RE: [WSG] Box model in IE7
Personally, I think there should have been a companion article
explaining why designers can't write code.
This is a classic example: the whole point of setting the base font size
to this value is to make the maths easier when sizing all other font
rules; but that itself exposes the fact that the designer is still
basically designing with Pixel sizes!
Under those circumstances, I would tend to encourage the use of sizes in
percentages, after a global reset to 100%.
But then, I am a developer, and think that Design Types shouldn't be
allowed anywhere near an angle bracket - for their own good: they are
too sharp for the un-trained hand.
Mike
-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org]
On Behalf Of CK
Sent: 24 April 2009 00:57
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Box model in IE7
Hi,
Would you elaborate on why the CSS rule invalidates the article? As it
appears the authors explanation is sound.
html {
font-size: 62.5%;
}
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
Re: [WSG] Box model in IE7
On 2009/04/24 12:47 (GMT+0300) Rimantas Liubertas composed: And there is NOTHING wrong with pixel sizes. On the contrary, everything is wrong with pixel sizing fonts, because any size in px totally disregards the size the visitor has set in his browser prefs, and thus cannot be expected to be pleasant, or even legible. The worst feature of the CSS legacy given designers last century is this ability to totally disregard the wishes of the visitor by sizing in px. OTOH, fonts sized to medium (1em, 100%) have a reasonable, if not high, and thus much better, chance of being exactly perfect for the visitor. -- He who works his land will have abundant food, but the one who chases fantasies will have his fill of poverty. Proverbs 28:19 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Box model in IE7
My point was that sizing to 62.5% is to make it easy to convert from pixels to ems. Who cares about 'easy pixel conversion'? Make it look good and accessible no matter what numbers you are using. Pixels are no good and % can be misleading. I personally stick to ems on everything. --Original Message-- From: Felix Miata Sender: li...@webstandardsgroup.org To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org ReplyTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] Box model in IE7 Sent: Apr 24, 2009 11:11 AM On 2009/04/24 12:47 (GMT+0300) Rimantas Liubertas composed: And there is NOTHING wrong with pixel sizes. On the contrary, everything is wrong with pixel sizing fonts, because any size in px totally disregards the size the visitor has set in his browser prefs, and thus cannot be expected to be pleasant, or even legible. The worst feature of the CSS legacy given designers last century is this ability to totally disregard the wishes of the visitor by sizing in px. OTOH, fonts sized to medium (1em, 100%) have a reasonable, if not high, and thus much better, chance of being exactly perfect for the visitor. -- He who works his land will have abundant food, but the one who chases fantasies will have his fill of poverty. Proverbs 28:19 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Box model in IE7
On 24/04/2009, at 7:47 PM, Rimantas Liubertas wrote: And there is NOTHING wrong with pixel sizes. On 2009/04/24 12:47 (GMT+0300) Rimantas Liubertas composed: On the contrary, everything is wrong with pixel sizing fonts, because any size in px totally disregards the size the visitor has set in his browser prefs, I wouldn't agree with Felix's statement at all, and tend to think Rimantas is correct - there is NOTHING wrong with px font sizes. They are not absolute and browsers are able to modify the size without any problems. You are merely suggesting the font size. i.e.: increasing the preferred font size in the browser still adjusts pxs - if the browser does not behave this way then it's a browser problem, not the designers. Likewise, font sizes are irrelevant for accessibility. All accessibility software and screen readers should be able to scale the fonts accordingly, if not then it's an issue with the accessibility software. It's easier to keep track of em and percentage sizes for site wide but px is Joe Clarke gave a great presentation on this at @media 2007 titled When Web Accessibility Is Not Your Problem, notes available here: http://joeclark.org/appearances/atmedia2007/#fonts ~ daniel a. thornbury *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Box model in IE7
Font sizes should be judged by eye and tested with users to see if they can be
read and look pleasing.
Whether the font is 12px or 13px should be irrelevant. You have to final
judgement by eye and resets will just add extra code to pages and make firebug
work trickier.
--Original Message--
From: michael.brocking...@bt.com
Sender: li...@webstandardsgroup.org
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
ReplyTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: RE: [WSG] Box model in IE7
Sent: Apr 24, 2009 10:21 AM
Personally, I think there should have been a companion article
explaining why designers can't write code.
This is a classic example: the whole point of setting the base font size
to this value is to make the maths easier when sizing all other font
rules; but that itself exposes the fact that the designer is still
basically designing with Pixel sizes!
Under those circumstances, I would tend to encourage the use of sizes in
percentages, after a global reset to 100%.
But then, I am a developer, and think that Design Types shouldn't be
allowed anywhere near an angle bracket - for their own good: they are
too sharp for the un-trained hand.
