I don't remember the site I read, but there wasn't a fallback for Arial! It had percentages of fonts by user for Windows, Mac, and Linux. You could fallback to Geneva for Mac, but there wasn't anything for Linux. IMO arial isn't so hot for the web anyway.
On 10/4/05, Samuel Richardson [EMAIL
From: Samuel Richardson
So if the Linux fallback for Verdana is Bitstream Vera Sans,
what's the Linux fallback for Arial?
Agfa Monotype had this to say in a press release about
Red Hat licencing their fonts:
Albany, Cumberland and Thorndale are from Agfa Monotype's library
of
From: Samuel Richardson
So if the Linux fallback for Verdana is Bitstream Vera Sans,
what's the Linux fallback for Arial?
Another answer could be Helvetica, I think that Arial is
actually a copy of Helvetica (a much older typeface).
--
Peter Williams
Right, but what I was saying was that none of those fonts are common on Linux machines. So if you make a font family that starts with Arial, be prepared to have 3 or 4 fallbacks for Linux.
On 10/4/05, Peter Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: Samuel Richardson So if the Linux fallback for
On 10/4/05, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've installed a lot of Linux distros, and surprisingly few install Vera
by default, though they usually include them on the installation media.
Weird. I've not had a Linux install anytime in the past couple of
years that didn't install the
As an added note to Linux fonts:
It may be useful for some of you guys to know that on some major Linux
distros ( Fedora, Debian, Slackware) in all browsers available through
the KDE or Gnome fonts appear to be rendered slightly bigger than on
WIN. Up to 5 % bigger.
Even if you import fonts
In an Open Letter to WaSP, we are proposing that WaSP should take the
initiative and lead a campaign to change to how we in the Web Standards
community communicate Web Standards to newcomers. The proposal involves the
creation of a Web Standards Charter. Our proposal may affect many of you in
Hello,
I have a background that is centered horizontally but tiled vertically.
Background-image: url(graphic);
Background-alignment: center;
Background-repeat: repeat-y;
Everything looks fine the only difference is 1 pixel between IE and FF. Has
anyone encounter a similar problem?
Note: The
At 11:45 PM 10/3/2005, Helmut Granda wrote:
I have a background that is centered horizontally but tiled vertically.
...
Everything looks fine the only difference is 1 pixel between IE and FF. Has
anyone encounter a similar problem?
Note: The background is 700px in width.
How wide is the
On 10/4/05 12:00 AM Paul Novitski [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this
out:
Everything looks fine the only difference is 1 pixel between IE and FF. Has
anyone encounter a similar problem?
Note: The background is 700px in width.
How wide is the background image? Perhaps it's simply a rounding
Sorry, my misreading. What I ought to have said was, make sure that
both the background image and its container are both an even number
of pixels wide.
Paul
At 12:11 AM 10/4/2005, Rick Faaberg wrote:
On 10/4/05 12:00 AM Paul Novitski [EMAIL PROTECTED] sent this
out:
Everything looks fine
Somebody pointed out this article by our friend Jakob Nielsen to me:
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html
Let's start with this little comment at the beginning:
For this year's list of worst design mistakes, I decided to try something
new: I asked readers of my newsletter to
Thank you Andreas, I had forgotten to read my newsletter from Jacob.
As usual he hits the nails on the head. Another good article.
And I thought I was normal...oh well.
But that's only me 2 cents of course.
Bruce Prochnau
BKDesign Solutions
Andreas Boehmer said
Somebody pointed out this
-Original Message-
From: Katrina [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 4 October 2005 6:29 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Top Ten Web Design Mistakes - yeah, right!
If I went and asked my mom what is the biggest usability
issue would she
respond
It's not very usefull to troll on anything, and definitely not on
something useful as useit.com. Please enlighten us on how you managed
to say things like:
I am not saying these problems don't exist - of course they do. But I can
guarantee you the public (our real users) would vote completely
On 10/4/05, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How useless is that?! People who subscribe to Jakob Nielsen's newsletter are
*not* normal. They are people who show interest in Usability, people who
have got an above average understanding of Website Structure and Web
-Original Message-
From: Prabhath Sirisena [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 4 October 2005 6:33 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Top Ten Web Design Mistakes - yeah, right!
