(w) www.quirk.co.za
(e) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(h) +27 (0)86 11 021 33
(t) +27 (0)21 462 7353
(f) +27 (0)21 462 7354
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
Font size is a hotly debated topic. At one extreme of the font size debate
are accessibility purists who believe that web designers and developers
should not touch default font size at all [1],[2], and at the other extreme
you have the pixel-perfect web designers setting absolute pixel sizes on
content so that the layout looks exactly how they want it.
So, is there are middle ground between absolute font sizing and no resizing
at all? I reckon the answer (and happy to be persuaded otherwise), is
relative font sizing.
If developers choose, for whatever reason, to change font sizes, they should
use relative measurements (em, %) rather than absolute measurements (pt, cm,
px):
3.4 Use relative rather than absolute units in markup language attribute
values and style sheet property values. For example, in CSS, use 'em' or
percentage lengths rather than 'pt' or 'cm', which are absolute units.
http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/
The main reason (as mentioned) is Win/IE. If a user tries to increase their
browser font size, all relative font sizes would increase, but absolute font
sizes would not.
One way to reduce the overall font size using relative measurements is:
body { font-size: 90%; }
Theoretically, this should reduce the users browsers default font sizes
slightly while still allowing the user flexibility. It does not matter if
the users browser is set to 16px or 36px as the 90% reduction is relative to
this figure - 90% x 16px or 90% x 36px.
Without trying to complicate this, the reduction is really 81% (90% of the
height x 90% of the width = 81% of default size) - more here [3]. However,
the actual figure is irrelevant to most developers, as all they are trying
to do is to SLIGHTLY visually reduce overall font size. This method leaves
most of the control in the hands of the user.
It is also important if using this method that standards compliant mode is
used, otherwise this rule will be ignored inside table and form elements in
some browsers.
What do accessibility experts think of this method? Like any developer, they
all have their opinion... I ask Roger Hudson, a Sydney based accessibility
expert, about this 90% solution and he said:
From an absolutely purists perspective this could be seen as arrogance
(taking some degree of control from the user), but as it is only a small
reduction in size, it is not a major barrier to most users. When it is done
in pixels or reduced dramatically, then it is an issue. He then went on to
say there are far greater accessibility and usability barriers, such as
radically changing default link behaviour (especially for cognitive
impaired) or using images for text on key navigation items (for vision
impaired).
All just personal opinion. Agree? Disagree? Better methods?
Russ
[1] http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/defaultsize.html
[2] http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20020819.html
[3] http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/area80.html
these things? What do people prefer to do at the moment? I only ask
because time and again when I go to a page and say hey, I really like
the text on this page and then see that it is set using pixels or
points and doesn't change in size when you increase the text size in
IEWin.
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
Maxine Sherrin wrote: Have just started major site overhaul at www.westciv.com ... 1. I want people to be able to read the text on my page, but I also want it to look stylish and not bulky You don't know whether it looks bulky to me until you look at my PC display. If it looks bulky to you, then your browser default text size is too big. 2. What degree of increase in text size must my layout be able to cope with? I know some designs can cope with any increase, eg http://webstandardsgroup.org/ http://www.westciv.com/ Fonts on both are too small, and neither have a css signature for regular visitors to use to override by default. If you use a 100% base to start with, you dispense with the need for your page to be complicated by yet another zoom feature. In most cases, the visitor's browser already has one they don't need to relearn for your page, which they don't need when you use 100%. How acceptable is it to fix the font size in navbars?, as is done here http://www.beforethedog.com/ Awful. How are high resulution display users supposed to use that? http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/ss/beforethedog.png (1600x1200) Do you see the problems here? 1-smaller than the urlbar text; 2-low contrast -- Surely God would not have created such a being as man to exist only a day! No, no, man was made for immortality. President Abraham Lincoln Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
Russ So, is there are middle ground between absolute font sizing and no resizing at all? I reckon the answer (and happy to be persuaded otherwise), is relative font sizing. And I'd take Russ' advise one step further by adding that relative positioning and sizing for the layout also would be better for accessibility in font size and designing layout structure. If the design's layout expands or contracts relative to the user's font bowser settings, it's the best of both worlds. Leo * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
On a website I've recently developed (www.cabotconsultants.com.au) I opted
for this...
p.body {
font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: x-small;
color: #036;
margin-left: 18px;
margin-right: 18px;
line-height: 2;
}
I found it's clean and clear. Just wondering... What is the difference of
using the percentage font-size as opposed to the preset medium, small,
x-small, etc sizes? Are these 'preset' sizes still relative to the body
user defined font size?
