Re: [css-d] font-size in body selector?
Felix Miata wrote: Keep in mind that the browser default size is akin to having zoomed in advance to the preferred or optimum personalized base text size. I find in practice that it is not. For this reason I have had to reduce my default font size from 20px to 16px and use per-site zoom-memory instead. Sites that work fine with real zoom often break with default font size 16px. Philip Taylor __ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] font-size in body selector?
Le 19 avr. 2013 à 17:10, Philip TAYLOR p.tay...@rhul.ac.uk a écrit : Sites that work fine with real zoom often break with default font size 16px. ‘Real’ zoom: is that ‘Page zoom’ or ‘Text zoom’ ? (afaik your preferred browser still has the 2 options) Sites are less likely to break with the former, as it enlarges everything. With Text zoom, things can easily go bonkers when the site relies on “px” for sizing boxes (width, or worse, height). Fwiw, I quite often see broken sites (even high profile ones) with my minimum font-size set to 14px. Philippe -- Philippe Wittenbergh http://l-c-n.com __ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
[css-d] Best solution to make internet explorer 8 pages load in IE9 standard mode
Hi, anyone knows the definitive solution to make internet explorer web pages load in standard mode? thanks Angel __ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] font-size in body selector?
On 2013-04-19 09:10 (GMT+0100) Philip TAYLOR composed: Felix Miata wrote: Keep in mind that the browser default size is akin to having zoomed in advance to the preferred or optimum personalized base text size. I find in practice that it is not. For this reason I have had to reduce my default font size from 20px to 16px and use per-site zoom-memory instead. Sites that work fine with real zoom often break with default font size 16px. Zoom memory is yet another evolution of defending against disrespect, with its own set of drawbacks, not the least of which is what happens on sites that style differently for different content types or sections or query results. Break is what happens on sites that don't design for the web or users, but instead for themselves, using px to define arbitrary container sizes instead of em or rem to make proportions hold across a wide range of default size settings. With the relatively nominal difference between 16 and 20 maybe you find it acceptable to have a sub-optimal setting for un-styled text and previously unvisited sites. You think the same would be similarly appropriate for someone who prefers or requires a 24px default? 28px? 32px? More? -- The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive. Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ __ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] font-size in body selector?
On 2013-04-19 17:25 (GMT+0900) Philippe Wittenbergh composed: Philip TAYLOR composed: Sites that work fine with real zoom often break with default font size 16px. ‘Real’ zoom: is that ‘Page zoom’ or ‘Text zoom’ ? (afaik your preferred browser still has the 2 options) Sites are less likely to break with the former, as it enlarges everything. With Text zoom, things can easily go bonkers when the site relies on “px” for sizing boxes (width, or worse, height). Fwiw, I quite often see broken sites (even high profile ones) with my minimum font-size set to 14px. Imagine the problem for those with a 20px or more minimum. :-( -- The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive. Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ __ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] font-size in body selector?
On 04/18/2013 12:06 PM, Micky Hulse wrote: From what I know, that's based on the browser and the user prefs. On my Mac, using Firefox latest, there's a Fonts Colors section of in the prefs under Content. The default font size out-of-the-box is Times 16. Anecdote: I have an older friend, in his 60s, that has this set to something like 14px. When I viewed my site on his computer all of the font sizes were terribly small. It ended up that he had tweaked his default font size in Safari. He said he preferred the size and was not open to changing it back to 16. I thought it was odd, because he uses reading glasses to surf the net. I have a friend who used to run very high resolutions on a very nice 17 CRT monitor. I could barely read the icon label text on his screen. He had no problems - he used reading glasses with it. Then, at the other end of the scale, Larry Niven or Jerry Pournelle (I forget which one was doing this) used a 17 monitor at EGA resolution (640x350?) so the text was big enough for him to read ... Now just imagine a visitor coming to your site using his or her Google Nexus 10 running at 2560x1600 resolution on a 10 diagonal display ... 16px is going to be VERY TINY! -- David gn...@hawaii.rr.com authenticity, honesty, community http://clanjones.org/david/ http://dancing-treefrog.deviantart.com/ __ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] font-size in body selector?
