Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body

[Gunlaug Sørtun]

Tony Crockford wrote:
However, I do agree we shouldn't be preventing users adjusting font 
sizes.


Such a "prevention" is only relevant for IE-users who don't know how to
use their browsers to prevent such prevention from taking effect.
Actually, most pages break in IE because the designer think they can
prevent font resizing, and hasn't taken into account what happens _when_
a user know how to use IE/win (any version) to that effect.


you did once post a useful method for setting a default on body that 
allowed the use of ems, but didn't change the users browser defaults,

i can't remember what it was, though, was it set the body font-size
to medium? or just use 100%.

IE being broken requires some setting on body font-size or em sizing 
will break.


Not quite true.

IE needs the *base* font-size to be set in percentage, if we want to use
em further in without triggering the 'em font-resizing bug'...



However, that *base* can be any page-container, not just body or html.


For min/max workarounds (javascript or expressions) where IE6's internal
font-size has to be read, we _can't_ declare font-size on html or body.
Our declaration(s) will otherwise override IE's default, and return them
to our workarounds, making them useless. In such cases we have to move
our font-size *base* further in.

Example of such a case...





what's the best pragmatic approach?


My own pragmatic approach follows.

1: to declare 'font-size: 100%' on *base* (whatever element that is),
and not size down towards some conditional equalizer like the 62.5% and
then up again. The less deviation from a 100% base, the less problems
with font resizing options in browsers.


given that we can't (commercially) just let the browsers dictate font
 and font size (as times new roman at default doesn't give you many 
words per line and *is* hard to read) how best to set a font-size 
that doesn't prevent users from choosing something else.


2: to choose font-families with high readability factor regardless of
size, and make sure they don't deviate too much in readable size from
the most used font-families our text may end up as.

my view has been that those that need something special, generally 
know how to do it and those that don't either don't care or can't be 
bothered.  e.g I find white text on a dark background difficult to 
read, so rarely spend time on sites with a dark theme.  Others I know
 find black text on white harder...  flexibility and choice are the 
key surely?


3: test that the solution actually works over a wide range of existing
defaults and browser options.

4: keep on familiarizing ourselves with as many browsers, browser
options and other "smart" solutions and variables that are placed
between us and the end user, as possible, so we know what our solutions
may be exposed to.

5: accept that we can't expect to get any of our personal
design-preferences through to the end user - unaltered. There's rarely
any need to accept major breaking though - provided we have designed for
the web.


regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body

[Tony Crockford]

On 9 Aug 2007, at 07:27, Felix Miata wrote:


On 2007/08/07 20:38 (GMT+0100) Alastair Campbell apparently typed:


You could take Jacob Neilsons finding that small fonts were the most
popular 'mistake' as proof that people don't know how to change their
settings


Or you could take it as proof that web designers as a group have  
perfect

vision, and fail to understand normal web users as a group do not have
perfect vision, resulting in fonts on web pages just right for most  
web

designers and too small for most others.


or it could be, that a lot of designers don't have perfect eyesight,  
wear glasses and when sites were designed for 640x480 wanted to cram  
as much message into the "above the fold" area as they could so  
reduced the font size to do so.


line length and readability have as much to do with the problem as  
font-size.


I have poor eyesight and a huge screen, yet I still set my code  
editor  to a bitmapped font of 9pt so I can see a decent amount of  
code at a time, the windows on my screen are generally no more than  
800px wide.





"Millions of people cannot participate fully online because most  
Web sites
are built for people with perfect vision and the manual dexterity  
needed to

operate a mouse." http://xhtml.com/en/future/fixing-the-web-1/


millions of people cannot participate fully online because they don't  
have Internet Access.


However, I do agree we shouldn't be preventing users adjusting font  
sizes.


you did once post a useful method for setting a default on body that  
allowed the use of ems, but didn't change the users browser defaults,  
i can't remember what it was, though, was it set the body font-size  
to medium? or just use 100%.


IE being broken requires some setting on body font-size or em sizing  
will break.


what's the best pragmatic approach?

given that we can't (commercially) just let the browsers dictate font  
and font size (as times new roman at default doesn't give you many  
words per line and *is* hard to read) how best to set a font-size  
that doesn't prevent users from choosing something else.


my view has been that those that need something special, generally  
know how to do it and those that don't either don't care or can't be  
bothered.  e.g I find white text on a dark background difficult to  
read, so rarely spend time on sites with a dark theme.  Others I know  
find black text on white harder...  flexibility and choice are the  
key surely?





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body

[Jermayn Parker]

one out of every three people have bad eye sight...
this was one of the very few things I actually learnt at university


>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 9/08/2007 2:27:29 pm >>>
On 2007/08/07 20:38 (GMT+0100) Alastair Campbell apparently typed:

> You could take Jacob Neilsons finding that small fonts were the most

> popular 'mistake' as proof that people don't know how to change their

> settings

Or you could take it as proof that web designers as a group have
perfect
vision, and fail to understand normal web users as a group do not have
perfect vision, resulting in fonts on web pages just right for most
web
designers and too small for most others.

> We are caught in something of a catch-22, as so many sites use small

> fonts compared to the default, or simply reducing the default because
so 
> many people don't know how to change it.

Nielsen isn't the only one who has observed that designers impose text
sizes
smaller than the rest of the world prefers or requires. Note the first
data
point on "Fixing The Web":

"Millions of people cannot participate fully online because most Web
sites
are built for people with perfect vision and the manual dexterity
needed to
operate a mouse." http://xhtml.com/en/future/fixing-the-web-1/ 
-- 
"   It is impossible to rightly govern the world without
God and the Bible."George Washington

 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] 
***


**

The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission
of Western Australia's Email security requirements for inbound
transmission. 

**


The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission of 
Western Australia's Email security policy requirements for outbound 
transmission. 

This email (facsimile) and any attachments may be confidential and privileged. 
If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, 
dissemination, distribution or copying of this email (facsimile) is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this email (facsimile) in error please contact 
the Insurance Commission.

Web: www.icwa.wa.gov.au 
Phone: +61 08 9264 

*


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body

[Felix Miata]

On 2007/08/07 20:38 (GMT+0100) Alastair Campbell apparently typed:

> You could take Jacob Neilsons finding that small fonts were the most 
> popular 'mistake' as proof that people don't know how to change their 
> settings

Or you could take it as proof that web designers as a group have perfect
vision, and fail to understand normal web users as a group do not have
perfect vision, resulting in fonts on web pages just right for most web
designers and too small for most others.

> We are caught in something of a catch-22, as so many sites use small 
> fonts compared to the default, or simply reducing the default because so 
> many people don't know how to change it.

Nielsen isn't the only one who has observed that designers impose text sizes
smaller than the rest of the world prefers or requires. Note the first data
point on "Fixing The Web":

"Millions of people cannot participate fully online because most Web sites
are built for people with perfect vision and the manual dexterity needed to
operate a mouse." http://xhtml.com/en/future/fixing-the-web-1/
-- 
"   It is impossible to rightly govern the world without
God and the Bible."George Washington

 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] setting fontsize in body

[Alastair Campbell]

Stuart Foulstone wrote:

Computer screens may have steadily improved (and so has the research) but
human evolution doesn't change so fast that HCI research becomes outdated
in 13 years as you suggest.


Was the decision on default font size actually based on research, or was 
it just what they went with at the time? In any case, the main point is 
that the decision is old (consider Felix's research into increasing 
DPI), and unlikely to be changed.


Rob Kirton wrote:
> I realise that screen real estate  is precious, however I think we all
> agree this to be a very important feature.  To most users it is a moot
> point whether or mot these buttons perfrom text resizing or indeed
> page zoom.

Agreed, although I do think the 'fit to width' option (perhaps as 
default) is important, otherwise it won't appear to 'work'. I.e. the 
person increases the zoom, and has to scroll horizontally. without 
fit-to-width, this will happen on sites that use a liquid layout, or 
pixel based widths on smaller screens.


