Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please
On 2007/06/04 10:06 (GMT-0700) Paul Novitski apparently typed: Felix Miata wrote: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Sites/ksc/ On 2007/06/04 01:41 (GMT-0700) Paul Novitski apparently typed: In Firefox 2, when the window width becomes too narrow and/or the text size becomes too large to allow the headline The Dancer's Product Resource to fit on one line, the headline wraps around with such a high line-length that the new line overlaps the content below the header. Sorry, I don't see the problem. Why not simply allow the header block to naturally expand vertically when the headline wraps? I've replaced line-height with padding to vertically center H1, so the problem of expanding outside of #header on when wrap occurs is gone. -- Respect everyone. I Peter 2:17 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please
On 2007/06/04 12:33 (GMT-0400) Philip Kiff apparently typed: Felix Miata wrote: On 2007/06/02 11:06 (GMT+0100) Designer apparently typed: Sparked partly by the recent discussions on elasticity, I've been attempting to put together a 'template', based on em's and with a max-width. [] You can see it at: http://www.marscovista.fsnet.co.uk/newtemplate/template.html I only looked in IE7 FF. Pretty good, although the line lengths are on the long side of what I like, and the text is too small. http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Sites/ksc/dancesrqb.html is the same basic layout, but without breaking IE's font resizer, with no special treatment for antique browsers, and without disrespecting the visitor's choice of font size. Just FYI, on my default browser settings, ... the font sizes used on Designer's site provide better readability than those on the DancesSRQ site. This is a rather curious statement considering that exclusive of the H1 text on Bob's site the largest text there is 75% (12px for most users of default settings), while on my site 90%+ of the text is 100% of the default (16px for most users of default settings) and only about 100 characters of fine print on mine is smaller than his smallest (see more below). In particular, the subheading tag line on the DancesSRQ is just a wee bit too small for my tastes -- my browser computes it as 10px. The one line #element7B p text was set to x-small, which was a mistake I corrected after posting. That line was an attempt to match the original site, which used text in an image. I substituted real text with CSS styling, but neglected to notice that my matching was done using my normal readable 20px default and I hadn't compensated for it, resulting in a smaller size than intended. At a 20px default, x-small is 15px, 75% of the default. If x-small was 75% at a 16px default, it would be 12px, not 10px (about which, see more below). The same size font is displayed in the bottom copyright statement. By contrast, the smallest size that appears on Designer's site shows up as 12px. No doubt it is a matter of taste and personal preference, but I would be cautious in promoting the current DancesSRQ design over the one used by Designer as far as font sizes are concerned. Only the one line #footer and 6 words of (bold, and precisely matching the original design) .specimen remain at 10px. I don't see how such a little bit of borderline readable (fine print) contextually styled text could compensate for the other 96% of the content's 100% or larger text, leaving Bob's with better readability for its mostly 75% or smaller content. As to x-small being 10px, I believe that even though it is exactly that in most web browsers by default, I also believe that it shouldn't be - so much so that I tried to do something about it several years ago by getting Gecko to make x-small 12px. See: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=187256 . That possibly could still happen, but I'm guessing it won't. All that said, the way I judge the readability of any page is by the size of the bulk of its content and main navigation, not by a couple of minimal importance non-primary-content lines it contains. By that standard, Bob's is a substantial distance from comfortable to read, barely above fine print (pain) threshold in the absence of applied zoom or minimum font size. -- Respect everyone. I Peter 2:17 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please
Felix Miata wrote: All that said, the way I judge the readability of any page is by the size of the bulk of its content and main navigation, not by a couple of minimal importance non-primary-content lines it contains. By that standard, Bob's is a substantial distance from comfortable to read, barely above fine print (pain) threshold in the absence of applied zoom or minimum font size. Interestingly, I notice that the text I produced on this 'template' (barely above fine print (pain) threshold) site is just marginally bigger than the default menu bars on FF2, IE7, Opera . . . Just an observation :-) -- Bob www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please