Cheers
Darian
On Tuesday 23 March 2004 15:55, Lorenzo Gabba | Quirk wrote:
I tend to agree - I'm a fan of the
p, .etc
{
font-size: 0.75em;
line-height 1.5;
}
I forgot to mention that it's probably a good idea (from a usability POV)
to
declare:
body {font-size: 100%;} /* user defined default size */
... and relate the rest from there.
- Lorenzo
--
_/\/¯¯\/\_.
(w) www.quirk.co.za
(e) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(h) +27 (0)86 11 021 33
(t) +27 (0)21 462 7353
(f) +27 (0)21 462 7354
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
as always when in doubt ask Russ :-)
http://www.maxdesign.com.au/presentation/relative/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On a website I've recently developed (www.cabotconsultants.com.au) I opted
for this...
p.body {
font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: x-small;
color: #036;
margin-left: 18px;
margin-right: 18px;
line-height: 2;
}
I found it's clean and clear. Just wondering... What is the difference of
using the percentage font-size as opposed to the preset medium, small,
x-small, etc sizes? Are these 'preset' sizes still relative to the body
user defined font size?
Cheers
Darian
On Tuesday 23 March 2004 15:55, Lorenzo Gabba | Quirk wrote:
I tend to agree - I'm a fan of the
p, .etc
{
font-size: 0.75em;
line-height 1.5;
}
I forgot to mention that it's probably a good idea (from a usability POV)
to
declare:
body {font-size: 100%;} /* user defined default size */
... and relate the rest from there.
- Lorenzo
--
_/\/¯¯\/\_.
(w) www.quirk.co.za
(e) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(h) +27 (0)86 11 021 33
(t) +27 (0)21 462 7353
(f) +27 (0)21 462 7354
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
--
Neerav Bhatt
http://www.bhatt.id.au
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
a!! thank you, didn't see this article
as always when in doubt ask Russ :-)
http://www.maxdesign.com.au/presentation/relative/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On a website I've recently developed (www.cabotconsultants.com.au) I
opted
for this...
p.body {
font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: x-small;
color: #036;
margin-left: 18px;
margin-right: 18px;
line-height: 2;
}
I found it's clean and clear. Just wondering... What is the difference
of
using the percentage font-size as opposed to the preset medium, small,
x-small, etc sizes? Are these 'preset' sizes still relative to the body
user defined font size?
Cheers
Darian
On Tuesday 23 March 2004 15:55, Lorenzo Gabba | Quirk wrote:
I tend to agree - I'm a fan of the
p, .etc
{
font-size: 0.75em;
line-height 1.5;
}
I forgot to mention that it's probably a good idea (from a usability
POV)
to
declare:
body {font-size: 100%;} /* user defined default size */
... and relate the rest from there.
- Lorenzo
--
_/\/¯¯\/\_.
(w) www.quirk.co.za
(e) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(h) +27 (0)86 11 021 33
(t) +27 (0)21 462 7353
(f) +27 (0)21 462 7354
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
--
Neerav Bhatt
http://www.bhatt.id.au
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
RE: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
Should you have classes with the same name as html tags? ie class body?
How I see it being a problem for a coder, is if you have; body { blah blah } and then
.body { blah blah } it could get confusing.
You may not need the body class, because you could assume all p tags follow the same
rules within body-content
So you could have a rule in the css saying .body-content p { blah blah }
Then you could save having to add the extra class='body' to each p tag within that
section.
The same would go with images, if they are all going to behave the same way within the
body-content section.
Zeldman calls this 'classitis', he makes the point that you should let CSS do the work
without having all the extra classes.
Cool sketch idea for the images, I like that effect. Did you scan them in?
Tim Hill
Computer Associates
Graphic Artist
tel: +612 9937 0792
fax: +612 9937 0546
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 24 March 2004 10:39 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
On a website I've recently developed (www.cabotconsultants.com.au) I opted for this...
p.body {
font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: x-small;
color: #036;
margin-left: 18px;
margin-right: 18px;
line-height: 2;
}
I found it's clean and clear. Just wondering... What is the difference of using the
percentage font-size as opposed to the preset medium, small, x-small, etc sizes? Are
these 'preset' sizes still relative to the body user defined font size?