Kind regards,

-Alastair



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body

[Philippe Wittenbergh]

On Aug 8, 2007, at 6:45 PM, Rob Kirton wrote:


However I would have thought it
sufficiently an important feature to dedicated a couple of buttons  
in the
chrome bar to it, maybe a simple + and - (my actual sugestion to  
them).


What makes you think that there won't be 'a couple of buttons' ?
The feature (page zoom) has only been implemented for 2 weeks, and  
there is no GUI for it, yet.

You can track the discussion about the UI aspects:
< https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=389628>


  [...]To most users it is a moot point
whether or mot these buttons perfrom text resizing or indeed page  
zoom.
That I'm not sure. I, for one, would hate to loose the *text* zoom  
feature.

Page zoom doesn't really work, for me (and I'm not alone).

But that features (and there associated UI) to improve readability of  
a page is important, that we all agree. And those features will  
become ever more important (more 'old' eyes on-line, increasing  
screen resolutions).


Philippe
---
Philippe Wittenbergh






***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body

[Rob Kirton]

Alastair

No doubt it was full page zoom.  However I would have thought it
sufficiently an important feature to dedicated a couple of buttons in the
chrome bar to it, maybe a simple + and - (my actual sugestion to them).  I
realise that screen real estate  is precious, however I think we all agree
this to be a very important feature.  To most users it is a moot point
whether or mot these buttons perfrom text resizing or indeed page zoom.
They would

a) make the browser screen content more readable
b) make it more apparent to the user that this feature is available.

The browser manufacturers need to realise that most users will only develop
to a certain degree, to be tech savvy.  We as an industry must make things
easier.  Browsing the  web should be no more diffcult than  switching  TV
channels, ahem looks down at incredibly complex remote control :0)

-- 
Regards

- Rob

Raising web standards  : http://ele.vation.co.uk
Linking in with others: http://linkedin.com/in/robkirton


On 08/08/07, Alastair Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Rob Kirton wrote:
> > I was informed that they had a "far better idea" in the pipeline.  I'm
> > not holding my breath...
>
> As others suggested, full page zoom is likely to be it, but I hope they
> include Opera's fit-to-width option, or something to the same effect.
> Otherwise it won't be any better than IE7's:
> http://alastairc.ac/2006/11/browser-zoom-comparison/
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
> ***
> 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] setting fontsize in body

[Stuart Foulstone]

The best on-screen text-size/font-type for readability by human beings has
been much researched ever since computer screens were invented - it's
nothing to do with the application (e.g. browser).

Computer screens may have steadily improved (and so has the research) but
human evolution doesn't change so fast that HCI research becomes outdated
in 13 years as you suggest.

Also, everyone seems to be forgetting the user's, much easier, other
choice when they come across a Web site with text which too small - leave,
never to return!

That said, some fonts can be used at a (slightly) smaller size, to no ill
effect, since they have been specially created for on-screen readabity
(e.g. Verdana, Tahoma, Trebuchet MS, and Georgia).


See further considerations for text at WebAIM:

http://www.webaim.org/techniques/fonts/#screenfonts


On Tue, August 7, 2007 8:38 pm, Alastair Campbell wrote:

>
> Felix Miata wrote:
>  > the web browser makers who made the default defaults equal
>  > to what ordinary users prefer
>
> That decision was from about 13 years ago, surely? Unless I missed
> something earlier in the thread, I doubt they did any research into it
> then, and it would be out dated now if they did. Now they can't change
> the defaults because it would "break the web". Personally, I wouldn't
> complain about that, but I would suggest that increase/decrease text
> buttons are in the default browser chrome.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> -Alastair
>
> 1] http://alastairc.ac/2007/05/user-agent-improvements/
>
>
>
>
> ***
> 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] setting fontsize in body

[Alastair Campbell]

Rob Kirton wrote:
I was informed that they had a "far better idea" in the pipeline.  I'm 
not holding my breath...


As others suggested, full page zoom is likely to be it, but I hope they 
include Opera's fit-to-width option, or something to the same effect. 
Otherwise it won't be any better than IE7's:

http://alastairc.ac/2006/11/browser-zoom-comparison/

Cheers,

-Alastair



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body

[Steve Olive]

On Tuesday 07 August 2007 20:37, Rick Lecoat wrote:
>
> And I always wonder how many people, particularly the older generation
> who (without wanting to generalise too much) may not be quite as tech-
> savvy as their kids, actually have no idea that the default text size
> can even be adjusted, and possibly look at browser-default text and
> think "That text looks a bit big and clunking. But I assume that there's
> nothing I can do about except use the text resizing control in IE."
>

It is because most computer training courses don't teach the correct skills, 
so these "bad skills" get passed on. The old 14" - 15" CRT monitors had 
resolutions around 800 x 600 or even 640 x 480 because the graphics cards and 
manufacturing techniques allowed these resolutions. 800 x 600 with the 
default fonts set by Windows gave fonts approxiamtely 12 points in size when 
compared to printed material. When people moved to 17" CRT the resolutions 
moved to 1024 x 768 or stayed at 800 x 600 to get fonts slightly larger than 
standard printed material. If people were having problems seeing textual 
menus or content they were advised to "change the resolution" by "expert 
users".

Larger 19" and 21" monitors were seen as (expensive) aids for visually 
impaired users who needed larger font.

Now we are moving into the LCD age, either 4:3 or 16:9 ratios, but with higher 
pixels densities than early monitors. Most computer trainers still teach 
users to change monitor resolution because the training material has not been 
updated to most effectively use new technology. They don't have the skills or 
knowledge about the usability options in all modern Operating Systems. You've 
seen it in Windows, but ignored it, go on guess where!

It is the tab before Screen Settings called Appearance, but everyone uses the 
Screen Settings Tab and changes the resolution. With LCD monitors the best 
screen appearance is at the native resolution, the maximum number of pixels 
or wires built into the monitor. If the fonts are too small for your eyes, 
change the appearance. Firstly, try "Large Fonts", then "Extra Large Fonts" 
and finally "Advanced" where you can specify fonts, font sizes, icon sizes 
and much more.

If these settings are changed, many people think the screen resolution has 
been changed - and are amazed when shown the 17" LCD is actually running at 
1280 x 1024, the native resolution. They are even more amazed when shown 
browser zooming!

How do I know these things? First hand experience! I teach IT to adults and 
have done for the better part of a decade. I have changed CRT & LCD monitors 
to native resolution with fonts and icons increased in size in classrooms 
used by multiple people, including teachers systems, and found that the 
systems stayed that way for weeks or even months because they were "usable" 
by everyone. Changes only occurred after I had pointed this out to teachers 
and students - they then knew how to set-up the system so it worked for them!

Oh, and if your eyesight is diminishing, or the "default" appearance is hard 
to see, do yourself a favour - get yours eyes checked. You will be amazed at 
the lack of eye strain and headaches after getting glasses - even using your 
new found skills customising the monitor appearance.

-- 
Regards,

Steve
Bathurst Computer Solutions
URL: www.bathurstcomputers.com.au
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mobile: 0407 224 251
 _
... (0)>
... / / \
.. / / . )
.. V__/_
Linux Powered!
Registered Linux User #355382
*
"If you read the same things as others
and say the same things they say, then
you're perceived as intelligent. I'm a
bit more independent and radical and
consider intelligence the ability to
think about matters on your own and
ask a lot of skeptical questions to 
get at the real truth, not just what
you're told it is."
Apple's Inventor - Steve Wozniak 2006
*


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body

[Felix Miata]

On 2007/08/08 10:04 (GMT+1200) Matthew Cruickshank apparently typed:

> Rob Kirton wrote:

>> I contacted the Firefox development team prior to release 2 and suggested
>> exactly what you have suggested, i.e. give the users an obvious prompt to
>> re-size text i.e. in the default browser menu.  It saves on both the users
>> having to discover and remeber specialist key strokes and also save the web
>> developer having to supply for each page.

>> I was informed that they had a "far better idea" in the pipeline.  I'm 
>> not holding my breath...

> Perhaps they were hinting at the full page zoom.

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4821 is full page zoom, getting
heavy attention in hopes it will be part of Gecko 1.9.