Le 19 avr. 2013 à 18:28, david gn...@hawaii.rr.com a écrit : Now just imagine a visitor coming to your site using his or her Google Nexus 10 running at 2560x1600 resolution on a 10 diagonal display … 16px is going to be VERY TINY! No, not really. That device has a HiDPI screen. The 2560x1600 quoted are _device_ pixels. But the CSS pixel ratio is 2 [*] - 2 device pixels per CSS pixel. The ‘16px’ here is a CSS px, not a device px; in device pixels, the font-size would be something like 32px. It is the same thing as the Retina iPad, iPhone, iPod or the Retina MBP’s. [*] handy list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_displays_by_pixel_density Philippe -- Philippe Wittenbergh http://l-c-n.com __ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] font-size in body selector?
On 04/18/2013 11:56 PM, Philippe Wittenbergh wrote: Le 19 avr. 2013 à 18:28, david gn...@hawaii.rr.com a écrit : Now just imagine a visitor coming to your site using his or her Google Nexus 10 running at 2560x1600 resolution on a 10 diagonal display … 16px is going to be VERY TINY! No, not really. That device has a HiDPI screen. The 2560x1600 quoted are _device_ pixels. But the CSS pixel ratio is 2 [*] - 2 device pixels per CSS pixel. The ‘16px’ here is a CSS px, not a device px; in device pixels, the font-size would be something like 32px. It is the same thing as the Retina iPad, iPhone, iPod or the Retina MBP’s. [*] handy list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_displays_by_pixel_density Ah, thanks, useful reference. Still sounds small to me. I hope to replace my PDA with a Nexus 10 whenever the PDA finally dies - so I'll get to experience it myself. Still, 32px (device) on a 10 diagonal screen sounds like it would be too small. -- David gn...@hawaii.rr.com authenticity, honesty, community http://clanjones.org/david/ http://dancing-treefrog.deviantart.com/ __ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] font-size in body selector?
On 2013-04-19 00:29 (GMT-1000) david composed: Philippe Wittenbergh wrote: david composed: Now just imagine a visitor coming to your site using his or her Google Nexus 10 running at 2560x1600 resolution on a 10 diagonal display … 16px is going to be VERY TINY! No, not really. That device has a HiDPI screen. The 2560x1600 quoted are _device_ pixels. But the CSS pixel ratio is 2 [*] - 2 device pixels per CSS pixel. The ‘16px’ here is a CSS px, not a device px; in device pixels, the font-size would be something like 32px. It is the same thing as the Retina iPad, iPhone, iPod or the Retina MBP’s. [*] handy list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_displays_by_pixel_density Ah, thanks, useful reference. Still sounds small to me. I hope to replace my PDA with a Nexus 10 whenever the PDA finally dies - so I'll get to experience it myself. Still, 32px (device) on a 10 diagonal screen sounds like it would be too small. dev32px on a 300 DPI screen is about 5.76pt physical. With the 2:1 CSSpx:devicepx ratio that Wikipedia page reports, I would expect so. 96 * 3 = 288, so I should expect a 3:1 ratio be used, and CSS16px to display dev48px, and CSS16px to display physically @8.6pt, which is 222% of the physical[1] size of 5.76pt (8.6^2 / 5.76^2). Regardless, sizing text in px disregards user preferences/defaults, and thus rude. Applied to anything but bitmaps or containers with no content other than bitmaps, px values greater than a single digit should be unsupported, and the 1:1 ratio between px pt dispensed with, in CSS4 if it ever gets past recommendation. [1] physical size is a function of area (height width). 32px at twice the (nominal) CSS size of 16px is four times its physical size. -- The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive. Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ __ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Best solution to make internet explorer 8 pages load in IE9 standard mode