Cheers
Darian
On Tuesday 23 March 2004 15:55, Lorenzo Gabba | Quirk wrote:
I tend to agree - I'm a fan of the
p, .etc
{
font-size: 0.75em;
line-height 1.5;
}
I forgot to mention that it's probably a good idea (from a usability
POV) to
declare:
body {font-size: 100%;} /* user defined default size */
... and relate the rest from there.
- Lorenzo
--
_/\/¯¯\/\_.
(w) www.quirk.co.za
(e) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(h) +27 (0)86 11 021 33
(t) +27 (0)21 462 7353
(f) +27 (0)21 462 7354
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See
http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See
http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
Well... I'm new to this and it took me a long time to get that website w3c
xhmtl strict compliant!!! *phew*
I know the CSS leaves a lot to be desired. I'm in the process now of
rewriting it. I'll use a percentage on the body as suggested... and...
then I use percentage on p and h1, h2, etc? OR if I then leave it as
medium, x-small, etc, will these be reduced by by the body font percentage
also?
I think the general idea is %s. Just, so many ways to do it (_)
Thanks,
Darian...newby (_)
The x-small and others are refered to as absolute-size keywords
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/fonts.html#font-size-props
However, x-small will vary from browser to browser (sometimes quite
different) as you can see here:
http://www.browsercam.com/public.aspx?proj_id=53764
This may not be an issue. But in my opinion, if you must reduce font
sizes,
applying a percentage on the body will achieve a far more consistent
result
across browsers.
Again, it should be stressed that this is just my opinion. There are lots
of
differing opinions out there!
Russ
On a website I've recently developed (www.cabotconsultants.com.au) I
opted
for this...
p.body {
font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: x-small;
color: #036;
margin-left: 18px;
margin-right: 18px;
line-height: 2;
}
I found it's clean and clear. Just wondering... What is the difference
of
using the percentage font-size as opposed to the preset medium, small,
x-small, etc sizes? Are these 'preset' sizes still relative to the body
user defined font size?
Cheers
Darian
On Tuesday 23 March 2004 15:55, Lorenzo Gabba | Quirk wrote:
I tend to agree - I'm a fan of the
p, .etc
{
font-size: 0.75em;
line-height 1.5;
}
I forgot to mention that it's probably a good idea (from a usability
POV)
to
declare:
body {font-size: 100%;} /* user defined default size */
... and relate the rest from there.
- Lorenzo
--
_/\/¯¯\/\_.
(w) www.quirk.co.za
(e) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(h) +27 (0)86 11 021 33
(t) +27 (0)21 462 7353
(f) +27 (0)21 462 7354
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
Thanks
Russ
---
Russ Weakley
Max Design
Phone: (02) 9410 2521
Mobile: 0403 433 980
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.maxdesign.com.au
---
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
RE: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
Thanks for the tip! I'm actually rewriting the CSS now (^_^; I'll keep
that in mind when classing.
I drew the images in Paint Shop Pro 7. I used a couple of light base
colours and a darker line tool. Then I saved them as gif (5 colour
palette?) so they are a nice small size.
Thanks for the suggestions
Darian
Should you have classes with the same name as html tags? ie class body?
How I see it being a problem for a coder, is if you have; body { blah blah
} and then .body { blah blah } it could get confusing.
You may not need the body class, because you could assume all p tags
follow the same rules within body-content
So you could have a rule in the css saying .body-content p { blah blah }
Then you could save having to add the extra class='body' to each p tag
within that section.
The same would go with images, if they are all going to behave the same
way within the body-content section.
Zeldman calls this 'classitis', he makes the point that you should let CSS
do the work without having all the extra classes.
Cool sketch idea for the images, I like that effect. Did you scan them in?
Tim Hill
Computer Associates
Graphic Artist
tel: +612 9937 0792
fax: +612 9937 0546
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 24 March 2004 10:39 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
On a website I've recently developed (www.cabotconsultants.com.au) I opted
for this...
p.body {
font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: x-small;
color: #036;
margin-left: 18px;
margin-right: 18px;
line-height: 2;
}
I found it's clean and clear. Just wondering... What is the difference of
using the percentage font-size as opposed to the preset medium, small,
x-small, etc sizes? Are these 'preset' sizes still relative to the body
user defined font size?