More likely it was this 7 year old enhancement request: "feature to zoom so
that majority of text on a page is user's default size"
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31961

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=108391 was since fixed, might
have been part of what was referred to.

There are a lot of really old enhancement request bugs open that would make
Gecko friendlier, among them:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24846 7.5 years
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45848 7 years
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217523 4 years
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=259856 3 years

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=86194 tracks various user power
enhancements.
-- 
"   It is impossible to rightly govern the world without
God and the Bible."George Washington

 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] setting fontsize in body

[Matthew Cruickshank]

Rob Kirton wrote:
I was informed that they had a "far better idea" in the pipeline.  I'm 
not holding my breath...




Perhaps they were hinting at the full page zoom.

See http://urltea.com/15zr?full-page-zoom

(from http://planet.mozilla.org/ )


.Matthew Cruickshank
http://docvert.org << Convert MS Word to HTML, RSS, or any XML.


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body

[Rob Kirton]

Alastair

I contacted the Firefox development team prior to release 2 and suggested
exactly what you have suggested, i.e. give the users an obvious prompt to
re-size text i.e. in the default browser menu.  It saves on both the users
having to discover and remeber specialist key strokes and also save the web
developer having to supply for each page.

I was informed that they had a "far better idea" in the pipeline.  I'm not
holding my breath...

I can only agree with previous comments about average web users and their
lack of knowledge abou text resizing, having at one time run a number of
classes for such people.  Maybe one day  the browser  vendors will catch on.


-- 
Regards

- Rob

Raising web standards  : http://ele.vation.co.uk
Linking in with others: http://linkedin.com/in/robkirton


 Personally, I wouldn't
> complain about that, but I would suggest that increase/decrease text
> buttons are in the default browser chrome.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> -Alastair
>
> 1] http://alastairc.ac/2007/05/user-agent-improvements/
>
>
>
>
> ***
> 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] setting fontsize in body

[Alastair Campbell]

Rick Lecoat wrote:

Do we /know/ that the majority of people have their
default text set according to their requirements, or is it ...

> they don't know that there's any other way?

From lots of usability testing (including with people with visual 
impairments), and training people (not on browsers, but asking out of 
curiosity), I'm quite confident that few people know about changing the 
font-size.


This was backed up not long ago by a very disappointing study that 
showed less than 1% of people visiting the site had changed their font 
settings. (Disappointing in terms of the results.) I thought I'd 
bookmarked it, but hopefully someone else did?


Felix Miata wrote:
> The only reasonable current assumption is that the users'
> defaults are exactly as they want and/or need them to be.

I find it a strange belief that people must use the defaults because 
they choose to. There are many scenarios where people stick with even 
silly defaults, either through ignorance or not caring enough to change 
them. (Or changing the wrong mechanism, as someone mentioned people 
changing screen resolutions.)


You could take Jacob Neilsons finding that small fonts were the most 
popular 'mistake' as proof that people don't know how to change their 
settings, otherwise they wouldn't have cared. The popularity of 
font-sizing widgets on sites is further evidence of users not knowing 
about font-size settings/zooming. (Not that I agree with doing that [1]).


Even IE allows you to override the font settings, but it makes so many 
sites look rubbish that most people wouldn't.


We are caught in something of a catch-22, as so many sites use small 
fonts compared to the default, or simply reducing the default because so 
many people don't know how to change it.


Felix Miata wrote:
> the web browser makers who made the default defaults equal
> to what ordinary users prefer

That decision was from about 13 years ago, surely? Unless I missed 
something earlier in the thread, I doubt they did any research into it 
then, and it would be out dated now if they did. Now they can't change 
the defaults because it would "break the web". Personally, I wouldn't 
complain about that, but I would suggest that increase/decrease text 
buttons are in the default browser chrome.


Kind regards,

-Alastair

1] http://alastairc.ac/2007/05/user-agent-improvements/




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body

[David Hucklesby]

On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 12:01:04 +0100, David Dorward wrote:

> This would be the older generation who tend towards having poor eyesight and 
> needing
> larger font sizes?
>

Sorry, David,

Your comment makes me smile.

Being retired, I assist at a computer training lab where students of
all adult ages learn computer skills - web design; MS Office; 
Photoshop etc.

I use a 15" notebook with 1400 x 1050 resolution at home. The lab has
just installed 19" LCD monitors, native resolution 1280 x 1024. To me,
text on the lab computers looks huge by comparison.

Invariably, when I turn on my workstation, I find the monitor resolution
reset to a lower resolution by someone from the morning class. I also
observe that a significant number of students also reset their monitors
- some of them to 800 x 600. (!)

This phenomenon seems unrelated to age.

(FWIW - I am 71 1/2. And, yes, I need glasses.)

Cordially,
David
--



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body

[Felix Miata]

On 2007/08/07 07:28 (GMT-0700) Hassan Schroeder apparently typed:

> Claiming that the average user has configured any browser to her/his
> personal taste is simply wishful thinking.

For any designer to think he can do better than the web browser makers who
made the default defaults equal to what ordinary users prefer, and virtually
all the same as each other, is ludicrous. The minority of users who find the
default defaults excessively different from what they find acceptable should
be able to discover a solution, while the majority have been given
approximately or even exactly what they prefer. Thus, assuming users have
actively configured their own browsers to suit their own needs is immensely
less evil than the rude imposition of a designer's arbitrary fraction of
their defaults.
-- 
"   It is impossible to rightly govern the world without
God and the Bible."George Washington

 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] setting fontsize in body

[Rick Lecoat]

At 15:28 (London time), on 7/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:

>A few years ago, I taught a basic HTML class to employees of a large
>*high-tech* company. Out of hundreds of students, only a handful had
>any idea they could change their default text, or -- note -- anything
>else that involved *using* the menus at the top of the browser. They
>simply never explored them.
>
>This continues to be true of every /non-developer/ I've dealt with
>personally or professionally.
>
>I've had clients/usability test participants rave about how wonderful
>it was having an on-page font resizer. Not one realized that was also
>duplicated functionality. Not one.
>
>Claiming that the average user has configured any browser to her/his
>personal taste is simply wishful thinking.

Phew. I was beginning to think I was some sort of lone heretic for even
thinking this stuff. Of course, accepting that use of a default text
size is possibly more due to inertia than to choice doesn't do much to
constructively help us decide how best to size text. If not by simply
setting content text to 100%, then how?

Current wisdom would appear to say "use default text size, and people
who want it smaller than that (because they find the design ugly at
default sizes) will know what to do and will probably already have
amended their default settings". But it seems that most won't.

-- 
Rick Lecoat



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body

[Rick Lecoat]

At 14:24 (London time), on 7/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:

>Actually there is no material difference in nominal browser default sizes.
>http://lists.css-discuss.org/mailman/private/css-d/2006-January/057975.html

Very interesting link, thanks Felix.

-- 
Rick Lecoat



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body

[Hassan Schroeder]

Rick Lecoat wrote:


What I'm asking is: Do we /know/ that the majority of people have their
default text set according to their requirements, or is it possible that
a large number of those people (particularly those people who will most
benefit from an accessibly designed site) are simply viewing pages at
default size because, to put it bluntly, they don't know that there's
any other way?


It's not only possible, it's highly probable.

A few years ago, I taught a basic HTML class to employees of a large
*high-tech* company. Out of hundreds of students, only a handful had
any idea they could change their default text, or -- note -- anything
else that involved *using* the menus at the top of the browser. They
simply never explored them.

This continues to be true of every /non-developer/ I've dealt with
personally or professionally.

I've had clients/usability test participants rave about how wonderful
it was having an on-page font resizer. Not one realized that was also
duplicated functionality. Not one.

Claiming that the average user has configured any browser to her/his
personal taste is simply wishful thinking.

--
Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Webtuitive Design ===  (+1) 408-938-0567   === http://webtuitive.com

   dream.  code.



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body

[Andrew Cunningham]

 


On Tue, August 7, 2007 11:24 pm, Felix Miata wrote:

>
Given that most browsers in most environments nominally default to
12pt,
> and
> that more people prefer 12pt than any other
size, any proposition that a
> site
> should be styled
such that most text is not the user's default size is
>
unsupportable.
>

At least for user's reading the Latin,
Cyrillic and Greek scripts. For other scripts preferred fonts sizes may be
either 14pt or 16pt depending on the script.

