Re: [WSG] Setting Up Font Sizes
Thomas Livingston wrote Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:58:36 -0500: On Dec 21, 2005, at 10:00 AM, Felix Miata wrote: On Dec 21, 2005, at 5:43 AM, Felix Miata wrote: properly configured By this you mean default install? Default install of what? X? Display? Fonts? Browser? OS? You said: On every properly configured standards-compliant browser, medium is the same as unstyled and exactly the best size. So were talking properly configured _browser_. Browser. It can help a whole lot to quote enough to retain context, which you didn't in your post I replied to. My experience with installers is they more often than not finish without announcing to the user their personalization options, leaving it up to the user to discover and adjust accordingly in order to be fully configured properly. Still talking browsers? So... (new) listers looking for help, might need to know what 'properly configured browser' is. If most users don't change a thing when they install a browser, or change the one that came with their PC, then what's properly configured mean? People should keep _default_ configuration in mind. Out-of-the-box viewing scenarios. No? Seeing how out-of-the box now seems to be 1024x768 @ 96 DPI in most cases, and 1280x1024 @ 120 DPI in many cases (common on laptops, which are now outselling desktops), it seems unlikely that the default the browser comes with is going to be substantially different from acceptable to most users. Opera and KHTML do a better job than Gecko and Safari (as does IE), because they come set with regard to system DPI, setting up px sizes based upon 11pt or 12pt (e.g. Opera @ 120 DPI 12pt == 20px, while @96 DPI 12pt == 16px), while Gecko is virtually always 16px (virtually because some Linux distros serve up their Firefox flavors at 14px). -- Jesus Christ is the reason for the season. Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Setting Up Font Sizes
Jay Gilmore wrote Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:45:02 -0400: Felix Miata wrote : In fact, most must have done at least some personalization, since most hit statistics that say the most common screen resolution is 1024x768 even though old versions of doze default to 640x480 and newer to 800x600, and signicant numbers are above the median. It might appear that way but for many home and small biz users they are getting systems from major PC co's and these systems come with preconfigured OS's with a default resolution higher than 800X600 usually if the bottom system is shipping with a 17 monitor Dell, Gateway, HP and Compaq ship with resolutions optimized for the 17 monitor. In addition more and more LCD's are being installed everywhere. The native resolutions for 17 LCD is usually 1024X768 or greater and it either changes the Windows display settings on install or suggests that in order to make it work the setting be changed. If vendors are pre-configuring to 1024x768 that amounts to personalization by proxy, setting something better than 12pt/16px @ 800x600 (fonts not too big), which is much more likely than not to be close enough to what a user might have done herself to not require further personalization in most cases. I find most people I've sit down with at 17 or 19 nominal CRTs like equally 16px @ 1024x768, 18px @ 1152x864, 20px at 1280x960 or 1280x1024, 22px @ 1400x1050, and 24px or 26px @ 1600x1200. Naturally this will depend on actual display size, visual acuity, and viewing distance, but it usually gets close enough that no further adjustment is required or even desired. Note on http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/pixelsize.html that 16px @ 1024x768 on a 17 CRT is pretty close to newsprint territory in type size to reading distance ratio. That means going below 16px on a system with such settings is much like trying to read a newspaper from a longer than normal reading distance, with the added handicap that screen fonts are of inferior quality compared to print fonts. And of course it's worse for those using smaller CRT or laptop displays. Note also that in most cases, depending on driver, and in the case of a flat panel the actual physical aspect ratio, those 1280x1024 resolution systems are making everything shorter than the supposed size. I just checked http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/aspect.html on Fedora Core 4 on a Sony 17 CRT, and the squares are all about 94% as tall as they are wide. -- Jesus Christ is the reason for the season. Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Setting Up Font Sizes
On 12/23/05, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Opera and KHTML do a better job than Gecko and Safari (as does IE), because they come set with regard to system DPI, setting up px sizes based upon 11pt or 12pt (e.g. Opera @ 120 DPI 12pt == 20px, while @96 DPI 12pt == 16px), while Gecko is virtually always 16px (virtually because some Linux distros serve up their Firefox flavors at 14px). I have that on my laptop, Opera scales to 120 dpi while Firefox behaves the same as in 96 dpi. I actually prefer the Firefox approach; the font scaling is terrible. 1280x800 is just 1024x768 with wings; no need to scale the fonts any differently. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Setting Up Font Sizes
On 21 Dec 2005, at 5:25 pm, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Felix Miata wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
body { font-size: small; }
is generally acceptable and is approximately the same as 80% of the
Definitely not acceptable to me for content paragraphs. :-(
Why not? Is it too big or too small for you? Or is it just not
precise enough?