Bob, You have to take everything that Felix says with a grain of salt to say the least. Don't get into a p***ing contest with his judgement of font sizes. Joseph R. B. Taylor Sites by Joe, LLC http://sitesbyjoe.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Jun 6, 2007, at 2:45 PM, Designer wrote: Felix Miata wrote: All that said, the way I judge the readability of any page is by the size of the bulk of its content and main navigation, not by a couple of minimal importance non-primary-content lines it contains. By that standard, Bob's is a substantial distance from comfortable to read, barely above fine print (pain) threshold in the absence of applied zoom or minimum font size. Interestingly, I notice that the text I produced on this 'template' (barely above fine print (pain) threshold) site is just marginally bigger than the default menu bars on FF2, IE7, Opera . . . Just an observation :-) -- Bob www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please
On 2007/06/06 19:45 (GMT+0100) Designer apparently typed: Felix Miata wrote: All that said, the way I judge the readability of any page is by the size of the bulk of its content and main navigation, not by a couple of minimal importance non-primary-content lines it contains. By that standard, Bob's is a substantial distance from comfortable to read, barely above fine print (pain) threshold in the absence of applied zoom or minimum font size. Interestingly, I notice that the text I produced on this 'template' (barely above fine print (pain) threshold) site is just marginally bigger than the default menu bars on FF2, IE7, Opera . . . Just an observation :-) Probably pretty close to exactly like this (standard XP 8pt/11.67px Tahoma menu text): http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/bobs2col096W.png Note that on KDE on Linux the default menu text is bigger (10pt/13.33px vs. your template's 75%/14px): http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/bobs2col096L.gif On Mac the menu text is apparently both bigger still, and more legible than your page text, since its contrast is much higher than your #333 on #F1F1F1, while the same apparent size (but not the x-height gigantic Verdana): http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/bobs2col096M.jpg All the way back at least into W95, doz has defaulted to what M$ for many years called small text for its UI. With XP in 2001 it renamed it from small to normal. Your interesting observation I haven't seen mentioned very often in any web development forums, but I did address it quite some time back: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/defaultsize.html#note1 . The summary of that paragraph is that normal web page content text has no business being anywhere near as small as browser UI text. -- Respect everyone. I Peter 2:17 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please
Philip Kiff wrote:
As Felix points out, your current template breaks IE's built-in font resizer
(View - Text Size - Larger/Largest). This problem is caused by your
definition of the default body text size as 14px. The use of “px”
measurements for font sizes is not scalable under Microsoft Internet
Explorer.
Here is the specific line in your CSS file that is causing this problem:
htmlbody { font-size : 14px; }
In terms of standards, using a px-based measurement is not technically
against the font and unit guidelines of the W3C Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines version 1.0, since the error is actually caused by Internet
Explorer’s misunderstanding of px units. But since the W3C WCAG also
recommends testing with actual users of actual browsers, then the use of
px-based font sizes becomes an identifiable barrier for users of Internet
Explorer, and so ends up as something that goes against the WCAG in the end.
To resolve this issue, you should use a different kind of relative font
measurement (like em or percentage), or better, leave the default body font
size untouched -- you’ve already set the body font size to a percentage
value in your body { font-size } setting anyways.
Phil.
Hi Phil,
My philosophy on this is that the htmlbody is ignored by all except
IE6. so the decent browsers work properly (even IE7!), so I'm hoping
that IE7 soon becomes the common IE.
Maybe I'm being optimistic, esp in view of the apparent contradiction of
my supporting NS4.02! Of course, I'm not actually ignoring IE6, just
not 'allowing' users to resize the text- a feature which, one assumes,
they are well used to! :-)
--
Bob
www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please
On Jun 5, 2007, at 8:09 PM, Designer wrote: ... the htmlbody is ignored by all except IE6 I hope this is a typo. IE 6 ignores this (and NN4 in case you worry) as it doesn't understand the '' selector. All other browsers, including IE 7 support the child selector. Philippe --- Philippe Wittenbergh http://emps.l-c-n.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please
Philippe Wittenbergh wrote: On Jun 5, 2007, at 8:09 PM, Designer wrote: ... the htmlbody is ignored by all except IE6 I hope this is a typo. IE 6 ignores this (and NN4 in case you worry) as it doesn't understand the '' selector. All other browsers, including IE 7 support the child selector. Philippe --- Thanks Philippe - yes it is a 'typo'. I did of course mean the other way around! -- Bob www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please
On 5 Jun 2007, at 12:09:44, Designer wrote: so the decent browsers work properly (even IE7!) This is a common misconception. IE7 _cannot_ resize text whose size is specified in pixels, in precisely the same way that IE6 can't. The use of the page zoom tool will enlarge or shrink it along with the other content of the page, but using the menu options to adjust text size won't work. Regards, Nick. -- Nick Fitzsimons http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please