Although font
metrics can also impact on required font sizes.

Andrew
--

Andrew Cunningham
Research and Development Coordinator
Vicnet
State Library of Victoria
Australia

[EMAIL PROTECTED]


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body

[Felix Miata]

On 2007/08/07 04:28 (GMT-0700) Tee G. Peng apparently typed:

> On Aug 7, 2007, at 4:01 AM, David Dorward wrote:

>> I've never seen a designer make body text bigger then the vendor  
>> default, only smaller and harder to read.

> clearleft dot com comes to mind.

That's a Clagnut-styled page. In a roundabout way, http://clearleft.com/ is a
100% of default-styled page, but if you have a minimum font size set and use
a Gecko browser, its text will be bigger for any minimum size more than 9/16
of your default. How much bigger will depend on the spread between default
size and minimum size. http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/Clagnut/eonsSS.html
-- 
"   It is impossible to rightly govern the world without
God and the Bible."George Washington

 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] setting fontsize in body

[Felix Miata]

On 2007/08/07 12:54 (GMT+0100) Rick Lecoat apparently typed:

> I just wondered how accurate the idea
> that 'type that is smaller than the user's specified browser default is
> too small to for that user to read' really is? Because we don't know
> that they /did/ specify it. The browser vendor probably specified it.

I've been unable to find any scientific study anywhere that's reports
anything other than that more users prefer 12pt than any other size...

> At the same time, however, I also accede to David Dorward's point that
> browsers go through much usability testing before release.

> Of course, if we are to trust that usability testing to provide an
> accurate gauge of what the majority of people consider a comfortable
> reading size, then the fact that different browsers specify different
> default sizes slightly undermines that.

Actually there is no material difference in nominal browser default sizes.
http://lists.css-discuss.org/mailman/private/css-d/2006-January/057975.html

Given that most browsers in most environments nominally default to 12pt, and
that more people prefer 12pt than any other size, any proposition that a site
should be styled such that most text is not the user's default size is
unsupportable.
-- 
"   It is impossible to rightly govern the world without
God and the Bible."George Washington

 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] setting fontsize in body

[minim]

It's all starting to sound to me like the only way to deal with all  
the ifs and maybes is to set up our own options - use the browser  
default size as a base and provide a switch for the user to set their  
own preferences for your site in case they haven't fathomed the  
mysteries of their browser buttons and menus yet. We can guarantee  
neither that users will or will not have used the in-built text-size  
otions (and with so many sites out there still using small text, it's  
not really practical for anybody to just set a text size and stick  
with it - you really need to be au fait with the keyboard shortcuts  
and switch according to site to make comfortable use of the facility)  
and all we really know is that some people may need to. For me, I  
think I'll go and look into PHP sessions and see how I can set up my  
site so they can specify what size font they want to use when they  
visit and have that size persist on their return :-)


Caitlin Rowley, B. Mus. (Hons), Gr. Dip. Design
Composer, musicologist, web designer
http://www.minim-media.com/listen/



On 7 Aug 2007, at 12:54, Rick Lecoat wrote:


At 12:13 (London time), on 7/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:


does Jakob Nielsen's research count as creditable research?


Absolutely, of course.


I would like to draw your attention to his Alertbox column, where he
repeatedly states that tiny text is one of the worst design mistakes.
To quote from his "Top Ten Web Design Mistakes of 2005" at
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html :

"Bad fonts won the vote by a landslide, getting almost twice as many
votes as the #2 mistake. About two-thirds of the voters complained
about small font sizes or frozen font sizes;"


And nobody could make a case for type that is to small to read being
acceptable. No me, certainly. But I just wondered how accurate the  
idea
that 'type that is smaller than the user's specified browser  
default is

too small to for that user to read' really is? Because we don't know
that they /did/ specify it. The browser vendor probably specified it.

At the same time, however, I also accede to David Dorward's point that
browsers go through much usability testing before release.

Of course, if we are to trust that usability testing to provide an
accurate gauge of what the majority of people consider a comfortable
reading size, then the fact that different browsers specify different
default sizes slightly undermines that.

--
Rick Lecoat



***
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] setting fontsize in body

[Rick Lecoat]

At 12:01 (London time), on 7/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:

>> However, I always get a nagging doubt whenever this issue is raised.
>> Because whilst the argument for leaving default text sizing at 100% of
>> the browser's default size, and for not making assumptions about the
>> user's settings, is a good one, it does /itself/ make the assumption
>> that the default has been chosen /proactively/ by the user.
>
>No, it assumes that the user has either chosen the size they like or  
>isn't sufficiently dissatisfied with the vendor supplied (after much  
>usability testing) default to find out how it can be changed.

Yes, but the amount of dissatisfaction required to get someone to figure
out how to make a change could be considerable, especially in an
situation like using a computer where many people find anything that
steps beyond beyond the very obvious and hand-held-step-by-step to be
quite daunting and intimidating. But I take your point about browser
vendors doing exhaustive usability testing prior to product release.

>> And I always wonder how many people, particularly the older generation
>> who (without wanting to generalise too much) may not be quite as tech-
>> savvy as their kids, actually have no idea that the default text size
>> can even be adjusted, and possibly look at browser-default text and
>> think "That text looks a bit big and clunking. But I assume that  
>> there's
>> nothing I can do about except use the text resizing control in IE."
>
>This would be the older generation who tend towards having poor  
>eyesight and needing larger font sizes?

Yeah, that's them.
I wasn't disputing that people want bigger type as they get older,
that's a no-brainer. I was simply speculating whether some people are
viewing with size-16 text because they don't know how to change it when
they'd be quite happy with, say, size-14.

>I've never seen a designer make body text bigger then the vendor  
>default, only smaller and harder to read.

True enough. Of course 'harder to read' is subjective and doesn't just
work in a downward direction. Content text set at 120 pixel height would
be pretty hard to read as well ;-)

-- 
Rick Lecoat



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body

[Rick Lecoat]

At 12:13 (London time), on 7/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:

>does Jakob Nielsen's research count as creditable research?

Absolutely, of course. 

>I would like to draw your attention to his Alertbox column, where he
>repeatedly states that tiny text is one of the worst design mistakes.
>To quote from his "Top Ten Web Design Mistakes of 2005" at
>http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html :
>
>"Bad fonts won the vote by a landslide, getting almost twice as many
>votes as the #2 mistake. About two-thirds of the voters complained
>about small font sizes or frozen font sizes;"

And nobody could make a case for type that is to small to read being
acceptable. No me, certainly. But I just wondered how accurate the idea
that 'type that is smaller than the user's specified browser default is
too small to for that user to read' really is? Because we don't know
that they /did/ specify it. The browser vendor probably specified it.

At the same time, however, I also accede to David Dorward's point that
browsers go through much usability testing before release.

Of course, if we are to trust that usability testing to provide an
accurate gauge of what the majority of people consider a comfortable
reading size, then the fact that different browsers specify different
default sizes slightly undermines that.

-- 
Rick Lecoat



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body

[Tee G. Peng]

On Aug 7, 2007, at 4:01 AM, David Dorward wrote:



This would be the older generation who tend towards having poor  
eyesight and needing larger font sizes?


I've never seen a designer make body text bigger then the vendor  
default, only smaller and harder to read.


clearleft dot com comes to mind. I headed for that direction too, but  
was horrify to see the body text of my site shouting boldly at  
friends and clients' PC monitors. I think this is the problem we  
constantly facing here because too many website are with smaller  
fonts and that people suffer (they probably don't know they can use  
the zoom in /enlarge fontsize feature) too much, so my friends and  
some unweb-savvy clients, although have 1280  and higher resolution  
for their monitors, they all changed it to 1024. I bet they would  
have changed it to 800 pixel if their monitors allow it.


tee


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body

[Jens Brueckmann]

Hi Rick,

> And I always wonder how many people, particularly the older generation
> who (without wanting to generalise too much) may not be quite as tech-
> savvy as their kids, actually have no idea that the default text size
> can even be adjusted, and possibly look at browser-default text and
> think "That text looks a bit big and clunking. But I assume that there's
> nothing I can do about except use the text resizing control in IE."

does Jakob Nielsen's research count as creditable research?