I am not saying these problems don't exist - of course they
do. But I can
On 10/4/05, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps it'd make sense to mention what website usability issues that
bug these users, rather than going by your gut feeling - atleast Jakob
asked his subscribers. It'd be interesting to note how many people you
asked
Vlad,
I don't know how many WaSPs are in this list, but I send your
proposal's URI to another mailing list, so that we all WaSPs can share
your voice. I do not represent WaSP here at all, but I thank you for
your suggestion.
Best,
Kazuhito , WaSP in Japan
--
Kazuhito Kidachi
mailto:[EMAIL
hi guys,
Another possibly silly question but I've done quite a bit of searching
on this now and found nothing.
I'm setting my font size at 0.8em in my body class. In firefox this
works fine across the site, but in ie, the text inside my table cells
appears larger.
I've tried setting a font
On 4 Oct 2005, at 9:05 PM, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote:
How useless is that?! People who subscribe to Jakob Nielsen's
newsletter are
*not* normal. They are people who show interest in Usability, people
who
have got an above average understanding of Website Structure and Web
Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote:
People who subscribe to Jakob Nielsen's newsletter are *not* normal.
We're not?
Gosh, I didn't know that... :-)
They are people who show interest in Usability, people who have got
an above average understanding of Website Structure and Web
Kazuhito Kidachi wrote:
I don't know how many WaSPs are in this list, but I send your
proposal's URI to another mailing list, so that we all WaSPs can share
your voice. I do not represent WaSP here at all, but I thank you for
your suggestion.
Molly's already replied to the blog post, so I
-Original Message-
From: Prabhath Sirisena [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 4 October 2005 6:59 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Top Ten Web Design Mistakes - yeah, right!
On 10/4/05, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Gunlaug Sørtun [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, 4 October 2005 7:09 PM
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Top Ten Web Design Mistakes - yeah, right!
Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote:
I am not saying these problems don't
On 4 Oct 2005, at 10:32 PM, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote:
Major Usability Issues users cannot adjust to are:
- Missing Information
- Incorrect Information
- Catastrophic Navigation
- Websites that don't work
- ...
Ask a general person what they didn't like about a particular
There are no silly questions.
body, table {
font-size: 0.8em;
}
don't set the font-size as a % on your table declarations.
kind regards
Terrence Wood.
On 4 Oct 2005, at 10:03 PM, Kara O'Halloran - Eduka wrote:
I'm setting my font size at 0.8em in my body class.
I think if I set a
Kara O'Halloran - Eduka wrote:
I think if I set a base of 1em in the body it would solve my
problems, but then I have to apply font size 75% to make everything
the size I want it, and that would cause much the same problem as it
cascades down and potentially end up with really mini fonts
I agree with Andreas to the degree that he is really saying this is not
THE Top Ten Web Design Mistakes of 2005 but rather Top Ten Web
Design Mistakes of 2005 according to subscribers of a newsletter
directed at people interested in Jakob Nielsen's views on usability.
In that respect it's a
On 4 Oct 2005, at 11:30 PM, Nick Lo wrote:
I always find it amazing that useit.com has such standing when it is
itself such an awkward and unattractive site to use.
unattractive, maybe... but awkward to use?
kind regards
Terrence Wood.
**
Ah, ok...
The container is the BODY Tag itself so that the background image will fit
nicely in the middle of the screen..
Any more suggestions?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Paul Novitski
Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 2:41 AM
To:
Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote:
Major Usability Issues users cannot adjust to are:
- Missing Information - Incorrect Information - Catastrophic
Navigation - Websites that don't work - ...
Ask a general person what they didn't like about a particular website
and in the majority of
Much as I hate to... and I'm trying hard not to but ...yes awkward to
use. Let me pick an example:
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/
That enormous list of previous columns is visually very difficult to
scan. It is chronological so if you are browsing for a particular date
your eye must go in
Hi Kara,
Don't know if I'm coming in late on this one but here goes anyway.
I'd suggest using a font-size of either 100.01% in the body and adjusting
content text accordingly or 76.1% as a minimum font-size.
I normally do a global reset something like this:
/* global reset */
*
On 10/4/05, Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Somebody pointed out this article by our friend Jakob Nielsen to me:
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html
I'm not one of Jakob's fans... but in my limited experience, text size
is one of the few things that
G'day
Much as I hate to... and I'm trying hard not to but ...yes awkward to
use. Let me pick an example:
All I see is an overwhelming mass of links, even on the home page.
But then, I'm just a casual observer who stumbled on the site as it was
mentioned on the mailing list. It may be
I had never been there until this thread popped and up and yes, you are
correct, it's ugly. But I guess it's the content that makes it succeed?
