Re: [WSG] Site check please - launched it finally!
Hugh Todd wrote: Michael wrote: I'd still welcome input from designers http://hawkradio.org.au 5) I'd suggest setting your body font size to 76% or 0.7em. It looks just a little better at that size. It already is .7em, which is only half default size (49% of the total pixels per character box of the default size). If one is using IE6 and the median screen resolution of 1024x768, scrolling is required to discover the H2 Too small to read? (which at 1.5em X 13px is ~2.5px smaller than my Gecko default). If one gets to the point of seeing it and clicking on it, he is delivered a page that also has everything except headings and TD (What's on the air today: data is much larger in IE than is p on the rest of the page) set to 13px (which is who knows how big compared to the user's default, which in my case translates to a minescule 35%), on this a page ostensibly intended to help the user overcome too small page text. How is a user supposed to read this? What a paradox - help that needs help! On this help page at the very least the help text should be big enough to read - e.g. 1.0em. But then that begs the question - if the text was big enough in the first place, the visitor wouldn't need the page in the first place, would he? The chevrons placed to the left of the teaserpara.h2 in Gecko are obscuring the h2 in IE. I didn't look into the why, but at higher resolutions, the topmost menu wraps below itself on top of the dark background. Also, the date is split into two parts, part on the left, the rest imposed illegibly on the dark blue background of the top of the schedule table. -- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... U.S. Constitution, Amendment 1 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] Site check please - launched it finally!
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Felix Miata Sent: Sunday, 14 November 2004 6:36 AM 5) I'd suggest setting your body font size to 76% or 0.7em. It looks just a little better at that size. It already is .7em, which is only half default size (49% of the total pixels per character box of the default size). Thanks for your thoughts Felix. The size is already at 0.7em because I adopted the excellent suggestion of Hugh Todd and changed it. If one is using IE6 and the median screen resolution of 1024x768, scrolling is required to discover the H2 Too small to read? (which at 1.5em X 13px is ~2.5px smaller than my Gecko default). If one gets to the point of seeing it and clicking on it, he is delivered a page that also has everything except headings and TD (What's on the air today: data is much larger in IE than is p on the rest of the page) set to 13px (which is who knows how big compared to the user's default, which in my case translates to a minescule 35%), on this a page ostensibly intended to help the user overcome too small page text. How is a user supposed to read this? What a paradox - help that needs help! On this help page at the very least the help text should be big enough to read - e.g. 1.0em. But then that begs the question - if the text was big enough in the first place, the visitor wouldn't need the page in the first place, would he? I put the too small to read? page in there because the deputy chairman of the station who is overseeing the project couldn't read the site. In my browser, it all looks fine. In his it doesn't. It's a conundrum. If he set up his browser properly, the site would look ok. You don't think the 'help' page is much use obviously. Well my problem is, I can't see the issue I'm trying to solve. I don't know how to set up my browser wrongly so I get the same view that our deputy chairman does. You do apparently. Since the help page looks wrong to you, and I can't see the problem that I'm trying to solve, perhaps rather than merely criticising you could help me out here by suggesting what would be a better setting. I figured that for anyone who saw the text on the site as being too small, the only way I could give them a page that they could definitely see would be one with text fixed at the normal pixel size used in the old-fashioned sites - namely with body text fixed at 11-15 pixels (I chose 13px). To be honest I don't know how to deal with this issue and perhaps others might like to suggest a way. If they can't see the site because it's too small, and I want to keep the relative font sizing, how to I deliver a help page that they can see? It's silly to give them a page with fonts in relative sizes (1.0em) because that's the problem they're trying to solve! For the others that size is huge. The chevrons placed to the left of the teaserpara.h2 in Gecko are obscuring the h2 in IE. The chevrons obscuring text? Not in any browser I use at any resolution I've been able to test at. Perhaps you can give me some more details of your resolution settings, os etc. I didn't look into the why, but at higher resolutions, the topmost menu wraps below itself on top of the dark background. Also, the date is split into two parts, part on the left, the rest imposed illegibly on the dark blue background of the top of the schedule table. I'd be most grateful if you DID look into the why, because on my browsers, at all resolutions I can test at down to 800x600 (below that I'm not interested in) it scales nicely, and is right aligned, and comes across to about 80% of the width of the page. The remaining space is to be used by two more major divisions of the site once they're ready. I'm not sure what higher resolution you are using but I work at 1280x1024 and I don't know if many of our users are going to be going higher than that. If there are problems with layout higher at resolutions higher than 1280x1024 I guess we'll have to live with it. 2 or 3 users aren't going to be a problem. What higher resolution are you talking about, Felix? Cheers Mike Kear Windsor, NSW, Australia AFP Webworks http://afpwebworks.com .com,.net,.org domains from AUD$20/Year ** 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] Site check please - launched it finally!