I would like to draw your attention to his Alertbox column, where he
repeatedly states that tiny text is one of the worst design mistakes.
To quote from his "Top Ten Web Design Mistakes of 2005" at
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html :

"Bad fonts won the vote by a landslide, getting almost twice as many
votes as the #2 mistake. About two-thirds of the voters complained
about small font sizes or frozen font sizes;"

which then links to the famous "Let Users Control Font Size" at
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20020819.html


Cheers,

jens.
-- 
Jens Brueckmann
http://www.yalf.de


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body

[David Dorward]

On 7 Aug 2007, at 11:37, Rick Lecoat wrote:

However, I always get a nagging doubt whenever this issue is raised.
Because whilst the argument for leaving default text sizing at 100% of
the browser's default size, and for not making assumptions about the
user's settings, is a good one, it does /itself/ make the assumption
that the default has been chosen /proactively/ by the user.


No, it assumes that the user has either chosen the size they like or  
isn't sufficiently dissatisfied with the vendor supplied (after much  
usability testing) default to find out how it can be changed.



And I always wonder how many people, particularly the older generation
who (without wanting to generalise too much) may not be quite as tech-
savvy as their kids, actually have no idea that the default text size
can even be adjusted, and possibly look at browser-default text and
think "That text looks a bit big and clunking. But I assume that  
there's

nothing I can do about except use the text resizing control in IE."


This would be the older generation who tend towards having poor  
eyesight and needing larger font sizes?


I've never seen a designer make body text bigger then the vendor  
default, only smaller and harder to read.



--
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk/
http://blog.dorward.me.uk/




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body

[Rick Lecoat]

At 23:09 (London time), on 3/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:

>The only reasonable current assumption is that the users' defaults are
>exactly as they want and/or need them to be. Assuming otherwise with anything
>other than medium, 1em or 100% in body flowing through to main content
>unaltered could somehow be any improvement is thus an inexcusably rude
>imposition. http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/bigdefaults.html

I fully understand and appreciate the above argument, and the link
provided makes a strong and persuasive case. No question about that. 

However, I always get a nagging doubt whenever this issue is raised.
Because whilst the argument for leaving default text sizing at 100% of
the browser's default size, and for not making assumptions about the
user's settings, is a good one, it does /itself/ make the assumption
that the default has been chosen /proactively/ by the user. In other
words, the user has looked at text displayed using the default text size
and thought "That's just right for me" or "That's not right for me, I'll
change it in my browser settings".

And I always wonder how many people, particularly the older generation
who (without wanting to generalise too much) may not be quite as tech-
savvy as their kids, actually have no idea that the default text size
can even be adjusted, and possibly look at browser-default text and
think "That text looks a bit big and clunking. But I assume that there's
nothing I can do about except use the text resizing control in IE."

What I'm asking is: Do we /know/ that the majority of people have their
default text set according to their requirements, or is it possible that
a large number of those people (particularly those people who will most
benefit from an accessibly designed site) are simply viewing pages at
default size because, to put it bluntly, they don't know that there's
any other way?

Now, I'm NOT saying that this /is/ the case. I'm really not. But I'd
love to know if there is any research data on this subject because,
whilst I'm all for using default sizing if it really IS about respecting
the viewer's choices, it would be a shame if it turned out that all we
were really supporting was a lack of awareness of browser settings and
forcing people to look at slightly uglier pages than they might
otherwise want or need to.

I'm not convinced by my own argument, I'm just throwing the idea out
there for discussion, is all.

-- 
Rick Lecoat



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body

[Felix Miata]

On 2007/08/04 17:59 (GMT+0100) Nick Fitzsimons apparently typed:

> On 4 Aug 2007, at 17:08:37, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:

>> Just to check since there may also be another, so far pretty  
>> undocumented, variable at play here:
>> - does anyone know if this 'minimum font size' value changes/differs
>> with screen-DPI in Opera?

>> It is a bit problematic if a browser has undocumented
>> defaults/behaviors, as we cannot test based on knowledge then and the
>> guessing game is no fun.

>> On the other hand: such deviations shouldn't create any real  
>> problems if
>> the methods we use take the potential variables into account, and
>> browser-options aren't bugs designers should try to counter.

> On the standard 96dpi XP Pro, Opera has configured itself with:

> default font size 16px
> minimum font size 9px.

> Another Parallels virtual machine later: XP Pro SP2, never been used  
> except for first boot, set to 120dpi, reboot to apply settings,  
> install Opera 9.22. Result:

> default font size 20px   <- AHAH!

An obvious attempt to match IE, which though still 12pt, at 120 DPI is 20px
rather than 96 DPI's 16px.

> minimum font size 9px.

DPI has virtually no effect on Opera under the Linux sample environments
I tried with initially void ~/.opera directories:
Opera 9.22 SUSE Linux  Opera Opera Opera Opera Opera Firefox
Desktop KDE   KDE   KDE   KDE   KDE  2.0.0.5
horizontal  1024  1280  1400  1600  1600all
vertical 768   960  1050  1200  1200all
DPI   8496   108   120   120all
XFT.dpi  - - - - 144all
Type   FontSize  Size  Size  Size  Size  Size
email compose  Courier New1212121212
email display  Courier New1313131313
browser menus  Arial  1212141515 CSS Menu
browser toolbars   Arial  1212141515 CSS Menu
browser dialogsArial  1212141515 CSS Menu
browser panels Arial  1212141515 CSS Menu
web page normal text   Times New Roman1616161616  16
web page PRE   Courier New1616161616
text field multi line  Courier New1212121212
text field single line Arial  1212121212
form buttons   Arial  1212121212
font family serif  Times New Roman   - - - - -
font family sans-serif Arial - - - - -
font family cursiveImpact- - - - -
font family fantasyComic Sans MS - - - - -
font family monospace  Courier New   - - - - -12
web page   Times New Roman3232323232
web page   Times New Roman2424242424
web page   Times New Roman1818181818
web page   Times New Roman1616161616
web page   Times New Roman1313131313
web page   Times New Roman1212121212
minimum  9px   9px   9px   9px   9pxnone
-- 
"   It is impossible to rightly govern the world without
God and the Bible."George Washington

 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] setting fontsize in body

[Nick Fitzsimons]

On 4 Aug 2007, at 17:08:37, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:

Just to check since there may also be another, so far pretty  
undocumented, variable at play here:

- does anyone know if this 'minimum font size' value changes/differs
with screen-DPI in Opera?

It is a bit problematic if a browser has undocumented
defaults/behaviors, as we cannot test based on knowledge then and the
guessing game is no fun.

On the other hand: such deviations shouldn't create any real  
problems if

the methods we use take the potential variables into account, and
browser-options aren't bugs designers should try to counter.


On the standard 96dpi XP Pro, Opera has configured itself with:

default font size 16px
minimum font size 9px.

Another Parallels virtual machine later: XP Pro SP2, never been used  
except for first boot, set to 120dpi, reboot to apply settings,  
install Opera 9.22. Result:


default font size 20px   <- AHAH!
minimum font size 9px.

I'm now going to make my dinner and won't be thinking about font  
sizes for the rest of the weekend :-)


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] setting fontsize in body

[Gunlaug Sørtun]

Nick Fitzsimons wrote:

2. I trashed my Opera preferences and installed the latest version, 
and it has a minimum font size of 13px, which ties in with what I 
remember seeing previously.


On a brand-new, never-run Windows XP SP 2 install (gotta love 
Parallels): download and run Opera, minimum font size is 9px.


So it looks like somebody at Opera goofed, either in writing that 
document, or in not keeping it updated.


Just to check since there may also be another, so far pretty 
undocumented, variable at play here:

- does anyone know if this 'minimum font size' value changes/differs
with screen-DPI in Opera?