If you say it's too small, then I'd accept that. There are many
who say anything below 'medium' is too small for body copy. If you
say it's too big, then I have to very strongly disagree and say
that making it any smaller, will make it very difficult or at least
uncomfortable for many users to read without increasing it.
If you ask me and my tired old eyes:
Depending on which font-family you use, font-size:small is either on
the lower limit (georgia, which is a *big* font), or really too small
for me, when used with Roman fonts.
Using the same font-size:small for Japanese fonts/text on the other
side works pretty well across the board for me, except in Camino/
Firefox Mac, which tends to smash down fonts.
Philippe
---
Philippe Wittenbergh
http://emps.l-c-n.com/
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] Setting Up Font Sizes
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Felix Miata wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
body { font-size: small; }
is generally acceptable and is approximately the same as 80% of the
Definitely not acceptable to me for content paragraphs. :-(
Why not? Is it too big or too small for you? Or is it just not precise
enough?
If you say it's too small, then I'd accept that. There are many who say
anything below 'medium' is too small for body copy. If you say it's too
big, then I have to very strongly disagree and say that making it any
smaller, will make it very difficult or at least uncomfortable for many
users to read without increasing it.
. :-)
Anyone claiming small is too big for content paragraphs is discussing
grossly misconfigured systems and/or browsers. On every properly
configured standards-compliant browser, medium is the same as unstyled
and exactly the best size.
--
Jesus Christ is the reason for the season.
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] Setting Up Font Sizes
On Dec 21, 2005, at 5:43 AM, Felix Miata wrote: properly configured By this you mean default install? - Tom Livingston Senior Multimedia Artist Media Logic www.mlinc.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Setting Up Font Sizes
On Dec 20, 2005, at 11:24 PM, Ric Raftis wrote: underlying agression I've seen it. - Tom Livingston Senior Multimedia Artist Media Logic www.mlinc.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Setting Up Font Sizes
Thomas Livingston wrote: On Dec 21, 2005, at 5:43 AM, Felix Miata wrote: properly configured By this you mean default install? Default install of what? X? Display? Fonts? Browser? OS? My experience with installers is they more often than not finish without announcing to the user their personalization options, leaving it up to the user to discover and adjust accordingly in order to be fully configured properly. Many don't, but many do. In fact, most must have done at least some personalization, since most hit statistics that say the most common screen resolution is 1024x768 even though old versions of doze default to 640x480 and newer to 800x600, and signicant numbers are above the median. -- Jesus Christ is the reason for the season. Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Setting Up Font Sizes
Felix Miata wrote: snip In fact, most must have done at least some personalization, since most hit statistics that say the most common screen resolution is 1024x768 even though old versions of doze default to 640x480 and newer to 800x600, and signicant numbers are above the median. It might appear that way but for many home and small biz users they are getting systems from major PC co's and these systems come with preconfigured OS's with a default resolution higher than 800X600 usually if the bottom system is shipping with a 17 monitor Dell, Gateway, HP and Compaq ship with resolutions optimized for the 17 monitor. In addition more and more LCD's are being installed everywhere. The native resolutions for 17 LCD is usually 1024X768 or greater and it either changes the Windows display settings on install or suggests that in order to make it work the setting be changed. I also know that the stats for my site are skewed because the visitors are high web users using Firefox and probably know how to adjust for them. Visually impaired users who have their systems configured probably know how to increase the font sizes. Users like my parents and my in-laws probably don't even know that you can change font sizes. That being said it use a larger font size for my sites and client sites when I can. All the best, Jay ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Setting Up Font Sizes
Thomas Livingston wrote: Still talking browsers? ...on top of one of a multitude of OS and hardware-packages, I guess. So... (new) listers looking for help, might need to know what 'properly configured browser' is. If most users don't change a thing when they install a browser, or change the one that came with their PC, then what's properly configured mean? People should keep _default_ configuration in mind. Out-of-the-box viewing scenarios. No? With around 1 billion web users spread over a number of basic (default) packages, and at least a few million variations to those packages in daily use, there is no such thing as a reliable base to design on/for. Might be possible to find some sort of average scenario, but that's all. When it comes to font-size, the only rules one may find is that it isn't smart to set it too low or to try to fix it. Layouts simply have to be able to cope with a large range of font-size variations, or they will break. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Setting Up Font Sizes