On 5 Jun 2007, at 19:15:39, Designer wrote: Nick Fitzsimons wrote: This is a common misconception. IE7 _cannot_ resize text whose size is specified in pixels, in precisely the same way that IE6 can't. The use of the page zoom tool will enlarge or shrink it along with the other content of the page, but using the menu options to adjust text size won't work. Regards, Nick. Paul Novitski wrote few days ago, to point out a method which resizes the images as well as the text on page zoom. (using ems for the images). Good idea. So, I'm now curious as to why you think (infer) that IE's zoom (which does exactly that) won't replace text resizing? The only point I was making is that it is a fallacy to suggest that IE 7 treats text sized in pixels any differently to IE 6; they've just changed the effect of certain hotkeys to use the new zoom feature, but the menu's text size options will still have no effect. This means that a user who wishes to resize their text and automatically goes for the menu options will be out of luck with the specific example given. As the original poster seemed to believe that IE 7 would not have a problem with his pixel-sized text, I was just pointing out that it in fact would. To me, the zoom feature of IE7 (or firefox, or Opera) means that you can resize a page constructed in pixels without hurting anyone. Doesn't it? You can, and I can; but with the specific CSS on which I was commenting, a user who expected to be able to use the traditional menu options would be out of luck. Most users never explore new features; they tend to just do what they were taught by somebody else. I'm not arguing that IE (and others') zoom features are a bad thing - just pointing out that IE is still broken in its text sizing. Lots of people seem to think that the new feature fixes the old bug, but it doesn't. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Fitzsimons http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please
At 6/3/2007 08:36 PM, Felix Miata wrote: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Sites/ksc/dancesrqb.html is the same basic layout, but without breaking IE's font resizer, with no special treatment for antique browsers, and without disrespecting the visitor's choice of font size. In Firefox 2, when the window width becomes too narrow and/or the text size becomes too large to allow the headline The Dancer's Product Resource to fit on one line, the headline wraps around with such a high line-length that the new line overlaps the content below the header. Regards, Paul __ Paul Novitski Juniper Webcraft Ltd. http://juniperwebcraft.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please
On 2007/06/04 01:41 (GMT-0700) Paul Novitski apparently typed: At 6/3/2007 08:36 PM, Felix Miata wrote: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Sites/ksc/dancesrqb.html is the same basic layout, but without breaking IE's font resizer, with no special treatment for antique browsers, and without disrespecting the visitor's choice of font size. In Firefox 2, when the window width becomes too narrow and/or the text size becomes too large to allow the headline The Dancer's Product Resource to fit on one line, the headline wraps around with such a high line-length that the new line overlaps the content below the header. I knew that, but didn't get around to deciding what, beyond the title text I added, if anything, to do about it before the hour got any later last night, and I wanted to resurrect the thread before another night slipped by. I also noticed that in IE7 the part seen as overlap in FF simply disappears. Note that by the time that happens that the line length to viewport width relationship is pretty well deteriorated. That is, #primarycontent text is down to about 6 words per line, and less than about 40% or so of the viewport width. When that size is reached it is more than double the *size* most web designers think is appropriate for web page content. IOW, from the ~12px size most designers seem to think is appropriate for a 800x600 resolution full screen window, it takes about an 18px default (or text zoom equivalent) for it to not fit. 18px is actually ~9pxX18px for a 162px character box, while 12px is actually ~6pxX12px for a 72px character box, making 18px 225% of the size of 12px. Proportionally the impact is the same as the actual default size and viewport size are increased. Overlapping text is a definite no-no, so I've set the overflow to hidden in the current version. That makes FF seem to behave like IE. The question remains what, if anything, to do about that missing H1 content. One option is to simply dismiss it as a problem of inadequate consequence. As grounds to support this option: 1-Its title text contains the missing portion. 2-It's really only a subtitle to the real title contained in the graphic. 3-The dearth of people who actually need such giant text in proportion to the viewport width would likely be satisfied that the meat of the page is fully accessible. Another option would be to use JS to remove the graphic, reduce H1 font-size, and/or remove the added H1 letter-spacing when some chosen ratio of font-size to viewport width is found to be exceeded. The option I prefer is in the alternate stylesheet reachable from the view menu of the browsers that offer direct alternate stylesheet support - dispensing with the viewport width constraint entirely. I suspect most who choose truly giant text have little or no problem with horizontal scroll as long as the scroll isn't necessary to easily use the primary content. My original fluid revision of the original author's Homestead Sitebuilder original http://dancesrq.homestead.com/ is at: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Sites/ksc/dancesrq.html Last night's version without alternate stylesheet remains temporarily at: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Sites/ksc/dancesrqb.html Current version: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Sites/ksc/ -- Respect everyone. I Peter 2:17 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] layout/font site test - please