Cheers
Darian
On Tuesday 23 March 2004 15:55, Lorenzo Gabba | Quirk wrote:
I tend to agree - I'm a fan of the
p, .etc
{
font-size: 0.75em;
line-height 1.5;
}
I forgot to mention that it's probably a good idea (from a usability
POV) to
declare:
body {font-size: 100%;} /* user defined default size */
... and relate the rest from there.
- Lorenzo
--
_/\/¯¯\/\_.
(w) www.quirk.co.za
(e) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(h) +27 (0)86 11 021 33
(t) +27 (0)21 462 7353
(f) +27 (0)21 462 7354
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See
http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See
http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On a website I've recently developed (www.cabotconsultants.com.au) I opted
for this...
p.body {
font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: x-small;
line-height: 2;
}
I found it's clean and clear.
Is your monitor huge, or your resolution very low? The most common
meaning of x-small is 10px
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/absolute-sizes-MvE.html. That's
much too small for average or worse eyes for normal body/paragraph text
on normal or higher resolution on common display sizes. It's only 1px
above the minimum size a full font set can be rendered, at regardless
how good your eyes or what your own settings are. The problem is even
worse for those who don't have Verdana installed, as it's the second
largest common font size around (AFAKI, only Bitstream Vera Sans is
larger, and it isn't all that commonly installed yet), designed
precisely to look good at small sizes.
Just wondering... What is the difference of
using the percentage font-size as opposed to the preset medium, small,
x-small, etc sizes? Are these 'preset' sizes still relative to the body
user defined font size?
Once difference is that the keywords are not subject to inheritance
cascade, but at least they can be resized by the user even in IE. The
wiki has more to say: http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=UsingFontSize
--
Surely God would not have created such a being as man to exist only
a day! No, no, man was made for immortality.
President Abraham Lincoln
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
RE: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
Wow thanks!
My printer is now working overtime with these articles :P
I can't believe the great response I've got from WSG! I found it last
night, and so far it's helped me more than anything.
- Darian
Hi Darian
This article might answer your questions
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/sizematters/
Cheers
Jeff Lowder
Accessibility 1st
Website: www.accessibility1st.com.au
Blog: www.accessibility1st.com.au/journal/
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 24 March 2004 10:39 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
On a website I've recently developed (www.cabotconsultants.com.au) I
opted
for this...
p.body {
font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: x-small;
color: #036;
margin-left: 18px;
margin-right: 18px;
line-height: 2;
}
I found it's clean and clear. Just wondering... What is the difference
of
using the percentage font-size as opposed to the preset medium, small,
x-small, etc sizes? Are these 'preset' sizes still relative to the body
user defined font size?
Cheers
Darian
On Tuesday 23 March 2004 15:55, Lorenzo Gabba | Quirk wrote:
I tend to agree - I'm a fan of the
p, .etc
{
font-size: 0.75em;
line-height 1.5;
}
I forgot to mention that it's probably a good idea (from a usability
POV)
to
declare:
body {font-size: 100%;} /* user defined default size */
... and relate the rest from there.
- Lorenzo
--
_/\/¯¯\/\_.
(w) www.quirk.co.za
(e) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(h) +27 (0)86 11 021 33
(t) +27 (0)21 462 7353
(f) +27 (0)21 462 7354
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
Thanks for the feed back!
I've tested the webpage on 3 differnet monitor on anything from 800X600 up.
I've also tested it in Netscape, IE, Opera and FireFox. I noticed the
Gecko browsers did display the font fairly small. I chose Verdana as it is
very clean for both print and display. I also included it in a font
family, so if a viewer hasn't got verdana installed, they will display
arial (PC), hevetica(Apple?), or finally san-serif(Lowest common
denominator :P). (^_^)
As I am rewriting the CSS for the website, my main focas is font size. I'm
currently reading suggested articles and as soon as I have a remedied CSS
I'll be sure to let you know (^^
Thanks again, this feedback is very helpful
Darian
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On a website I've recently developed (www.cabotconsultants.com.au) I
opted
for this...
p.body {
font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: x-small;
line-height: 2;
}
I found it's clean and clear.