It is a bit problematic if a browser has undocumented
defaults/behaviors, as we cannot test based on knowledge then and the
guessing game is no fun.

On the other hand: such deviations shouldn't create any real problems if
the methods we use take the potential variables into account, and
browser-options aren't bugs designers should try to counter.

regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body

[Nick Fitzsimons]

On 4 Aug 2007, at 11:55:42, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:


Tee G. Peng wrote:

On Aug 3, 2007, at 8:19 PM, Philippe Wittenbergh wrote:

Unless my copy is sick, the default is 9px
Mine is 12px. I don't remember I ever altered the fontsize in  
Opera (9.22), as I only use this browser for testing.

Monitor Screen resolution: 1680 x 1050.


According to this...

... the default 'minimum font size' is '6px' for win-versions and
_'9px'_ for Mac-versions.



Not the result I'm getting for the latest version, 9.22. On the Mac:

1. Existing install had a minimum font size of 9px, but I'm pretty  
sure I'd changed that myself when testing something a few months ago.


2. I trashed my Opera preferences and installed the latest version,  
and it has a minimum font size of 13px, which ties in with what I  
remember seeing previously.


On a brand-new, never-run Windows XP SP 2 install (gotta love  
Parallels): download and run Opera, minimum font size is 9px.


So it looks like somebody at Opera goofed, either in writing that  
document, or in not keeping it updated.


HTH,

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] setting fontsize in body

[Nick Fitzsimons]

On 3 Aug 2007, at 20:14:59, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:


Nick Fitzsimons wrote:
(Still falls foul of a minimum font-size set in the browser  
preferences, though.)


I wouldn't say it "falls foul". If a user has set a minimum size,  
then a page should heed that. It still *respects* minimum font-size  
settings.


Yep, poor choice of words. I stand corrected :-)

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] setting fontsize in body

[Gunlaug Sørtun]

Tee G. Peng wrote:

On Aug 3, 2007, at 8:19 PM, Philippe Wittenbergh wrote:

Unless my copy is sick, the default is 9px


Mine is 12px. I don't remember I ever altered the fontsize in Opera 
(9.22), as I only use this browser for testing.


Monitor Screen resolution: 1680 x 1050.


According to this...

... the default 'minimum font size' is '6px' for win-versions and
_'9px'_ for Mac-versions.

One reason the default may be '12px' in your version, is if you have
just updated versions and Opera has "inherited" an old setting. Most
browsers do inherit settings when updated.

I don't update Opera on windows - I install new versions separately so I
can test them properly and give them individual settings.
Unfortunately for this case I don't bother doing that on my Mac.

So, go ahead and change 'minimum font size' to '9px' in your Opera on
Mac, before further testing and discovering of unnecessary problems.


Just got an email from client, his client doesn't care the Opera, if
it can be fix with a 'conditional comment' like we treat the IE than
it's great, go ahead and do it,  if not, ignore. Which is very
unfortunately and I must admit I get discourage by this type of
attitude. It would be nice if every client can have the same attitude
toward IE :)


It would be nice if clients were *quality-minded*, but they rarely are.

FWIW: there are no "fixes" for browser-options in /any/ browser - except
in IE/win (to some degree). The only solution to font-resizing problems
is to use a font-size method that doesn't try to  override
browser-options and user-preferences.
The mentioned '62.5%' on body definitely isn't it.

regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body

[Tee G. Peng]

On Aug 3, 2007, at 8:19 PM, Philippe Wittenbergh wrote:


On Aug 4, 2007, at 10:45 AM, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:

Back to Tee's problem with 'body {font-size: 62.5%}' etc in Opera/ 
Mac. It may be caused by the preset value for 'minimum font size'  
in that browser/OS.
If someone can check the preset value for 'minimum font size' in  
an unaltered Opera/Mac, as I set mine to '14px' years ago and have  
since just updated it, and I can't remember the preset value. Now  
I can't even check Tee's problem, because my Mac is off-line.


Unless my copy is sick, the default is 9px


Mine is 12px. I don't remember I ever altered the fontsize in Opera  
(9.22), as I only use this browser for testing.


Monitor Screen resolution: 1680 x 1050.

Just got an email from client, his client doesn't care the Opera, if  
it can be fix with a 'conditional comment' like we treat the IE than  
it's great, go ahead and do it,  if not, ignore. Which is very  
unfortunately and I must admit I get discourage by this type of  
attitude. It would be nice if every client can have the same attitude  
toward IE :)


tee

***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body

[Philippe Wittenbergh]

On Aug 4, 2007, at 10:45 AM, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:

Back to Tee's problem with 'body {font-size: 62.5%}' etc in Opera/ 
Mac. It may be caused by the preset value for 'minimum font size'  
in that browser/OS.
If someone can check the preset value for 'minimum font size' in an  
unaltered Opera/Mac, as I set mine to '14px' years ago and have  
since just updated it, and I can't remember the preset value. Now I  
can't even check Tee's problem, because my Mac is off-line.


Unless my copy is sick, the default is 9px.
I did notice sometimes that Opera Mac (and maybe Win) tends to round- 
up decimal percentage points more aggressively than other browsers on  
my Mac(s). That is more often the case in a complex cascade (e.g.  
starting at 85.5% font-size, then a descendant has 90.5%, etc). I've  
seen Opera round the numbers upwards more often (that is not more  
than 1px per step, but can add up for deeply nested elements)


Philippe
---
Philippe Wittenbergh






***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body

[Gunlaug Sørtun]

Patrick H. Lauke wrote:

Ah, a misunderstanding of terminology. I thought "minimum font-size 
settings" referred to things like Firefox's preference setting for 
disallowing fonts, even when resized by the user, to fall below a 
certain fixed size...while in this case y'all seem to mean the default 
font size.


We better clear up the terminology then.

- 'minimum font size' is the user-option most browsers except IE have, 
as you describe. It works differently in those browsers that have this 
option, and the preset value varies.


- 'default font size' is most often referred to as the "medium", 
"normal" or "100%" font size, which can also be changed by the user in 
most browsers. Most browsers today also change their preset default(s) 
based on screen-DPI - one way or another.


The combination of altered 'minimum font size' and 'default font size' 
can create some interesting results for some unprepared pages with 
unnecessary complex font-sizing.



Back to Tee's problem with 'body {font-size: 62.5%}' etc in Opera/Mac. 
It may be caused by the preset value for 'minimum font size' in that 
browser/OS.
If someone can check the preset value for 'minimum font size' in an 
unaltered Opera/Mac, as I set mine to '14px' years ago and have since 
just updated it, and I can't remember the preset value. Now I can't even 
check Tee's problem, because my Mac is off-line.


Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body

[Patrick H. Lauke]

Felix Miata wrote:

(Still falls foul of a minimum font-size set in the browser preferences, 
though.)


I wouldn't say it "falls foul". If a user has set a minimum size, then a 
page should heed that. It still *respects* minimum font-size settings.


http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/Clagnut/eonsSS.html demonstrates the meaning of
"falls foul" in such cases.


Ah, a misunderstanding of terminology. I thought "minimum font-size 
settings" referred to things like Firefox's preference setting for 
disallowing fonts, even when resized by the user, to fall below a 
certain fixed size...while in this case y'all seem to mean the default 
font size.


P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
__
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
__
Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
__
Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team
http://streetteam.webstandards.org/
__


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body

[Tee G. Peng]

Hi Thanks for all the insightful feedback.

I have a very limited freedom on this particular project. A previous  
version was done quite messy and it seemed time were waste quite a  
lot, so I was brought in to fix, clean up the code, but the end- 
client wanted the fontsize stays the same. The problem I am facing  
now, is that in Opera Mac version, fontsize in every element is 2  
pixel bigger than other browsers, the PC version stays consistent.