Thomas Livingston wrote: If most users don't change a thing when they install a browser, or change the one that came with their PC, then what's properly configured mean? I think we should realize that most people don't know anything about configuring their browser and even their computer! Just look at my Mother... ;-) [just kidding Mom] I think it's safe to assume default installation settings for most users -- everybody else are fringe cases. -- Peter J. Farrell :: Maestro Publishing http://blog.maestropublishing.com Rooibos Generator - Version 2.1 Create boilerplate beans and transfer objects for ColdFusion! http://rooibos.maestropublishing.com/ - Member Team Mach-II - Member Team Fusion ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Setting Up Font Sizes
Peter J. Farrell wrote: I think it's safe to assume default installation settings for most users -- everybody else are fringe cases. That would leave us with... how many million 'fringe cases'? -- http://www.gunlaug.no ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Setting Up Font Sizes
Enough said. So nothing changes. Good. It would be nice if this could be properly documented in Mr Allsopp's new project. Bad examples are littered throughout the Web and do nothing to help novices or the greater good. -Original Message- From: Felix Miata Sent: Wednesday, 21 December 2005 3:14 PM 100.01% on body serves multiple purposes. Briggs is really no one deserving the status of example to repeatedly point people to. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Setting Up Font Sizes
We have to start somewhere and building for the majority would seem to make sense, otherwise why would we even bother how our sites looked in IE? :) That being said, we are also all about making the Web accessible for 'everyone'. In the case of people who change their browser settings, they have done so for a reason. We can only guess at what that reason might be. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gunlaug Sørtun Sent: Thursday, 22 December 2005 4:05 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Setting Up Font Sizes Peter J. Farrell wrote: I think it's safe to assume default installation settings for most users -- everybody else are fringe cases. That would leave us with... how many million 'fringe cases'? -- http://www.gunlaug.no ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Setting Up Font Sizes
Nice work Georg. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gunlaug Sørtun Sent: Wednesday, 21 December 2005 3:31 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Setting Up Font Sizes Samuel Richardson wrote: What's the best, cross-browser supported way to setup font sizes in CSS documents? Watch out for this one... http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_additions_13.html ...and this one... http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_03_04.html regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Setting Up Font Sizes
On 21 Dec 2005, at 11:57 AM, Samuel Richardson wrote: What's the best, cross-browser supported way to setup font sizes in CSS documents? http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=FontSize kind regards Terrence Wood. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Setting Up Font Sizes
I have had good luck with the Owen Briggs Method across browsers-- just watch out for the cascade: http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/typography/index.html Paula Paula Petrik Professor Department of History Art History Associate Director Center for History New Media George Mason University http://www.archiva.net On Dec 20, 2005, at 6:48 PM, Terrence Wood wrote: On 21 Dec 2005, at 11:57 AM, Samuel Richardson wrote: What's the best, cross-browser supported way to setup font sizes in CSS documents? http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=FontSize kind regards Terrence Wood. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Setting Up Font Sizes
So setting the font size for the html element to 100.01% and then adjusting it in the body (or elsewhere) is no longer recommended? I tried to find fault with Owen Briggs' Text Sizing http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/box_lesson/font/index.html article which uses a simple declaration of font-size: 76% in the body. But no amount of nested lists in nested tables could reduce the usual array of inherited sizing that I recall from not so long ago. So now I can cut yet more dead wood from my CSS. Samuel will be so proud. :) -- Paul A Noone Webmaster, ASHM [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Terrence Wood Sent: Wednesday, 21 December 2005 10:48 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Setting Up Font Sizes On 21 Dec 2005, at 11:57 AM, Samuel Richardson wrote: What's the best, cross-browser supported way to setup font sizes in CSS documents? http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=FontSize kind regards Terrence Wood. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Setting Up Font Sizes