On 4/19/13 1:31 AM, AngelPSan wrote: Hi, anyone knows the definitive solution to make internet explorer web pages load in standard mode? Boy, have you opened a can of worms! Here's what Microsoft[1] has to say (about IE 9) - Important The new standards support in Internet Explorer 9 requires the browser to be in Internet Explorer 9 Standards mode (“IE9 mode”). The best way to do this is to use a standards !DOCTYPE directive and no X-UA-Compatible meta tag or HTTP header. The !DOCTYPE to invoke IE9 mode is the following: !DOCTYPE html ... Personally, I use the X-UA-Compatible flag no matter what, as IE 8+ displays a Compatibility mode button if I don't. This button switches IE to the anything-but-standards mode that emulates IE 7. As it appears next to the browser's refresh button, so very easily pressed by mistake. :( The X-UA-Compatible META was introduced in IE 8. Earlier versions use a valid DOCTYPE to force so-called standards mode. But it must come first on your page. Leading comments or an XML declaration in front will fail to enforce standards mode. There are additional issues if you add lots of class names to the HTML tag, for example if you use conditional class names or Modernizr. You can read about those issues here: http://nicolasgallagher.com/better-conditional-classnames-for-hack-free-css/ Definitive solution? I don't know. But this is to the best of my current knowledge. I do hope it helps. [1] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/ie/ff468705 -- Cordially, David __ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Best solution to make internet explorer 8 pages load in IE9 standard mode
thanks for your answer David !! Angel __ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
Re: [css-d] Best solution to make internet explorer 8 pages load in IE9 standard mode
The point is to avoid this approach whenever it's possible. First, this backward-compatible mode was originally introduced to allow nonstandard web sites to not break in newer versions of IE. Second, this compatibility mode will be sooner or later abandoned by IE (IE10, for example, dropped its support to conditional comments to basically demonstrate its consistent standard support). In that vein, you should **not** follow this approach. Instead, embrace graceful degradation as a more useful way to develop web sites. This approach is followed by big stars such as Google and Yahoo (Yahoo originally introduced this idea through a detailed browser support chart), so why you insist with sticking to tricks and hacks? Bye :-) On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 6:05 PM, David Hucklesby huckle...@gmail.comwrote: On 4/19/13 1:31 AM, AngelPSan wrote: Hi, anyone knows the definitive solution to make internet explorer web pages load in standard mode? Boy, have you opened a can of worms! Here's what Microsoft[1] has to say (about IE 9) - Important The new standards support in Internet Explorer 9 requires the browser to be in Internet Explorer 9 Standards mode (“IE9 mode”). The best way to do this is to use a standards !DOCTYPE directive and no X-UA-Compatible meta tag or HTTP header. The !DOCTYPE to invoke IE9 mode is the following: !DOCTYPE html ... Personally, I use the X-UA-Compatible flag no matter what, as IE 8+ displays a Compatibility mode button if I don't. This button switches IE to the anything-but-standards mode that emulates IE 7. As it appears next to the browser's refresh button, so very easily pressed by mistake. :( The X-UA-Compatible META was introduced in IE 8. Earlier versions use a valid DOCTYPE to force so-called standards mode. But it must come first on your page. Leading comments or an XML declaration in front will fail to enforce standards mode. There are additional issues if you add lots of class names to the HTML tag, for example if you use conditional class names or Modernizr. You can read about those issues here: http://nicolasgallagher.com/**better-conditional-classnames-** for-hack-free-css/http://nicolasgallagher.com/better-conditional-classnames-for-hack-free-css/ Definitive solution? I don't know. But this is to the best of my current knowledge. I do hope it helps. [1] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-**us/ie/ff468705http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/ie/ff468705 -- Cordially, David __**__**__ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/**mailman/listinfo/css-dhttp://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.**com/http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/**policies.htmlhttp://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_**support_evolt/http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/ -- Gabriele Romanato Referente IWA ITALY - Regione Abruzzo International Webmasters Association Italia http://www.iwa.it | e-mail: abru...@iwa.it Professionista Web - Legge 4/2013 http://gabrieleromanato.com/ http://gabrieleromanato.name/ (English) __ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