Michael Kear wrote: The size is already at 0.7em because I adopted the excellent suggestion of Hugh Todd and changed it. There is one flaw in how the font-size is implemented: IE/win is buggy if we apply too small font-size on body (less than 100%), and ems are buggy on body. The browsers own font-resizing steps becomes too large. I don't think anyone can read the text on that page if it is resized to smallest in IE/win now. (I've got a couple of screen shots, but I think every web designer with an IE6 in his/her backyard can test it). The right approach is to set font-size on body to 100.01%, and 76% (or something) on div#container in your case. IE6 will display it reasonably well then-- in all its 5 font-steps. I put the too small to read? page in there because the deputy chairman of the station who is overseeing the project couldn't read the site. In my browser, it all looks fine. In his it doesn't. It's a conundrum. If he set up his browser properly, the site would look ok. He, and a lot of other visitors, may have as little clue about how to set their browsers right as you may have setting them wrong... Well my problem is, I can't see the issue I'm trying to solve. I don't know how to set up my browser wrongly so I get the same view that our deputy chairman does. You do apparently. IMHO: we should all know how visitors _may_ set up their browsers. That knowledge may save us from a lot of complaints. To be honest I don't know how to deal with this issue and perhaps others might like to suggest a way. If you can't find a solution with relative font-size (which you should), then follow your own suggestion and set it to 13px on text until you have found a better solution. That's middle of the road size to most... If in doubt: set it slightly larger... If they can't see the site because it's too small, and I want to keep the relative font sizing, how to I deliver a help page that they can see? It's silly to give them a page with fonts in relative sizes (1.0em) because that's the problem they're trying to solve! For the others that size is huge. Only if you get the relative font-size wrong (see above). I think we all would be happy if every visitor knew exactly how to set their browsers correct for our sites. If we web designers don't know how to do this-- how can we expect everyone else to know? Alright, font-size issues will never be solved throughout internet, because there are too many personal preferences, and IE/win. They can be solved a lot better than they are on many sites though. I have given you a better way to avoid some bugs and other problems (see above), and that's it since it's only IE/win-users who have these problems. That probably cover most of your regular visitors. --- I don't know if any of your visitors use Opera, but the page is breaking in that browser. The navigation on top is displayed vertically on the right side, and the footer is displayed just below where the navigation should be. Things are a bit tight up there. No font-size problems though, and small text doesn't exist to a well-educated Opera-user anyway-- anywhere. Not in Moz/FF either. Something called minemum font size takes care of that. --- My general impression of the site is that its _too well thought out_ to be left with these weaknesses. It's all about some simple CSS-stuff, that can be tested and implemented over time, to make it really good and cross-browser stable. regards Georg ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] Might be off-topic
what happens if you mix every color in a standard palette? what is the result color? -- Web standards Planet http://www.w3planet.info/ Personal Blogger http://www.EasyHTTP.com/jad/ ** 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] Might be off-topic
Jad Madi wrote: what happens if you mix every color in a standard palette? what is the result color? Dirty gray. ~dL http://www.dlaakso.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] Might be off-topic
Black underpants left in wash chewing-gum grey. -- Iain Gardiner http://www.firelightning.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Laakso Sent: 14 November 2004 00:19 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Might be off-topic Jad Madi wrote: what happens if you mix every color in a standard palette? what is the result color? Dirty gray. ~dL http://www.dlaakso.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] Might be off-topic - THREAD CLOSED
THREAD CLOSED - WAY OFF TOPIC Black underpants left in wash chewing-gum grey. what happens if you mix every color in a standard palette? what is the result color? Dirty gray. ** 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] Site check please - launched it finally!