Here are the basic codes for font size adopted from the previous  
version and I am not allowed to touch it.


body {font-size: 62.5%}
#nav li {font-size: 1em} /*10px */
p {font-size: 1em} /*10px */
h2  {font-size: 1.2em} /*12px */
h3  {font-size: 1.1em}

no specific declaration is made for IE, but there is no issue there  
as far as consistency concerned. Mac version Opera makes everything 2  
pixel larger. It looks fine and acceptable for the content area  
(nobody seems to care how this browser render the fontsize as long as  
the layout looks the same and thing doesn't fall apart) but because  
the navigation tab is a bit crowded, thus making the last  tab drops  
to next line. And this is the problem I need to fix, I suggested a  
change to 100.1% in the body and adjust other element accordingly  
because from my experience, I know I can get a better result for Mac  
version Opera. No, can't do it because I can't  touch the fontsize if  
it affects the size in other elements.


What I don't understand is, why the Mac version Opera behaves so  
erratic. My guess is the 62.5% causing the problem.


tee



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body

[Felix Miata]

On 2007/08/03 16:16 (GMT-0400) Rick Lecoat apparently typed:

> So, in calculating your 'readable' text size as a proportion of the
> (admittedly overlarge) default size, you make yourself vulnerable should
> the user have already made their own compensation for the overly large
> default size.

The time when is was reasonable to assume the default was either 16px or
"admittedly overlarge" is long since past. While the former still might in
fact be the case the majority of the time, in the face of growing screen
resolutions and DPI the minority of the time is large and rapidly growing,
with many instances the DPI high enough that the PC supplier (for laptops
usually, and indirectly) changes the default to 20px (actually still 12pt,
the real default in most cases) by changing the system DPI from the normal 96
to a necessarily larger 120.

The only way to know a size is "too large" is if you are looking at it. You
know  neither how many px your visitors have available (without JS), nor how
big each is (with or without JS). You don't have your users' eyes, nor their
seating distance, nor their hardware, nor their lighting conditions, nor
their personal software settings, except by small chance. Something you
probably do have is no less than average eyesight, which biases you into
thinking smaller is OK. So, there's just no way you can know too large or too
small or anything in between for any typical site's users.

The only reasonable current assumption is that the users' defaults are
exactly as they want and/or need them to be. Assuming otherwise with anything
other than medium, 1em or 100% in body flowing through to main content
unaltered could somehow be any improvement is thus an inexcusably rude
imposition. http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/bigdefaults.html

> The more I look at the clagnut solution, the more I come
> to the conclusion that relying on the user having their browser's
> default text size unchanged is simply building a house on sand. Sooner
> or later it's coming down around your ears.

Absolutely.
-- 
"   It is impossible to rightly govern the world without
God and the Bible."George Washington

 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] setting fontsize in body

[Rick Lecoat]

At 20:14 (London time), on 3/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:

>> (Still falls foul of a minimum font-size set in the browser preferences, 
>> though.)
>
>I wouldn't say it "falls foul". If a user has set a minimum size, then a 
>page should heed that. It still *respects* minimum font-size settings.

Well, the problem as far as I can see it, is the assumption that the
user has a default font size of 16. Using the clagnut method (or Nick's
reverse 125%/50% method), I would be specifying 1.2ems in order to get
text 12px high that IE can resize. But if the user has changed his
default size to 12 because, not unreasonably, he or she felt that 12 was
a comfortable reading size, then my 1.2 em type will be displayed at
9px, not 12, which is not very readable at all.

So, in calculating your 'readable' text size as a proportion of the
(admittedly overlarge) default size, you make yourself vulnerable should
the user have already made their own compensation for the overly large
default size. The more I look at the clagnut solution, the more I come
to the conclusion that relying on the user having their browser's
default text size unchanged is simply building a house on sand. Sooner
or later it's coming down around your ears.

-- 
Rick Lecoat



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body

[Felix Miata]

On 2007/08/03 21:14 (GMT+0100) Patrick H. Lauke apparently typed:

> Nick Fitzsimons wrote:

>> On 3 Aug 2007, at 16:08:55, Rick Lecoat wrote:

>> When dealing with this the other year, I came up with this solution 
>> requiring an additional div, which happened to be there anyway:

>> body {
>>font-size: 125%; /* bump it up to 20px, assuming browser starts at 
>> 16px */
>> }

>> div#wrapper {
>>font-size: 50%; /* and back down to 10px */
>> }

> You could also save yourself the wrapper by doing the first declaration 
> on the "html" element, and the second on the "body"

> html { font-size: 125%; }
> body { font-size: 50%; }

>> (Still falls foul of a minimum font-size set in the browser preferences, 
>> though.)

> I wouldn't say it "falls foul". If a user has set a minimum size, then a 
> page should heed that. It still *respects* minimum font-size settings.

http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/Clagnut/eonsSS.html demonstrates the meaning of
"falls foul" in such cases.

The same also applies when a user has applied a rudimentary user stylesheet
(containing only 'body {font-size: medium !important}' or equivalent). A
slightly more elaborate one adding e.g. td, dd, p, div, li, pre, code,
textarea to body generally falls foul also, as so many authors apply their
CSS to classes and ids instead of simply elements.
-- 
"   It is impossible to rightly govern the world without
God and the Bible."George Washington

 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] setting fontsize in body

[Patrick H. Lauke]

Nick Fitzsimons wrote:

On 3 Aug 2007, at 16:08:55, Rick Lecoat wrote:


When dealing with this the other year, I came up with this solution 
requiring an additional div, which happened to be there anyway:


body {
   font-size: 125%; /* bump it up to 20px, assuming browser starts at 
16px */

}

div#wrapper {
   font-size: 50%; /* and back down to 10px */
}


You could also save yourself the wrapper by doing the first declaration 
on the "html" element, and the second on the "body"


html { font-size: 125%; }
body { font-size: 50%; }

(Still falls foul of a minimum font-size set in the browser preferences, 
though.)


I wouldn't say it "falls foul". If a user has set a minimum size, then a 
page should heed that. It still *respects* minimum font-size settings.


P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
__
re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively
[latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]
www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk
http://redux.deviantart.com
__
Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
__
Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team
http://streetteam.webstandards.org/
__


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body

[Nick Fitzsimons]

On 3 Aug 2007, at 16:08:55, Rick Lecoat wrote:


At 12:41 (London time), on 3/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:


Note also that it doesn't actually work


.../ snip /

IE ignores fractional components of percentages - or, as another  
way of
looking at it, only uses the first two decimal places of em based  
sizes -
which means that any subsequent use of ems for sizing parts of the  
page

won't work properly.


Very interesting Nick, I wasn't aware of the decimal place  
limitation in

IE. Another negative point racked up against the Clagnut ems method,
which is a shame because I liked the simple and elegant idea behind  
it.

Looks like I'm still on the hunt for the definitive font-sizing
technique then.


When dealing with this the other year, I came up with this solution  
requiring an additional div, which happened to be there anyway:


body {
   font-size: 125%; /* bump it up to 20px, assuming browser starts  
at 16px */

}

div#wrapper {
   font-size: 50%; /* and back down to 10px */
}


and took it from there :-)

(Still falls foul of a minimum font-size set in the browser  
preferences, though.)


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] setting fontsize in body

[Micky Hulse]

Tee G. Peng wrote:

What do you think?


Save yourself a lot of headache, and use the YUI approach:



It works wonders. :)

Cheers,
Micky


--
Wishlists: 
   Switch: 
 BCC?: 
   My: 


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body

[Rick Lecoat]

At 12:41 (London time), on 3/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:

>Note also that it doesn't actually work

.../ snip /

>IE ignores fractional components of percentages - or, as another way of
>looking at it, only uses the first two decimal places of em based sizes -
>which means that any subsequent use of ems for sizing parts of the page
>won't work properly.

Very interesting Nick, I wasn't aware of the decimal place limitation in
IE. Another negative point racked up against the Clagnut ems method,
which is a shame because I liked the simple and elegant idea behind it.
Looks like I'm still on the hunt for the definitive font-sizing
technique then.

-- 
Rick Lecoat



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body

[Gunlaug Sørtun]

Tee G. Peng wrote:

I got an impression that setting 100.1% fontsize in body tag is a
better approach and have been doing so for many sites. Also, with the
100.1% in the body, I usually declare .85em (.95 for my site as I
love big fontsize :) ) for paragraph and lists. I also find that I
get a more stable, closer fontsize across browsers.