Is your monitor huge, or your resolution very low? The most common
meaning of x-small is 10px
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/absolute-sizes-MvE.html. That's
much too small for average or worse eyes for normal body/paragraph text
on normal or higher resolution on common display sizes. It's only 1px
above the minimum size a full font set can be rendered, at regardless
how good your eyes or what your own settings are. The problem is even
worse for those who don't have Verdana installed, as it's the second
largest common font size around (AFAKI, only Bitstream Vera Sans is
larger, and it isn't all that commonly installed yet), designed
precisely to look good at small sizes.
Just wondering... What is the difference of
using the percentage font-size as opposed to the preset medium, small,
x-small, etc sizes? Are these 'preset' sizes still relative to the body
user defined font size?
Once difference is that the keywords are not subject to inheritance
cascade, but at least they can be resized by the user even in IE. The
wiki has more to say: http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=UsingFontSize
--
Surely God would not have created such a being as man to exist only
a day! No, no, man was made for immortality.
President Abraham Lincoln
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
You could also use css to generate specific qualities for say print using
the @media
This allows for you to target say the printer and specify a formatting for
printing your pages instead of relying on browsers default settings which
may not be printer friendly. You can set margins, specific printing fonts
and so forth with this.
http://www.w3schools.com/css/css_mediatypes.asp
I hope this link to w3schools is of help.
Steven Clark
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 19:36:13 -0500 (EST)
Thanks for the feed back!
I've tested the webpage on 3 differnet monitor on anything from 800X600 up.
I've also tested it in Netscape, IE, Opera and FireFox. I noticed the
Gecko browsers did display the font fairly small. I chose Verdana as it is
very clean for both print and display. I also included it in a font
family, so if a viewer hasn't got verdana installed, they will display
arial (PC), hevetica(Apple?), or finally san-serif(Lowest common
denominator :P). (^_^)
As I am rewriting the CSS for the website, my main focas is font size. I'm
currently reading suggested articles and as soon as I have a remedied CSS
I'll be sure to let you know (^^
Thanks again, this feedback is very helpful
Darian
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On a website I've recently developed (www.cabotconsultants.com.au) I
opted
for this...
p.body {
font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: x-small;
line-height: 2;
}
I found it's clean and clear.
Is your monitor huge, or your resolution very low? The most common
meaning of x-small is 10px
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/absolute-sizes-MvE.html. That's
much too small for average or worse eyes for normal body/paragraph text
on normal or higher resolution on common display sizes. It's only 1px
above the minimum size a full font set can be rendered, at regardless
how good your eyes or what your own settings are. The problem is even
worse for those who don't have Verdana installed, as it's the second
largest common font size around (AFAKI, only Bitstream Vera Sans is
larger, and it isn't all that commonly installed yet), designed
precisely to look good at small sizes.
Just wondering... What is the difference of
using the percentage font-size as opposed to the preset medium, small,
x-small, etc sizes? Are these 'preset' sizes still relative to the
body
user defined font size?
Once difference is that the keywords are not subject to inheritance
cascade, but at least they can be resized by the user even in IE. The
wiki has more to say: http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=UsingFontSize
--
Surely God would not have created such a being as man to exist only
a day! No, no, man was made for immortality.