Mike
-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org]
On Behalf Of CK
Sent: 24 April 2009 00:57
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Box model in IE7
Hi,
Would you elaborate on why the CSS rule invalidates the article? As it
appears the authors explanation is sound.
html {
font-size: 62.5%;
}
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
Re: [WSG] Box model in IE7
Personally, I think there should have been a companion article
explaining why designers can't write code.
That would be the very wrong article.
This is a classic example: the whole point of setting the base font size
to this value is to make the maths easier when sizing all other font
rules; but that itself exposes the fact that the designer is still
basically designing with Pixel sizes!
And there is NOTHING wrong with pixel sizes. Some myths
just never die.
Under those circumstances, I would tend to encourage the use of sizes in
percentages, after a global reset to 100%.
But then, I am a developer, and think that Design Types shouldn't be
allowed anywhere near an angle bracket - for their own good: they are
too sharp for the un-trained hand.
So you say Dave Shea, Dan Cederholm, Douglas Bowman, Dunstan Orchard
and other should not be allowed to write code? What a pity, they could teach
a thing or two 99.999% of developer types out there.
And yes, I am a developer.
Regards,
Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/
Mike
-Original Message-
From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org]
On Behalf Of CK
Sent: 24 April 2009 00:57
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Box model in IE7
Hi,
Would you elaborate on why the CSS rule invalidates the article? As it
appears the authors explanation is sound.
html {
font-size: 62.5%;
}
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
Re: [WSG] Box model in IE7
On Apr 24, 2009, at 2:21 AM, michael.brocking...@bt.com michael.brocking...@bt.com wrote: Personally, I think there should have been a companion article explaining why designers can't write code. And they love to say there is a good reason why developers shouldn't touch design :-) Let's do a calculation on a cost on how website being built. 60/h (euro, us#, au$ or whatever) for a X year experience CSS coder 100/h for a designer ( X year experience) 120/h for a js programmer ( X year experience) 150/h for a php programmer ( X year experience) Oh my, there is no budget left for accessibility and usability gurus. No wonder these two areas are left out from 99% of the sites out there on the internet because they think designers shouldn't touch code and developers shouldn't touch design. tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Box model in IE7
Tee, My original comment was meant to be taken light-heartedly, but was also taken in direct response to the article quoted by CK: Why Programmers Suck at CSS Design http://www.betaversion.org/~stefano/linotype/news/169/ Your comment itself seems to be contradicting itself: If developers _are_ allowed to touch design, then should they not also be allowed to touch on accessibility? Does one _have_ to be a certified usability expert before altering an alt attribute? A sensible balance is the order of the day in all circumstances - extremists must DIE !! Mike *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Box model in IE7
CSS coder, JS coder, PHP coder and designer should all be very familiar with accessibility principles. Developing non-accessible systems is like making a family car which can only drive on tarmac surface, but as soon as it hits anything else grinds to a holt. That's just plain old wrong. This year we are having to consider more and more user agents and access devices: BlackBerry, EEEPC type tools, iPhone, soon to come surface, Linux/Windows/Mac, various types of web enables mobiles. Accessibility is therefore becoming more and more relevant with time. On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 11:38 AM, tee weblis...@gmail.com wrote: On Apr 24, 2009, at 2:21 AM, michael.brocking...@bt.com michael.brocking...@bt.com wrote: Personally, I think there should have been a companion article explaining why designers can't write code. And they love to say there is a good reason why developers shouldn't touch design :-) Let's do a calculation on a cost on how website being built. 60/h (euro, us#, au$ or whatever) for a X year experience CSS coder 100/h for a designer ( X year experience) 120/h for a js programmer ( X year experience) 150/h for a php programmer ( X year experience) Oh my, there is no budget left for accessibility and usability gurus. No wonder these two areas are left out from 99% of the sites out there on the internet because they think designers shouldn't touch code and developers shouldn't touch design. tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** -- Jason Grant BSc, MSc CEO, Flexewebs Ltd. www.flexewebs.com ja...@flexewebs.com +44 (0)7748 591 770 Company no.: 5587469 www.flexewebs.com/semantix www.twitter.com/flexewebs www.linkedin.com/in/flexewebs *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Box model in IE7
If a developer is able to do something about making interfaces work well in non standards compliant user agent without breaking standards, they should absolutely do so. Most of the time this requires little or no work at all. Font sizing is a simple issue and it is easy to cater for all user agents with simple approaches. Users come first, developers second. Make sure users have best experience under all (relevant) circumstances. On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 11:34 AM, daniel a. thornbury hellodan...