Michael Kear wrote: From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Felix Miata 5) I'd suggest setting your body font size to 76% or 0.7em. It looks just a little better at that size. It already is .7em, which is only half default size (49% of the total pixels per character box of the default size). Thanks for your thoughts Felix. The size is already at 0.7em because I adopted the excellent suggestion of Hugh Todd and changed it. Much too small. If you insist on using too small sizes, at least use % instead of em in the body rule so that IE6 won't fall apart: http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=UsingEms http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/IE/IE6FontInherit.html If one is using IE6 and the median screen resolution of 1024x768, scrolling is required to discover the H2 Too small to read? (which at 1.5em X 13px is ~2.5px smaller than my Gecko default). If one gets to the point of seeing it and clicking on it, he is delivered a page that also has everything except headings and TD (What's on the air today: data is much larger in IE than is p on the rest of the page) set to 13px (which is who knows how big compared to the user's default, which in my case translates to a minescule 35%), on this a page ostensibly intended to help the user overcome too small page text. How is a user supposed to read this? What a paradox - help that needs help! On this help page at the very least the help text should be big enough to read - e.g. 1.0em. But then that begs the question - if the text was big enough in the first place, the visitor wouldn't need the page in the first place, would he? I put the too small to read? page in there because the deputy chairman of the station who is overseeing the project couldn't read the site. In my Could be his eyes are 20-40 years older than yours. browser, it all looks fine. In his it doesn't. It's a conundrum. If he set up his browser properly, the site would look ok. No, if you set your browser up properly before you started work on a site, it would look right in both your browser(s) and those of everyone else who has taken the trouble to suit their own needs by correctly setting defaults. You, as countless others, create problems because you DON'T configure your own to suit your own taste BEFORE beginning design work, instead assuming as do too many others, that most do nothing as do you yourself, and that those who do simply don't matter to you. You don't think the 'help' page is much use obviously. Well my problem is, I can't see the issue I'm trying to solve. I don't know how to set up my browser wrongly so I get the same view that our deputy chairman does. You Maybe you can't. Someone in that position might be using an expensive laptop, configured by default for high resolution, 1280x1024, 1400x1050 or 1600x1200. On these displays, 13px is tiny. A font that looks OK at 13px on 800x600 will not on 1600x1200, where 26px is required to render at the same physical height on a given size display. 1600x1200 isn't uncommon on CRT displays 19 or larger either. do apparently. Since the help page looks wrong to you, and I can't see the problem that I'm trying to solve, perhaps rather than merely criticising you could help me out here by suggesting what would be a better setting. I Since you apparently find 13px a good size, set your Gecko to 13px default, and your IE to smaller. figured that for anyone who saw the text on the site as being too small, the only way I could give them a page that they could definitely see would be one with text fixed at the normal pixel size used in the old-fashioned sites - namely with body text fixed at 11-15 pixels (I chose 13px). A normal text size is the browser default, whatever that may be. Most browsers that haven't had their settings touched start at 16px, though IE6 gets to 16px because of a 12pt default, which at the standard windoze 96 DPI font size setting translates to 16px. Whether that is a good default on any particular system depends on a multitude of factors, including: 1-display size (12 to 22 or more CRTs, and other types both larger and smaller) 2-display resolution (CRT 640x480 up to 2048x1536 or more, various others) 3-logical DPI (72 up to unlimited, with 120 not uncommon) 4-user's visual acuity (14 year old eyes, to 70 years or more) 5-font rendering capability of the OS (quite varied) 6-display's dot pitch (or equivalent) To be honest I don't know how to deal with this issue and perhaps others might like to suggest a way. If they can't see the site because it's too To see how others see it is necessary to use many settings combinations, whether that means one machine with many virtual machines, or many different machines and displays. small, and I want to keep the relative font sizing, how to I deliver a help page that they can see? It's silly to give them a page with fonts in relative sizes (1.0em) because that's the problem they're trying
RE: [WSG] Site check please - launched it finally!