President Abraham Lincoln
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
_
Find love today with ninemsn personals. Click here:
http://ninemsn.match.com
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
I tend to agree with such suggestion: applying a percentage in the body and then work with the remaining sizes in ems. I have done that in here: http://www.excellentsite.org/ Do you think font size is to small? Carlos - Original Message - From: russ weakley [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Web Standards Group [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 12:15 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough? The x-small and others are refered to as absolute-size keywords http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/fonts.html#font-size-props However, x-small will vary from browser to browser (sometimes quite different) as you can see here: http://www.browsercam.com/public.aspx?proj_id=53764 This may not be an issue. But in my opinion, if you must reduce font sizes, applying a percentage on the body will achieve a far more consistent result across browsers. Again, it should be stressed that this is just my opinion. There are lots of differing opinions out there! Russ $0 Bannerless Web Hosting, 10 POP and Web Email Accounts, more Get It Now At www.doteasy.com * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've tested the webpage on 3 differnet monitor on anything from 800X600 up. I've also tested it in Netscape, IE, Opera and FireFox. I noticed the Gecko browsers did display the font fairly small. If you are on windoze and seeing Gecko at default 16px rendering these sizes smaller than IE, then you are using either IE5 or IE4, or you are using IE6 in quirks mode, which renders the same as IE4 IE5 (these only have quirks mode regardless of doctype). In standards mode, IE6 matches Gecko, as long as you are using the standard 96 DPI windoze small fonts system setting. Gecko is not impacted by changing the windoze system font size/DPI, while IE is, which makes everything in relative sizes larger, as that's why one chooses something other than small fonts as the system setting. I chose Verdana as it is very clean for both print and display. More about Verdana: http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html -- Surely God would not have created such a being as man to exist only a day! No, no, man was made for immortality. President Abraham Lincoln Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
Thanks! I used this method and have uploaded the new style sheets to
www.cabotconsultants.com.au The new CSSs should make the font size nice
(^_^) I used percentages so they size well and easily on all browsers.
Thanks for all the help and if you find something else wrong don;t
hesitate to tell me :P
Darian
You could also use css to generate specific qualities for say print using
the @media
This allows for you to target say the printer and specify a formatting for
printing your pages instead of relying on browsers default settings which
may not be printer friendly. You can set margins, specific printing fonts
and so forth with this.
http://www.w3schools.com/css/css_mediatypes.asp
I hope this link to w3schools is of help.
Steven Clark
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 19:36:13 -0500 (EST)
Thanks for the feed back!
I've tested the webpage on 3 differnet monitor on anything from 800X600
up.
I've also tested it in Netscape, IE, Opera and FireFox. I noticed the
Gecko browsers did display the font fairly small. I chose Verdana as it
is
very clean for both print and display. I also included it in a font
family, so if a viewer hasn't got verdana installed, they will display
arial (PC), hevetica(Apple?), or finally san-serif(Lowest common
denominator :P). (^_^)
As I am rewriting the CSS for the website, my main focas is font size.
I'm
currently reading suggested articles and as soon as I have a remedied CSS
I'll be sure to let you know (^^
Thanks again, this feedback is very helpful
Darian
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On a website I've recently developed (www.cabotconsultants.com.au) I
opted
for this...
p.body {
font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;
font-size: x-small;
line-height: 2;
}
I found it's clean and clear.
Is your monitor huge, or your resolution very low? The most common
meaning of x-small is 10px
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/absolute-sizes-MvE.html. That's
much too small for average or worse eyes for normal body/paragraph
text
on normal or higher resolution on common display sizes. It's only 1px
above the minimum size a full font set can be rendered, at regardless
how good your eyes or what your own settings are. The problem is even
worse for those who don't have Verdana installed, as it's the second
largest common font size around (AFAKI, only Bitstream Vera Sans is
larger, and it isn't all that commonly installed yet), designed
precisely to look good at small sizes.
Just wondering... What is the difference of
using the percentage font-size as opposed to the preset medium,
small,
x-small, etc sizes? Are these 'preset' sizes still relative to the
body
user defined font size?
Once difference is that the keywords are not subject to inheritance
cascade, but at least they can be resized by the user even in IE. The
wiki has more to say:
http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=UsingFontSize
--
Surely God would not have created such a being as man to exist only
a day! No, no, man was made for immortality.
President Abraham Lincoln
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
_
Find love today with ninemsn personals. Click here:
http://ninemsn.match.com
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
your font size is fine, not too small.
Steven Clark
From: Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 22:20:52 -0500
Cb2 Web Design wrote:
I tend to agree with such suggestion: applying a percentage in the body
and
then work with the remaining sizes in ems.
I have done that in here:
http://www.excellentsite.org/
Do you think font size is to small?
It certainly starts out that way. With 'body {font-size: 76.1%;}' what
you are saying is this:
I don't have any way to know what size your default is, or whether it
bears any relationship to what you like or need, so whatever that size
happens to be, 12px or 18px or 28px or anything else, I'm making it more
than 42% smaller than your browser preference.
In case you're wondering where the 42% comes from, it's because your
rule on its face is a height, but implicitly also applies to the width.
When you make both height and width 76.1% of the default, the result is
less than 58% of the original.