Buddy
Nick Lo wrote:
I agree with Andreas to the degree that he is really saying this is
not THE Top Ten Web Design Mistakes of 2005 but rather Top
Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote:
Exactly. So for something to go onto the Top Ten List of Usability Mistakes
for the general public it must be something that bugs them so much that they
don't want to adjust to it. Is small font size one of them? I think most
people adjust to it, even
Nick Lo wrote:
I agree with Andreas to the degree that he is really saying this is not
THE Top Ten Web Design Mistakes of 2005 but rather Top Ten Web
Design Mistakes of 2005 according to subscribers of a newsletter
directed at people interested in Jakob Nielsen's views on usability.
In that
Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote:
Oh, I do agree that he has got some good points in his article: all 10
points are valid issues, but nothing we haven't really heard before. The
We'll only hear it less when heed is paid it, or when the gummint steps
in to force it. Which would you
Terrence Wood wrote:
On 4 Oct 2005, at 11:30 PM, Nick Lo wrote:
I always find it amazing that useit.com has such standing when it is
itself such an awkward and unattractive site to use.
unattractive, maybe...
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Black on white without need to
zoom
Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote:
Somebody pointed out this article by our friend Jakob Nielsen to me:
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html
Let's start with this little comment at the beginning:
For this year's list of worst design mistakes, I decided to try
Sorry if this is way off, but i did'nt fully understand the question. Check this link out just in case: http://www.svendtofte.com/code/xp_css_quirk/It's a really weird bug which I encountered on my last project.
RegardsFjellmanOn 10/4/05, Helmut Granda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ah, ok...The
On 04/10/05, Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMO arial isn't so hot for the web anyway.
OK, I'd like to hear some opinions. A lot of the pages I produce need,
for technical reasons, a Unicode font (especially the 0370–03FF,
0400–04FF, 0500–052F, 1F00–1FFF, and 2000–206F ranges). I
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:43:42 -0400, Jan Brasna [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Someone mentioned the Jello layout style during the clearleft thread
(thank you who ever you are -- very cool!)
You're more than welcome :)
I was wondering if anyone has used this and if they ran into any
problems
I had these same requirements...after trying to do it in CSS alone I
decided it wasnt possible since you can't use height:100% for a
container and it work like a table does. I ended up using a hybrid
layout with a table for the general stuff but all controlled by css. It
works.
Buddy
Tom
* Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-10-04 11:25]:
Andreas Boehmer [Addictive Media] wrote:
Somebody pointed out this article by our friend Jakob Nielsen to me:
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html
Let's start with this little comment at the beginning:
For this
Nick Lo said:
That enormous list of previous columns is visually very difficult to
scan. It is chronological so if you are browsing for a particular date
your eye must go in and out of the jagged right edge.
The alertbox a title based listing not a date based one, hence why the
title appears
For an article i'm writing I need a list who have turned their
website into Web Standard compliant websites.
Such as Yahoo!
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for
Zach Inglis wrote:
For an article i'm writing I need a list who have turned their website
into Web Standard compliant websites.
Just a word of warning: web standards compliant and accessible are
not synonyms. It is possible to create sites that formally validate to
the syntax of web
Tom Livingston said:
The designer wants the page to be full height in the
browser window, with a body bg pattern repeating for the area aoutside
the page.
This sticky footer solution might help:
http://solardreamstudios.com/learn/css/footerstick/
Otherwise I have a js solution I can post
I am perfectly aware of that.
On 4 Oct 2005, at 20:55, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Zach Inglis wrote:
For an article i'm writing I need a list who have turned their
website into Web Standard compliant websites.
Just a word of warning: web standards compliant and accessible
are not
Hi Terrence
I think your argument is against what we, as conscientious responsible web
developers should strive for. Nick states he finds the list difficult to
read. That is an honest reaction, frankly I agree with his analysis of a
table would be better.
But you defended the list by assuming
(1) Trim your posts
(2) That reply would be better off-list
Tip to 'pay' for this post (ala evolt.org):
If, for any reason, you're using word-to-html conversion, here's a handy tool
to help you clean up some of that gorgeous WORD 'markup':
http://textism.com/wordcleaner/
:)
Paul
Fair doos. No, I am using Apple's Mail.