Felix Miata wrote on EDT: On 2007/06/02 11:06 (GMT+0100) Designer apparently typed: Sparked partly by the recent discussions on elasticity, I've been attempting to put together a 'template', based on em's and with a max-width. [] You can see it at: http://www.marscovista.fsnet.co.uk/newtemplate/template.html I only looked in IE7 FF. Pretty good, although the line lengths are on the long side of what I like, and the text is too small. http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Sites/ksc/dancesrqb.html is the same basic layout, but without breaking IE's font resizer, with no special treatment for antique browsers, and without disrespecting the visitor's choice of font size. Just FYI, on my default browser settings, the font sizes used on Designer's site provide better readability than those on the DancesSRQ site. In particular, the subheading tag line on the DancesSRQ is just a wee bit too small for my tastes -- my browser computes it as 10px. The same size font is displayed in the bottom copyright statement. By contrast, the smallest size that appears on Designer's site shows up as 12px. No doubt it is a matter of taste and personal preference, but I would be cautious in promoting the current DancesSRQ design over the one used by Designer as far as font sizes are concerned. Phil. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please
At 6/3/2007 08:36 PM, Felix Miata wrote: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Sites/ksc/dancesrqb.html On 2007/06/04 01:41 (GMT-0700) Paul Novitski apparently typed: In Firefox 2, when the window width becomes too narrow and/or the text size becomes too large to allow the headline The Dancer's Product Resource to fit on one line, the headline wraps around with such a high line-length that the new line overlaps the content below the header. At 6/4/2007 09:13 AM, Felix Miata wrote: The question remains what, if anything, to do about that missing H1 content. One option is to simply dismiss it as a problem of inadequate consequence. As grounds to support this option: 1-Its title text contains the missing portion. 2-It's really only a subtitle to the real title contained in the graphic. 3-The dearth of people who actually need such giant text in proportion to the viewport width would likely be satisfied that the meat of the page is fully accessible. Another option would be to use JS to remove the graphic, reduce H1 font-size, and/or remove the added H1 letter-spacing when some chosen ratio of font-size to viewport width is found to be exceeded. Sorry, I don't see the problem. Why not simply allow the header block to naturally expand vertically when the headline wraps? The fact that the header contains both text and image isn't a show-stopper. In a case like this when the image has a monochrome background (here, white), simply apply that background color to the header block and position the image as desired (left top, left center, etc.). If the logo has a more complex background, simply extend the image to the side and below to give it a chance to fade to a repeatable monochrome or gradient which can be a repeating background image of its container. Here's a simple example: http://i-edu.org/ Regards, Paul __ Paul Novitski Juniper Webcraft Ltd. http://juniperwebcraft.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] layout/font site test - please
Designer wrote:
Sparked partly by the recent discussions on elasticity, I've been
attempting to put together a 'template', based on em's and with a
max-width. I've used an expression for max-width in IE 7 (pinched
from Georg!). I've tested it in FF1.5, IE6 IE7, Opera 9, and Netscape
4.02.
[]
http://www.marscovista.fsnet.co.uk/newtemplate/template.html
Felix Miata wrote:
http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Sites/ksc/dancesrqb.html is the same
basic layout, but without breaking IE's font resizer [...]
As Felix points out, your current template breaks IE's built-in font resizer
(View - Text Size - Larger/Largest). This problem is caused by your
definition of the default body text size as 14px. The use of px
measurements for font sizes is not scalable under Microsoft Internet
Explorer.
Here is the specific line in your CSS file that is causing this problem:
htmlbody { font-size : 14px; }
In terms of standards, using a px-based measurement is not technically
against the font and unit guidelines of the W3C Web Content Accessibility
Guidelines version 1.0, since the error is actually caused by Internet
Explorers misunderstanding of px units. But since the W3C WCAG also
recommends testing with actual users of actual browsers, then the use of
px-based font sizes becomes an identifiable barrier for users of Internet
Explorer, and so ends up as something that goes against the WCAG in the end.
To resolve this issue, you should use a different kind of relative font
measurement (like em or percentage), or better, leave the default body font
size untouched -- youve already set the body font size to a percentage
value in your body { font-size } setting anyways.
Phil.