--
Surely God would not have created such a being as man to exist only
a day! No, no, man was made for immortality.
President Abraham Lincoln
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
_
SEEK: Now with over 50,000 dream jobs! Click here:
http://ninemsn.seek.com.au?hotmail
*
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
*
Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
Wow I wasn't aware of this! thanks for the link. Just out of curiosity... would you know the percentage of pcs without verdana? I mean, is it on mac etc? I like the font so much(_) would it be worth converting to arial? for the sake of i dunno 5%??? and even if they don;t have verdana, although the backup font will be arial, all they'll need to do is change their browser font size the next setting up. What are your thoughts? Darian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've tested the webpage on 3 differnet monitor on anything from 800X600 up. I've also tested it in Netscape, IE, Opera and FireFox. I noticed the Gecko browsers did display the font fairly small. If you are on windoze and seeing Gecko at default 16px rendering these sizes smaller than IE, then you are using either IE5 or IE4, or you are using IE6 in quirks mode, which renders the same as IE4 IE5 (these only have quirks mode regardless of doctype). In standards mode, IE6 matches Gecko, as long as you are using the standard 96 DPI windoze small fonts system setting. Gecko is not impacted by changing the windoze system font size/DPI, while IE is, which makes everything in relative sizes larger, as that's why one chooses something other than small fonts as the system setting. I chose Verdana as it is very clean for both print and display. More about Verdana: http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html -- Surely God would not have created such a being as man to exist only a day! No, no, man was made for immortality. President Abraham Lincoln Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wow I wasn't aware of this! thanks for the link. Just out of curiosity... would you know the percentage of pcs without verdana? I mean, is it on mac etc? I like the font so much(_) Any time Verdana is actually set to a size big enough to read, it's large relative x-height makes it among the ugliest common fonts. I remove Verdana from systems I don't use for testing web pages just so I don't have to see it. would it be worth converting to arial? for the sake of i dunno 5%??? and even if they don;t have verdana, although the backup font will be arial, all they'll need to do is change their browser font size the next setting up. What are your thoughts? The best rule is none at all. That way, if their pref is Utopia, they get to see Utiopia. If their pref is Trebuchet, they get to see Trebuchet. If their pref is New Century Schoolbook, they get to see New Century Schoolbook. If their pref is Palatino, they get to see Palatino. When the page specifies 'verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif', such people almost never get to see their preference. -- Surely God would not have created such a being as man to exist only a day! No, no, man was made for immortality. President Abraham Lincoln Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
Mark Stanton wrote: When the page specifies 'verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif', such people almost never get to see their preference. ...unless they are using user style sheets, then they get to see whatever they want... Theoretically. The problem is the majority of sites use such rule specificity that generic user stylesheet rules don't get applied very much. Mine right now is 12K plus a whole bunch of site specific imported sheets and I still suffer from class and id specificity. -- Surely God would not have created such a being as man to exist only a day! No, no, man was made for immortality. President Abraham Lincoln Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
At this point, in regards to CSS - and the world in general - I feel like interjecting the old chestnut you can't please all of the people all of the time ... On 24/03/2004, at 4:31 PM, Mark Stanton wrote: When the page specifies 'verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif', such people almost never get to see their preference. ...unless they are using user style sheets, then they get to see whatever they want... x-tad-bigger /x-tad-biggerUniversal Head Design That Works. 7/43 Bridge Rd Stanmore NSW 2048 Australia T (+612) 9517 1466 F (+612) 9565 4747 E [EMAIL PROTECTED] W www.universalhead.com
RE: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
I guess most users of websites just cop what their browser gives them. Um I don't know anyone who sets preferences to have everything displayed in their fave font. Isn't it a worry that by leaving it up to their browser to show thier fave font that all you will achieve on most users screens is 'Times New Roman' ugly sites?? Steven Clark From: Mark Stanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough? Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 16:31:28 +1100 When the page specifies 'verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif', such people almost never get to see their preference. ...unless they are using user style sheets, then they get to see whatever they want... Cheers Mark -- Mark Stanton Technical Director Gruden Pty Ltd Tel: 9956 6388 Mob: 0410 458 201 Fax: 9956 8433 http://www.gruden.com * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * _ Find love today with ninemsn personals. Click here: http://ninemsn.match.com * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