Where did you get that from in that article? Setting the font size to 100% and then setting individual elements to ems is how I do all my pages. As far as I know it is the recommended method so users have control of their own viewport. Regards, Ric Paul Noone wrote: So setting the font size for the html element to 100.01% and then adjusting it in the body (or elsewhere) is no longer recommended ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Setting Up Font Sizes
Where I got it from was the supplied stylesheet. The comments within also explain why 76% was chosen as a figure. The 100.01% size for html or body elements was/is a much practiced method which was expounded on this very list not so long ago. Is it just me or is there some underlying agression on this list of late? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ric Raftis Sent: Wednesday, 21 December 2005 1:08 PM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Setting Up Font Sizes Where did you get that from in that article? Setting the font size to 100% and then setting individual elements to ems is how I do all my pages. As far as I know it is the recommended method so users have control of their own viewport. Regards, Ric Paul Noone wrote: So setting the font size for the html element to 100.01% and then adjusting it in the body (or elsewhere) is no longer recommended ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Setting Up Font Sizes
SamuelYou wrote: body { font-size .8em; } p { font-size : 90%; (adjust per design to get the correct sizes etc)}That is asking for trouble, you really need to watch out for the cascade. Get a p inside a p, an li inside an li or a li inside a p and suddenly instead of being 12px text ( 16px - default font size 16px *
0.8em (80%) * 90% (0.9em) = 11.52px ) it is 10px text (16px * 0.8 * 90% * 90% = 10.37px )personally it isbody { font-size 76%}the font size I will be using the great majority of my text. Default text size in all modern browsers is 16px and very few people change it. So 16px * 76% =
12.16px rounds to 12px p, table, td, ul, li, a, button { font-size: 1em }because some browser like to set their own values for certain elements. (and for IE that is in pixels, well that was my recent experience with the button element)
Also initially setting your font-size to ems can produce tiny text in some versions of IE, don't know which ones, but I have never really tested it.Nick Cowie
http://nickcowie.com
Re: [WSG] Setting Up Font Sizes
Nick Cowie wrote:
Samuel
You wrote:
body { font-size .8em; }
p { font-size : 90%;
(adjust per design to get the correct sizes etc)
}
That is asking for trouble, you really need to watch out for the cascade.
Get a p inside a p,
It's very rare that p elements would be nested like that and under
normal HTML conditions almost impossible, at least to do so
accidentally. It can be done using this, for example, but rare.
pobjectp.../p/object/p
(object can also be replaced with other elements like ins and del for a
similar result)
an li inside an li or a li inside a p and suddenly
Again, li inside p is difficult to achieve, but nested lis are a good
example.
personally it is
body { font-size 76%}
That's extremely small for the main body copy. Such sizes should be
reserved for relatively unimportant footer text like copyright notices,
etc. I don't recommend anything below 80%, but I also don't recommend
using % (or em or ex) for setting font sizes for the reasons you gave above.
Personally, I recommend using the font-size keywords because they don't
suffer from such problems.
body { font-size: small; }
is generally acceptable and is approximately the same as 80% of the
default font-size. 'medium' is best for body-copy although many
designers would likely object. There are some obsolete browsers that
get the sizes wrong, for which there is a hack [1], but I don't bother
with it.
[1] http://diveintoaccessibility.org/day_26_using_relative_font_sizes.html
--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] Setting Up Font Sizes
Not from me Paul. If my msg came across that way, please accept my apologies. It was not intended. Regards, Ric Paul Noone wrote: Is it just me or is there some underlying agression on this list of late? ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Setting Up Font Sizes
Paul Noone wrote:
Ric Raftis wrote:
Paul Noone wrote:
So setting the font size for the html element to 100.01% and then
adjusting it in the body (or elsewhere) is no longer recommended
I tried to find fault with Owen Briggs' Text Sizing
http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/box_lesson/font/index.html
article which uses a simple declaration of font-size: 76% in the body. But
no amount of nested lists in nested tables could reduce the usual array of
inherited sizing that I recall from not so long ago.
So now I can cut yet more dead wood from my CSS. Samuel will be so proud. :)
Where did you get that from in that article? Setting the font size to 100%
and then setting individual elements to ems is how I do all my pages. As
far as I know it is the recommended method so users have control of their
own viewport.
Where I got it from was the supplied stylesheet. The comments within also
explain why 76% was chosen as a figure.