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please
On 2007/06/02 11:06 (GMT+0100) Designer apparently typed: Sparked partly by the recent discussions on elasticity, I've been attempting to put together a 'template', based on em's and with a max-width. I've used an expression for max-width in IE 7 (pinched from Georg!). I've tested it in FF1.5, IE6 IE7, Opera 9, and Netscape 4.02. To accommodate the latter I've used a simple table instead of floating, but ignore this please - my main concern at this point is that the basics work without falling apart in other browsers. If you have time to do a check and comment I'd be really grateful. The links are dummies, apart from 'projects'. You can see it at: http://www.marscovista.fsnet.co.uk/newtemplate/template.html I only looked in IE7 FF. Pretty good, although the line lengths are on the long side of what I like, and the text is too small. http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Sites/ksc/dancesrqb.html is the same basic layout, but without breaking IE's font resizer, with no special treatment for antique browsers, and without disrespecting the visitor's choice of font size. -- Respect everyone. I Peter 2:17 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] layout/font site test - please
Ladies and gentlemen, Sparked partly by the recent discussions on elasticity, I've been attempting to put together a 'template', based on em's and with a max-width. I've used an expression for max-width in IE 7 (pinched from Georg!). I've tested it in FF1.5, IE6 IE7, Opera 9, and Netscape 4.02. To accommodate the latter I've used a simple table instead of floating, but ignore this please - my main concern at this point is that the basics work without falling apart in other browsers. If you have time to do a check and comment I'd be really grateful. The links are dummies, apart from 'projects'. You can see it at: http://www.marscovista.fsnet.co.uk/newtemplate/template.html Many Thanks, -- Bob www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please
Designer wrote: Sparked partly by the recent discussions on elasticity, I've been attempting to put together a 'template', based on em's and with a max-width. http://www.marscovista.fsnet.co.uk/newtemplate/template.html Hi Bob I think it looks good at 1024x768 and 800x600 but at 1280x1024 it has a lot of background around it at the sides and underneath. This is exactly the issue I had yesterday with a client hating the look at the higher resolution. I had to re-design to keep her happy. Kind regards Lyn www.westernwebdesign.com.au *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please
At 6/2/2007 03:06 AM, Designer wrote: Sparked partly by the recent discussions on elasticity, I've been attempting to put together a 'template', based on em's and with a max-width. I've used an expression for max-width in IE 7 (pinched from Georg!). I've tested it in FF1.5, IE6 IE7, Opera 9, and Netscape 4.02. To accommodate the latter I've used a simple table instead of floating, but ignore this please - my main concern at this point is that the basics work without falling apart in other browsers. If you have time to do a check and comment I'd be really grateful. The links are dummies, apart from 'projects'. You can see it at: http://www.marscovista.fsnet.co.uk/newtemplate/template.html Nice work! In FF2 I can narrow the window to about 348 pixels before I get a horizontal scrollbar. IE7 doesn't support text enlargement very well. I'm getting a horizontal scrollbar as soon as I start enlarging the text, even when the apparent content width doesn't require it. I've been wrestling with that in my own layouts; I'm sure the solution is close at hand. Did you experiment with floating the menu so that it flips underneath the content (or vice versa) when horizontal space is constrained beyond a certain point? I imagine that will be necessary to support people who want three or more columns. You chose a background image for the header that nicely repeats horizontally as the page expands. To be more versatile I think it ought to repeat vertically as well to support high enlargement in modest window widths. Real world logos are most often single fixed image rather than a repeating pattern, but in many cases it's easy enough to fade them to monochrome to the right and below or blend them to a lower-level background image that does repeat (such as a gradient). If you size the cartoon in ems as well, I think you might be pleasantly surprised at how well it survives. Tedd Sperling has been doing a lot of that lately (http://sperling.com/examples/zoom/) and it seems to work pretty well -- as long as the crispness of the images isn't crucial to the communication, as it might be for a photographer's or artist's website. Regards, Paul __ Paul Novitski Juniper Webcraft Ltd. http://juniperwebcraft.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please
Paul Novitski wrote:
You chose a background image for the header that nicely repeats
horizontally as the page expands. To be more versatile I think it
ought to repeat vertically as well to support high enlargement in
modest window widths.
At 6/2/2007 11:08 AM, Designer wrote:
I think I'm too tired. I simply can't get the thing to repeat on
enlargement. I've put it in a div and put it as the background
there, but it still won't go vertical as well. I'm Confused! It's
123 by 236px in size. Maybe it's too high for this.
You must be tired! I can totally relate to that. Your stylesheet says:
#header {background : #830 url(../graphics/fencing.jpg) repeat-x left top;}
Change repeat-x to simply repeat to go both directions.
Regards,
Paul
__
Paul Novitski
Juniper Webcraft Ltd.
http://juniperwebcraft.com
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] layout/font site test - please
On 2 Jun 2007, at 8:06 PM, Designer wrote: I've used a simple table Nothing wrong with that, if NN4.x is in your group of target browsers. But you might like to consider adding a rule to your css so that the content of the RH column is anchored to the top of the cell - at present it's displaying default behaviour of valign=middle, making it drop lower as the viewport is narrowed... N ___ omnivision. websight. http://www.omnivision.com.au/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