@mac.comwrote: On 24/04/2009, at 7:47 PM, Rimantas Liubertas wrote: And there is NOTHING wrong with pixel sizes. On 2009/04/24 12:47 (GMT+0300) Rimantas Liubertas composed: On the contrary, everything is wrong with pixel sizing fonts, because any size in px totally disregards the size the visitor has set in his browser prefs, I wouldn't agree with Felix's statement at all, and tend to think Rimantas is correct - there is NOTHING wrong with px font sizes. They are not absolute and browsers are able to modify the size without any problems. You are merely suggesting the font size. i.e.: increasing the preferred font size in the browser still adjusts pxs - if the browser does not behave this way then it's a browser problem, not the designers. Likewise, font sizes are irrelevant for accessibility. All accessibility software and screen readers should be able to scale the fonts accordingly, if not then it's an issue with the accessibility software. It's easier to keep track of em and percentage sizes for site wide but px is Joe Clarke gave a great presentation on this at @media 2007 titled When Web Accessibility Is Not Your Problem, notes available here: http://joeclark.org/appearances/atmedia2007/#fonts ~ daniel a. thornbury *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** -- Jason Grant BSc, MSc CEO, Flexewebs Ltd. www.flexewebs.com ja...@flexewebs.com +44 (0)7748 591 770 Company no.: 5587469 www.flexewebs.com/semantix www.twitter.com/flexewebs www.linkedin.com/in/flexewebs *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Box model in IE7
Getting back on subject, I do not think the box model has been fixed in IE7, but I do not know for sure. You might try adding margin for separation with containing div tags in browsers. -- Brett P. Is the box model in IE7 still messed up? I thought they sorted it? I am floating a div to the right with a width of 50%. The div to the left has a right margin of 50%. I've put a 1px solid border on both of them. In IE7 there is a gap between them but in Firefox they are right against each other. Go figure? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
pixel-font sizing/definition [was: [WSG] Box model in IE7]
Joe Clarke gave a great presentation on this at @media 2007 titled When Web Accessibility Is Not Your Problem, notes available here: http://joeclark.org/appearances/atmedia2007/#fonts This was an intriguing article... some of the points were fairly well reasoned (while others were just rants) - in particular, its is fault of the browser to not do decent scaling. However... Reference was made to the W3 recommendation CSS 2.1, stating that pixels are relative units... aka relative to the viewing device... its up to the user-agent to rescale the requested pixel, to the devices' pixel based on a typical device at an arm's length distance. Its reasonably clear that somebody at the W3C forgot what pixel actually means: - a typical device? What is a typical device for someone with long-sighted vision? - pixel originated from picture element. There is no sensible meaning for a reference pixel... the word by definition means the smallest element. cheers, Mathew Robertson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Box model in IE7
Getting back on subject, I do not think the box model has been fixed in IE7, but I do not know for sure. You might try adding margin for separation with containing div tags in browsers. Once again: box model was fixed in IE6, given your page has proper doctype (and nothing above it). http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb250395.aspx#cssenhancements_topic3 Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Box model in IE7
Well, good deal then. :) -- Brett P. On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Rimantas Liubertas riman...@gmail.comwrote: Getting back on subject, I do not think the box model has been fixed in IE7, but I do not know for sure. You might try adding margin for separation with containing div tags in browsers. Once again: box model was fixed in IE6, given your page has proper doctype (and nothing above it). http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb250395.aspx#cssenhancements_topic3 Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Box model in IE7
I am using the following doctype: !DOCTYPE html PUBLIC -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd; Correct me if I'm wrong but this switches on standards-compliant mode doesn't it? I'll maybe need to strip down my web page to try and work out what's going on. To be honest though it doesn't affect the web site, I am just curious as to the slightly different gaps in IE7 from Firefox. Stephen - Original Message - From: Rimantas Liubertas riman...@gmail.com To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 3:08 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] Box model in IE7 Getting back on subject, I do not think the box model has been fixed in IE7, but I do not know for sure. You might try adding margin for separation with containing div tags in browsers. Once again: box model was fixed in IE6, given your page has proper doctype (and nothing above it). http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb250395.aspx#cssenhancements_topic3 Regards, Rimantas *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Box model in IE7
Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
We were told in the past by a massive client that for accessibility purposes
font sizes needed to be set to 74% as a minimum as the basic reading size
below which it's a straign on the eyes.
To answer the O.P. question about IE box sizing-- I think the issue has
more to do with IE's lack of mathematical ability than with box sizing,
as the extra width on those boxes caused by the border should still make
them 50% with the 'old' box model. The borders make them a tad larger in
'standards' mode, so in neither case should there be a gap.
But I can't resist replying to this:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009, Jason Grant wrote:
74% is 26% smaller than the viewer's preferred size, IOW, it's too
small.
Yes, I agree somewhat. But an 'em' at 100% is normally 16 x 16 = 256px
total while 75% is 12 x 12 = 144px. It seems to me that 144 / 256 is
closer to half size, no?
Setting body { font-size: 100% } leaves the font at the viewer's
preferred size and prevents some IE weirdness.
Not only. Browsers with minimum font size set have problems, as more
than one article cited in this thread clearly demonstrates. Some
browsers install with a minimum size set by default, so the issue is
more than academic.
Cordially,
David
--
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
***