*phew* ain't that true!! I'm considering changing the fonts for my website's CSS to arial... maybe. I still like verdana, I'm so stubborn (_) I don't think either of these font are really offending to anyone. Maybe if I was considering some crazy artistic font it could annoy some viewers. I dunno. Like you said, can't please everyone but we can hope to please the majority. At this point, in regards to CSS - and the world in general - I feel like interjecting the old chestnut you can't please all of the people all of the time ... On 24/03/2004, at 4:31 PM, Mark Stanton wrote: When the page specifies 'verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif', such people almost never get to see their preference. ...unless they are using user style sheets, then they get to see whatever they want... Universal Head Design That Works. 7/43 Bridge Rd Stanmore NSW 2048 Australia T (+612) 9517 1466 F (+612) 9565 4747 E [EMAIL PROTECTED] W www.universalhead.com * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
here here!! I agree wholeheartedly, perfection doesn't exist and someone will always whine they don't like what I've done. We simply do our best i guess Steven Clark From: Universal Head [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough? Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 17:16:11 +1100 At this point, in regards to CSS - and the world in general - I feel like interjecting the old chestnut you can't please all of the people all of the time ... On 24/03/2004, at 4:31 PM, Mark Stanton wrote: When the page specifies 'verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif', such people almost never get to see their preference. ...unless they are using user style sheets, then they get to see whatever they want... Universal Head Design That Works. 7/43 Bridge Rd Stanmore NSW 2048 Australia T (+612) 9517 1466 F (+612) 9565 4747 E [EMAIL PROTECTED] W www.universalhead.com _ Personalise your mobile chart ringtones and polyphonics. Go to http://ringtones.com.au/ninemsn/control?page=/ninemsn/main.jsp * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
RE: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
Hi Darian, I'm considering changing the fonts for my website's CSS to arial... maybe. I wouldn't bother. Verdana is perfectly acceptable with the Arial, Sans-serif backup. I still like verdana, I'm so stubborn (_) I don't think either of these font are really offending to anyone. Maybe if I was considering some crazy artistic font it could annoy some viewers. I dunno. It won't ever bother the users that hate the font so much they remove it from their system. That's their choice. P * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Font size, and how large is large enough?
1. I always set font sizes as a %, this way people can easily use their browsers font controls to increase/decrease the size to improve legibility eg: in Firefox pressing CTRL and + or CTRL and - 2. I'd be happy with +- 25% 3. re: fixing font size. As someone who wears glasses and has designed sites aimed at senior citizens previously, I detest the new trend of being uber-cool and fixing small font sizes. Young 20, 30, or even 40 year old designers with good eyesight MAY be able to read it fine, but anyone who requires glasses or has vision problems associated with age would give up on such sites quick smart Keep up with the work at Westciv, its a good resource. -- Neerav Bhatt http://www.bhatt.id.au Maxine Sherrin wrote: Hi all, Have just started major site overhaul at www.westciv.com which will boldly try for 1. XHTML (would love strict but will prob. have to settle for transitional)/CSS 2. WAI-AAA 3. improved architecture 4. uber-sexy stylishness But this very first afternoon I'm pondering a couple of related things that I would really like a bit of peer review on. 1. I want people to be able to read the text on my page, but I also want it to look stylish and not bulky. Is it possible to have both of these things? What do people prefer to do at the moment? I only ask because time and again when I go to a page and say hey, I really like the text on this page and then see that it is set using pixels or points and doesn't change in size when you increase the text size in IEWin. 2. What degree of increase in text size must my layout be able to cope with? I know some designs can cope with any increase, eg http://webstandardsgroup.org/ http://www.westciv.com/ but as soon as you try to do anything sophisticated with both a vertical and a horizontal navbar you seem to invariably get problems. http://www.iaea.org/ http://www.webstandardsawards.com/ How acceptable is it to fix the font size in navbars?, as is done here http://www.beforethedog.com/ Sorry to have gone on, and of course none of this is by way of criticism of any of these sites - it's just a theme I noticed once I started looking for a solution to my own problem. Any opinions, debate, much appreciated. Maxine Maxine Sherrin Westciv: software and courses for the standards based web http://www.westciv.com http://westciv.typepad.com/standards/ * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
