Re: [WSG] css print help
Hi Terrence, I'm not trying to force a user to print in Landscape (you need ScriptX ActiveX to do that on IE 6).. The regular view and then print view are different and I'm trying to get them to be the same. Trying to make them look the same when you print.. Thanks! On 12/21/05, Terrence Wood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Greg Morphis said: Looks great until you try to print in landscape. Can someone please help me with adjusting the css so that the print preview looks the same as it does in the browser. Interesting problem. I'm not sure you can access the print settings dialog from the browser, if that's what you're asking. Anyone? How about including an adivsory (please set your printer to landscape) with the page? Or you may be able to do something server side given you are on the intranet, but that's not my field. We're on a IE standard intranet.. sucks I know uh-huh, standard corporate fare really. 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 ** -- Auxilium meum a Domino ** 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 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 **
[WSG] [Auto-Reply] digest for wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
I will be out of the office until 11 January 2006. I will be checking email periodically. For any urgent matters, please contact me at +61 43422 3359. I will respond to all queries soonest. Happy Holidays! Warm regards, Peter Venero ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] Re: digest for wsg@webstandardsgroup.org (Away until 20/02/2006)
I will be out of the office until the 20 Feburary 2006. Please contact Jacq Marcus on 9391 9967 or Martha Herewini on 9391 9048 for any urgent requests. Disclaimer: This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it and notify the sender. Views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, and are not necessarily the views of NSW Health. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] Re: digest for wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Hi and thanks for your email. I am currently on leave from 20th December until the 10th of January on Christmas holidays. For urgent queries please contact Nicole Dixon on [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thanks and have a fantastic festive season. Kind regards, Matt Harris ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] Abwesenheitsnotiz: digest for wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Title: Abwesenheitsnotiz: digest for wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, vielen Dank für Ihre E-Mail. Ich bin erst ab dem 02.01.2006 wieder im Büro. Ihre E-Mail bleibt in dieser Zeit ungelesen. In dringenden Fällen wenden Sie sich bitte telefonisch an die Zentrale in Freiburg, Tel. 0761/20758-00. Frohe Festtage und einen guten Rutsch ins neue Jahr! Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Marco Della Pina
Re: [WSG] Mac FF hidden div still shows scrollbars
On Dec 22, 2005, at 9:44 PM, Philippe Wittenbergh wrote: If we give it a height and apply overflow:scroll; (or auto) it looks and works dandy, except for Mac FF (1.5). We are still seeing the div's scroll bars when in it's hidden state. Try display:none, if that fits in your design. Thanks to all who replied. On a related note, when trying to implement this situation we were trying to have the layer (div) in question , in the code, be connected better with it's related link (the one that is making the div visible when clicked). When doing this, we made the link's container position:relative; and the layer position:absolute; inside that container. Pretty straight forward. But in IE6, the layer is either transparent or is under the rest of the page content - even with z-index applied to both. The layer has a background-color of white - we checked. ;-) Ring any bells? Again, can't post link, sorry. I can do code snippets if you need... TIA - 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 **
