Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
>
> Glenn Miller wrote:
>
>>On 17 Mar 2002, Neil M. was seen to have posted this wee note into
>>netscape.public.mozilla.general, to which I have responded as follows:
>>
>>
>>><font size=1> comes to mind. You can see it just fine in windows, but
>>>if you use any other operating system you can't read it. People who
>>>only use windows boxes don't see the problem, but mac and unix users
>>>sure do (or did, there are ways to fix it now)
>>
>>The font size is relative to the font size that you specify in your
>>preferences.
>>
>>I cannot remember a time when this was not a user-defined aspect of Mozilla
>>4.x Presumably the same exists for Mozilla 5 but I haven't looked it out.
>>
>>Glenn Miller
>>
>>--
>>"What some people have against Open Source Software is what Fundamentalist
>>Christians or Moslems have against Knowledge."
>
>
> But see what people don't get is that Mac uses a 72dpi system for fonts
> and Graphics.
>
> While PC only folks use 96dpi.
>
> A font set to be viewed as 10 pt on the PC ends up showing as 6 point on
> the Mac.
>
> I've read in post here instead of using relative sizes 1,2,3 actually
> declaring the font size =12 pt. Would show as 12 point on the PC and 12
> point on the Mac.
>
> I've also read that (In Macworld - I agree you may not consider it
> objective since its Mac centric, where PCWorld is PC centric - a web
> page designer writing a column noted if desigers would declare height
> and width as percentages (as opposed to hard numbers) pages would show
> up equally the same on a Mac or a PC. If they are based on hard numbers
> then either one platform or the other will end up having to scroll from
> side to side. or the page will not be filled out
>
> So depending upon your platform, the size monitor you have, and how you
> have the monitor setup 640x480, 800 x 600, or 1024 x 768 your page will
> not show up the same.
> ^^^
>
> And the goal for a web page is fill out the same proportions of the
> screen and fonts be the same size relative to screen size (12 point
> would naturally be larger on a 22" monitor than a 14" monitor). So that
> everyone can have the same web experience.
> (not everyone Drives a Ford some drive chevrolet's or BMW's, But the
> stering wheel is on the same side -depending upon the country).
My own experience has been (and keep in mind that I'm new to the whole
web design thing) that using percentages for heights/widths where
necessary and ems or percentages (or, in a pinch, pixels, which are
/supposed/ to be relative units, tho' IE renders them as abolute) is
best and allows for the most consistent display across monitor
resolutions and, presumeably (tho' all I have to go on are a couple of
screen-shots from a Mac), platforms.
I will still, for some kinds of margins and padding, use points, more
out of habit than anything; I suppose I really /should/ change 'em to
pixels. . . .
Hard numbers ('absolute lengths', as the W3C would have it), except for
very specific purposes (such as my padding example), are just a disaster
in the making when it comes to the web.
If you've come out of print media, it can be a very awkward adjustment
to make, 'cos you just naturally assume you have that kind of control
over appearance and tend to neglect all the complicating factors . . .
which still doesn't excuse the tendency to persist in such practices.
Brian