Felix, I think you need to be a little less aggressive and judgemental in your opinions. You seem to be trying to make me out as an idiot and incompetent at setting up my system. In fact it's deliberately a default installation. I don't change my browser's defaults for fear of getting into the very situation you're trying to make out. Apparently you think I've tinkered around with my system to the extent that I don't know what the defaults are any more. Well the machine I develop my sites on is kept at a default installation for just this reason. You posted a picture of how it looks on your browser, but I've never seen it look like that on a mac, or on IE7, opera, Firefox (two versions) or Netscape. Here's what you posted: Median windoze settings: 96 DPI (small fonts) IE6 set to medium 1024x768 http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/tmp/hawkradioW98-IE1.png Ok well compare that with this one: Median Windows Settings 96DPI (normal fonts) IE7.1 set to Medium 1024x768 http://hawkradio.org.au/images/hawkradio1024x768.png You'll see that the text in the what's on today table on the right is smaller than body text, which is intended. (On yours the table text is much larger than body text) Body text is readable. The H2 headings on the home page are aligned as they ought to be, just to the right of the chevron graphic. I contend that since my IE7 looks the same as all the other browsers (with the exception of the opera menu issue described by someone else earlier) that it's in fact your ancient Win98/IE6 that's the problem I need to find a hack for, not my competence in setting up my machine. ( yes, I DO need to find a solution because there will be site users with that configuration) I said I needed to put the help page there because the deputy chairman of the station was having problems reading the site and you made a stupid comment that maybe his eyes were much older than mine. You don't know anything about the situation here so don't make idiotic assumptions. It doesn't matter if he is older than me or not (actually he's 15 years younger) and it makes no difference anyway. And I find your assertion that You, as countless others, create problems because you DON'T configure your own to suit your own taste BEFORE beginning design work, instead assuming as do too many others, that most do nothing as do you yourself, and that those who do simply don't matter to you.. to be quite offensive. I do care about the site's users. The site is there for them and for the radio station not for me. Felix I'm perfectly ready to acknowledge I'm a learner. I've been a learner for 54 years. I've only built 10 CSS sites, so I have a lot to learn. But if you want anyone to pay attention to your opinions you need to learn to show a bit of respect and use less intemperate language. Back off buster. If you have some thing to say I'm interested to know what it is but if you are just going to be offensive you don't count in my view. Cheers Mike Kear Windsor, NSW, Australia AFP Webworks http://afpwebworks.com .com,.net,.org domains from AUD$20/Year ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] Question to the others ...
... and to Felix if he's going to be a bit less aggressive Felix said that my width (on http://hawkradio.org.au if you're coming in late to this saga) ought to be set at 100ex. He says: Make your overall width 100ex instead of 780px and the relationship between container width and text size will hold constant. Firstly, what kind of measurement is ex? I have never seen that before. Secondly, how would a fluid width layout work with a faux column like I've used?I guess it wouldn't. So how can you get the column effect I've designed, with the columns going the full depth of the page regardless of which column is longer, without using the fixed-width graphic? Since the graphic is 780px wide, surely the container has to be 780px wide too. No? Cheers Mike Kear Windsor, NSW, Australia AFP Webworks http://afpwebworks.com .com,.net,.org domains from AUD$20/Year ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] Another body tag question ...
Another body style question following from Felix's rant ...
I looked at what Yahoo do in their style, (http://www.yahoo.com) and they
have the following as their body style:
body{font:84%/1.2em arial,sans-serif;direction:ltr}
What's the point of setting the body font at 84% of 1.2em? (which is what I
assume is what's happening). That's 100.8% if my arithmetic is correct, so
is there any point to this instead of setting it to 100%/1.0em?
What does the 'direction:ltr' part do?
Cheers
Mike Kear
Windsor, NSW, Australia
AFP Webworks
http://afpwebworks.com
.com,.net,.org domains from AUD$20/Year
**
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] Another body tag question ...
direction:ltr = direction of text is left - right as opposed to some
langauges which are right to left
http://www.w3schools.com/css/pr_text_direction.asp
http://www.topxml.com/css/css_property_direction.asp
Neerav Bhatt
http://www.bhatt.id.au
Web Development IT consultancy
http://www.bhatt.id.au/blog/ - Ramblings Thoughts
http://www.bhatt.id.au/photos/
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/neerav
Michael Kear wrote:
Another body style question following from Felix's rant ...