I have the same experience, but I usually only set 100% - not 100.1% -
as starting-point, since the old problems that '.1' was supposed to
solve isn't there anymore. Besides, the only reason to set that
percentage as a starting-point at all, is to avoid IE's 'em sizing bug'...

...which also affects font-size keywords btw.


... I aware that Opera often makes the size a bit bigger but this is
a bit unusual for me. If I change the 62.5 to 100.1, nothing gets
change for the Tab nav in Opera, it still shows 3/4px bigger than
other browsers but the second level link text shrinks to like  4 or 5
pixel in IE, thus making it impossible to read.


I'm not aware of the latest Opera-versions having a _general_ problem
causing bigger font sizes. Haven't seen any such problems since around
version Op 7.20.
In today's version such deviations are usually caused by inheritance
through too many up and down sized wrappers, where Opera, or some other
browser, may (seem to) lose steps.
Sometimes that's caused by a a setting in a browser that is overlooked,
and sometimes it's caused by different tip-over values in browsers.
I may of course also have overlooked a genuine Opera-bug.


Client sent me this link, kind of suggesting that 62.5% is the better
 approach because his client isn't happy that now the heading texts
are too small and the paragraph texts are too big due to the changes
I made.

http://www.clagnut.com/blog/348/

What do you think?


The suggested 62.5% as starting-point is too vulnerable, IMO.

For the time being at least, the 'minimum font size' may create problems
when extremely small font-sizes are used as starting-points...


Add the effect of different, and growing, screen-resolutions - and how
browsers handle screen-resolutions differently - into the equation, and
small font-sizes as starting-points may create even more problems.

The "readable size" of different font-families shouldn't be forgotten
either, since readability _is_ the most important point, IMO.


Generally: if a document/design can take the stress from font-resizing
options in browsers reasonably well - not break too early and allow the
text to be easy to read without blowing up in the visitor's face, then
it doesn't really matter what method you choose.

I never argue against what browsers and screen-resolutions can do to my
designs when it comes to font-size, I just try to make it work well no
matter what.
Usually that means my font-sizing starts at 100% and doesn't deviate too
much from 100%, whereafter I leave to each visitor to decide what that
100% is.

regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

Re: [WSG] setting fontsize in body

[Nick Fitzsimons]

On Fri, August 3, 2007 11:36 am, Rick Lecoat wrote:
> At 10:13 (London time), on 3/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>>Client sent me this link, kind of suggesting that 62.5% is the better
>>approach because his client isn't happy that now the heading texts
>>are too small and the paragraph texts are too big due to the changes
>>I made.
>>
>>  http://www.clagnut.com/blog/348/
>
> One thing I would point out about clagnut's method (which I've been
> using recently, actually, but I'm looking for a better option) is that
> the 62.5% sizing (applied to Body) is only meant to provide a handy '1em
> = 10 pixels' baseline to make your subsequent, em-based, resizing
> calculations easier. It is NOT intended to be the size that text is set
> at, because 10 pixels is way too small for most people to read easily
> unless they are teenagers with 20/20 vision.

Note also that it doesn't actually work, as I've previously mentioned on
the list:


IE ignores fractional components of percentages - or, as another way of
looking at it, only uses the first two decimal places of em based sizes -
which means that any subsequent use of ems for sizing parts of the page
won't work properly. (The demo I link to in the above post is still there,
if anybody wants to look.)

Also, Opera has a default font size of, I think, 12px, and treats attempts
to go below that and then scale back up slightly differently than IE or
Firefox in the same situation. I can't quite remember all the ins and outs
of that one, but could try to dig out the work I did on it the other year
if anybody's interested.

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] setting fontsize in body

[Rick Lecoat]

At 10:13 (London time), on 3/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:

>I got an impression that setting 100.1% fontsize in body tag is a  
>better approach and have been doing so for many sites. Also, with the  
>100.1% in the body, I usually declare .85em (.95 for my site as I  
>love big fontsize :) ) for paragraph and lists. I also find that I  
>get a more stable, closer fontsize across browsers.
>
>Working on a project, client has the fontsize declared at 62.5%, and  
>the paragraph, nav list at 1em. It works ok for most part, my  
>responsible is to clean up all messy code and restructure the layout  
>structure. I had the fontsize changed to 100.1% which affected many  
>elements, so I changed it to 70% and adjust fontsizes in other  
>elements accordingly, but suggested client to go with 100.1% so that  
>I can rework the font size in every elements. The tab nav that is at  
>1em, break to second line in Opera, and the fontsize appears to be 3  
>or 4px bigger than other browsers (however the 1em in p more or less  
>the same. I aware that Opera often makes the size a bit bigger but  
>this is a bit unusual for me. If I change the 62.5 to 100.1, nothing  
>gets change for the Tab nav in Opera, it still shows 3/4px bigger  
>than other browsers but the second level link text shrinks to like  4  
>or 5 pixel in IE, thus making it impossible to read.
>
>Client sent me this link, kind of suggesting that 62.5% is the better  
>approach because his client isn't happy that now the heading texts  
>are too small and the paragraph texts are too big due to the changes  
>I made.
>
>  http://www.clagnut.com/blog/348/

The 'best' way to size text is something that I've been looking into a
bit recently, and the only thing I'm *really* sure of is that whatever
route you take you'll find people who will declare, in no uncertain
terms, that you're wrong. Actually, scratch that: one thing /is/ agreed
upon and that is that sizing text in pixels is Bad because of the IE non-
resizability factor, but there doesn't appear to be any real consensus
about the 'best' alternative (just have a read through the comments at
the end of the clagnut article!).

One thing I would point out about clagnut's method (which I've been
using recently, actually, but I'm looking for a better option) is that
the 62.5% sizing (applied to Body) is only meant to provide a handy '1em
= 10 pixels' baseline to make your subsequent, em-based, resizing
calculations easier. It is NOT intended to be the size that text is set
at, because 10 pixels is way too small for most people to read easily
unless they are teenagers with 20/20 vision.

Clagnut's method has some downsides, too, the biggest perhaps being that
it makes an assumption about the user's default font size as set in
their browser and, as we all know, making assumptions about user
settings is a dangerous road to tread when it comes to web design.

Also, I understand (although I've not come across it myself) that IE can
badly mis-display text that is set in ems BELOW the 1em threshhold -- I
might have that slightly mixed up, so somebody should probably clarify/
correct me on that point. But if you've used the 62.5% resize command
then all your subsequent text sizing should be larger than 1 em anyway,
for the reason stated above.

Not sure if this helps, but hey.

-- 
Rick Lecoat



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

[WSG] setting fontsize in body

[Tee G. Peng]

Hi,

I got an impression that setting 100.1% fontsize in body tag is a  
better approach and have been doing so for many sites. Also, with the  
100.1% in the body, I usually declare .85em (.95 for my site as I  
love big fontsize :) ) for paragraph and lists. I also find that I  
get a more stable, closer fontsize across browsers.


Working on a project, client has the fontsize declared at 62.5%, and  
the paragraph, nav list at 1em. It works ok for most part, my  
responsible is to clean up all messy code and restructure the layout  
structure. I had the fontsize changed to 100.1% which affected many  
elements, so I changed it to 70% and adjust fontsizes in other  
elements accordingly, but suggested client to go with 100.1% so that  
I can rework the font size in every elements. The tab nav that is at  
1em, break to second line in Opera, and the fontsize appears to be 3  
or 4px bigger than other browsers (however the 1em in p more or less  
the same. I aware that Opera often makes the size a bit bigger but  
this is a bit unusual for me. If I change the 62.5 to 100.1, nothing  
gets change for the Tab nav in Opera, it still shows 3/4px bigger  
than other browsers but the second level link text shrinks to like  4  
or 5 pixel in IE, thus making it impossible to read.


Client sent me this link, kind of suggesting that 62.5% is the better  
approach because his client isn't happy that now the heading texts  
are too small and the paragraph texts are too big due to the changes  
I made.


 http://www.clagnut.com/blog/348/

What do you think?

Sorry I can't post the url for you to take a closer look.

tee


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***