Anyway, Jeremy ended up helping me. Cheers though.
http://www.zachinglis.com/web-accessibility/web-standards-as-it-is/
On 4 Oct 2005, at 22:13, Paul Bennett wrote:
(1) Trim your posts
(2) That reply would be better off-list
Tip to 'pay' for this post
I have been trying to implement the Jello on my current project when I
was just thrown a curve. The designer wants the page to be full height
in the browser window, with a body bg pattern repeating for the area
aoutside the page.
Umm, is this related to Jello exclusively? I suppose it's
James Bennett wrote:
On 10/4/05, Felix Miata [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've installed a lot of Linux distros, and surprisingly few install Vera
by default, though they usually include them on the installation media.
Weird. I've not had a Linux install anytime in the past couple of
years
On 10/4/05 2:46 PM, Zach Inglis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For an article i'm writing I need a list who have turned their
website into Web Standard compliant websites.
Such as Yahoo!
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
Hi there,
This may help with your font compatibility problem.
http://www.visibone.com/font/FontResults.html
Cheers,
Peter Johnson
---
Peter Johnson
Macromedia Flash Developer
Missing Link NZ Ltd.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
From: T. R. Valentine
On 04/10/05, Christian Montoya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
IMO arial isn't so hot for the web anyway.
So my questions are: what is wrong with Arial (Arial Unicode MS in
particular)? are there better font alternatives?
Typographers say it is badly hinted.
My take on
Hi Peter,
Thanks for posting this to the list, I'm sure it will be interesting to many
of us on list...
Can you tell us when you conducted the research, the duration of the study
and how you collected the information?
All the best,
lisa
-Original Message-
From: Peter Johnson
Thanks all for your assistance!
:-)
--ZacharyOn 10/3/05, Alan Trick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just looked at the page in a text browser (links) and there's a coupleof anoying issues.1. This is not bad, but a bit of an anoyance. There is a notice aboutnot having _javascript_. This appears at the
On 10/5/05, Zach Inglis wrote
For an article i'm writing I need a list who have turned their
website into Web Standard compliant websites.
there are many lists scattered around already compiled - like this one:
http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/redesignwatch/
hth, cheers, pete
Hi Lisa,
The survey was not conducted by my company, it was done by Visibone who
I imagine will
probably make a whole lot of money off this post, but nevertheless.
Check out their website http://www.visibone.com, they sell a whole lot
of visual aids for web dev people.
The Tests thats they
Thank you Lea. I removed the strong tag, and added the cite tag with a rule
applied to the
cite element that bolds the authors name. Seems to be the best of both worlds.
Kind regards,
Mario
On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 22:58:19 -0400, Christian Montoya wrote:
Isn't b still valid? If you want to have
Hi Ted,
I'm not sure where you're coming from with this.
I really don't see how my previous post connects to the bigger concept of
what conscientious responsible web developer's should strive for, in fact
I don't even understand what you by that. Should I take it that you
consider me as not
Hi Terrence,
My post was not a personal attack on Nick, nor was it dismissive of his
POV. Admittedly, I got the impression he was struggling to come up
with an
example of how alertbox is difficult to use and perhaps that has
tainted
my message, but I was genuinely interested in whether he
Hi Lisa, Peter,
On 05-10-2005at 09:25, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Herrod, Lisa) wrote:
Thanks for posting this to the list, I'm sure it will be
interesting to many
of us on list...
-Original Message-
From: Peter Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
This may help with your font
You'll have to set font-size on td, for IE/win.
Either way I still have the problem of the table cell text either appearing too
large in ie, or too small in ff.
Without resorting to setting text size in pixels in my table, I can't find any
other way to prevent this from happening, I thought
G'day
Either way I still have the problem of the table cell text either appearing too
large in ie, or too small in ff.
Without resorting to setting text size in pixels in my table, I can't find any
other way to prevent this from happening, I thought perhaps there might be a
hack out there
On 5 Oct 2005, at 12:50 pm, Kara O'Halloran - Eduka wrote:
Either way I still have the problem of the table cell text either
appearing too large in ie, or too small in ff.
Without resorting to setting text size in pixels in my table, I can't
find any other way to prevent this from
From: Kara O'Halloran - Eduka
Either way I still have the problem of the table cell text
either appearing too large in ie, or too small in ff.
Without resorting to setting text size in pixels in my table,
I can't find any other way to prevent this from happening, I
thought perhaps
Thanks everyone for your help, I have a few resources to check out now
and some things to try :)
Much appreciated, Kara
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some
73 matches
Mail list logo