I looked at what Yahoo do in their style, (http://www.yahoo.com) and they
have the following as their body style:
body{font:84%/1.2em arial,sans-serif;direction:ltr}
What's the point of setting the body font at 84% of 1.2em? (which is what I
assume is what's happening). That's 100.8% if my arithmetic is correct, so
is there any point to this instead of setting it to 100%/1.0em?
What does the 'direction:ltr' part do?
Cheers
Mike Kear
**
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] Another body tag question ...
Hey Michael,
The 84% is the Font-size.
And the 1.2m is the Line-height.
Michael Kear wrote:
Another body style question following from Felix's rant ...
I looked at what Yahoo do in their style, (http://www.yahoo.com) and they
have the following as their body style:
body{font:84%/1.2em arial,sans-serif;direction:ltr}
What's the point of setting the body font at 84% of 1.2em? (which is what I
assume is what's happening). That's 100.8% if my arithmetic is correct, so
is there any point to this instead of setting it to 100%/1.0em?
What does the 'direction:ltr' part do?
Cheers
Mike Kear
Windsor, NSW, Australia
AFP Webworks
http://afpwebworks.com
.com,.net,.org domains from AUD$20/Year
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
--
Chris Stratford
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.neester.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] Another body tag question ...
Thanks Chris, Neerav. I need to put on my ever-growing list of things to learn about 'Learn about CSS shorthand instead of using the stylesweeper in topstyle to do it for you!' Thanks. Makes sense. Cheers Mike Kear Windsor, NSW, Australia AFP Webworks http://afpwebworks.com .com,.net,.org domains from AUD$20/Year -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Stratford Sent: Sunday, 14 November 2004 4:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [WSG] Another body tag question ... Hey Michael, The 84% is the Font-size. And the 1.2m is the Line-height. Michael Kear wrote: Another body style question following from Felix's rant ... ** 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] Web Standards Eye Candy: http://www.scottschiller.com/
Return Receipt Your document: Re: [WSG] Web Standards Eye Candy: http://www.scottschiller.com/ was received by: Jonathan Cooper/ARTGAL-NSW/AU at: 14/11/2004 06:21:08 PM
Re: [WSG] Web Standards Eye Candy: http://www.scottschiller.com/
Return Receipt Your document: Re: [WSG] Web Standards Eye Candy: http://www.scottschiller.com/ was received by: Jonathan Cooper/ARTGAL-NSW/AU at: 14/11/2004 06:21:29 PM
RE: [WSG] Another body tag question ...
On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 17:08:09 +1100, Michael Kear wrote: I need to put on my ever-growing list of things to learn about 'Learn about CSS shorthand instead of using the stylesweeper in topstyle to do it for you!' Michael, http://www.w3schools.com/css/css_reference.asp is an excellent summary of the css properties; I use it all the time for 'what are the values of...' and 'what the heck does that do?' :) HIH Lea -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems - I Understand the Internet http://elysiansystems.com/ Search Engine Optimisation, Usability, Information Architecture, Web Design Brisbane, Australia ** 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] Site check please - launched it finally!
Michael Kear wrote: Here's what you posted: Median windoze settings: 96 DPI (small fonts) IE6 set to medium 1024x768 http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/tmp/hawkradioW98-IE1.png It turns out that PC I had intentionally left at IE5 on purpose, but forgot today when using it to visit http://hawkradio.org.au. So, I've renamed it: http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/tmp/hawkradioW98-IE5.png The large fonts in the schedule table would probably instead more closely match the smaller in other browsers by changing the body rule from em to %. Then again, IE isn't known for good table inheritance behavior, independent of its well known problem with using small em instead of % in body. http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=UsingEms Two new ones: WinXP at 96 DPI IE6 small fonts set to medium 1024x768 http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/tmp/hawkradio-IE6XP096-07.PNG WinXP at 120 DPI IE6 large fonts set to medium 1280x1024 http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/tmp/hawkradio-IE6XP120-02.PNG These do look pretty much identical to Gecko. Ok well compare that with this one: Median Windows Settings 96DPI (normal fonts) IE7.1 set to Medium How does one get IE 7.1? 1024x768 http://hawkradio.org.au/images/hawkradio1024x768.png -- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... U.S. Constitution, Amendment 1 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 **