The 100.01% size for html or body elements was/is a much practiced method
which was expounded on this very list not so long ago.
100.01% on body serves multiple purposes. First it's to avoid a serious
IE inheritance bug often seen when setting a size in body in ems.
Second, some old Opera browsers have a rounding problem with inherited
sizes that the fraction fixes. Third, it ratifies the fact that the
default size is the user's preference size, a statement of respect for
the user.
Briggs is really no one deserving the status of example to repeatedly
point people to. Early on he says most browsers default to a text size
that I have to back up to the kitchen to read, which he follows shortly
with it's easier to read text that's smaller than default, and a little
larger than the toolbar font, but without any indication what he means
by a little. His latter I agree with (see
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/defaultsize.html#note1 ), but then he
goes on to elaborately recommend body be set to 76%.
First note the impact of 'body {font-size: 76%}'. CSS sizes are
nominal. Real sizes are multi dimensional. As applied to screen fonts,
there are two applicable dimensions, height, and width. Anything you
make 76% shorter you also make 76% narrower. The effect then is
multiplied. If your default initially (100%) is 16px, your character box
should have 16 vertical pixels, and about 8 horizontal pixels, for a
total of 128 pixels. Applying the 76% rule, you get roughly 6 horizontal
by 12 vertical, for a total of 72 pixels. That's 72/128 - 9/16 (56.25%)
of the original 16px _size_. See
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/area76.html to visualize the area vs
nominal size concept.
Now let's apply some math to what he says, using my two most used
systems as a singular example. Both have the toolbar/menu text set to
10pt, and a default size that equates to 12pt, or 20% larger nominally,
which is a bit less than 44% larger in area. Hopefully, this would fit
within Briggs' definition of little larger than the toolbar font. Now
apply his 76% to my 12pt default, and guess what happens? 9.12pt
(12.16px @ 96 DPI), or _smaller_ page text than toolbar text!
Browser makers provide users with a preference adjustment precisely so
that they can optimize to the size that best suits them. This
personalization is one reason why the machines most use are called
personal computers. 76% is totally arbitrary, in spite of Briggs'
supposed rationalization, and applies no matter what the default,
however larger or small, happens to be.
Designers should instead defer to whatever the users prefer, leaving
content P text unsized, respecting that personalization, however many or
few actually do it. Too small text is the #1 complaint from web users:
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html
Make the web accessible. Use your visitor's pref size for most of your
content. It's something they have a right to expect you to respect.
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/accessibility.html
--
Jesus Christ is the reason for the season.
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] Setting Up Font Sizes
Samuel Richardson wrote: What's the best, cross-browser supported way to setup font sizes in CSS documents? Watch out for this one... http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_additions_13.html ...and this one... http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_03_04.html regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Setting Up Font Sizes
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
body { font-size: small; }
is generally acceptable and is approximately the same as 80% of the
Definitely not acceptable to me for content paragraphs. :-(
default font-size.
Actually whether small matches 80% or not depends on browsers and
rounding and the default size and sometimes DPI too. In Gecko, the size
comes from an internal table at
http://lxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/layout/style/nsStyleUtil.cpp#117
if the default is 16px or less, but is 89% if the default is anything
larger:
http://lxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/layout/style/nsStyleUtil.cpp#199
. Take a look here to confirm and see how other browsers compare:
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/Font/font-rounding.html
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/Font/font-rounding120.html
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/Font/fonts-pt2px.html
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/K/pt2pxKHTML.html
http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/absolute-sizes-MvE.html
--
Jesus Christ is the reason for the season.
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] Setting Up Font Sizes
Felix Miata wrote:
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
body { font-size: small; }
is generally acceptable and is approximately the same as 80% of the
Definitely not acceptable to me for content paragraphs. :-(
I have to agree with Felix here as well. In the end, I have to abide my
clients wishes or otherwise I'd be kick out on the street for the lack
of money! I generally use the disclaimer -- Browsers aren't word
processors and argue for a middle of the line approach.
--
Peter J. Farrell :: Maestro Publishing
http://blog.maestropublishing.com
Rooibos Generator - Version 2.1
Create boilerplate beans and transfer objects for ColdFusion!
http://rooibos.maestropublishing.com/
- Member Team Mach-II
- Member Team Fusion
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
