On 2/20/06 5:14 AM, Martin Heiden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I read a lot of threads about font-sizing lately, but I still did
not catch the point of best practice yet.
Not to beat an already beaten, kicked, poked, piddled-on very dead horse,
but I didn't see an actual answer to this post. Is
I as well.
This is the default for my stylesheets
html {font-size:100.01%;}
body, table {font-size:1em; }
http://www.freexenon.com/2005/10/css-fonts-and-font-sizing.html
Jim
On 2/22/06, Tom Livingston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/20/06 5:14 AM, Martin Heiden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I
On 2/22/06 10:45 AM, James O'Neill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
html {font-size:100.01%;}
body, table {font-size:1em; }
Is there a benefit to the above, as opposed to just:
body{font:100.01% (font family)}
followed by whatever needed additional sizing, like
h2{font-size:1.2em;}
for
Tom,
Body or HTML it doesn't really matter as it will cascade down to
everything else. I set the Percent on the Root Element and then the EM
on the Body just so that the EM font size is set as the default
everywhere vice the Percent.
Later on in what I refer to as the Core Style sheet I set
Martin Heiden, starting a new thread, wrote Mon, 20 Feb 2006 11:14:13
+0100:
I read a lot of threads about font-sizing lately, but I still did
not catch the point of best practice yet.
Among designers, I don't think you'll ever find a consensus on what it
is. Among usability and
...
I'll think you'll find
them pretty unanimous in saying in essence don't mess with user
defaults. Don't expect all the latter to practice what they preach
though.
...
Only these are browsers vendors defaults, not users.
Can anyone point me to a study which shows:
a) How many users do know
Rimantas Liubertas:
a) How many users do know that there exists a preference for a font
size.
b) How many of the do know how to use it and indeed do use it.
c) How many have an idea what 'px' or 'pt' is, and have an idea how big
is 16pt/px. Same goes for DPI settings.
d) How many users prefer
Hi Terrance
From: Terrence Wood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
All good questions. I read somewhere recently that a seasoned usability
tester observed one person changing the font size for the very first
time.
I wrote about that here recently. I've run hundreds of usability sessions
and that was
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 02:02:35 +0200, Rimantas Liubertas wrote:
...
c) How many have an idea what 'px' or 'pt' is, and have an idea how big
is 16pt/px. Same goes for DPI settings.
In an attempt to inject something factual into this debate, a quick
calculation for my 15 1440 x 1050 laptop tells
Rimantas Liubertas wrote Thu, 23 Feb 2006 02:02:35 +0200:
Only these are browsers vendors defaults, not users.
The browsers/vendors defaults are the users default defaults, mostly
12pt, or px equivalents thereof when all other settings remain at
defaults.
Can anyone point me to a study
David Hucklesby wrote Wed, 22 Feb 2006 22:08:03 -0800:
In an attempt to inject something factual into this debate, a quick
calculation for my 15 1440 x 1050 laptop tells me that a 10px font size
is the same size as (poorly cast) 6pt type on paper. 16px is 9.6pt.
1pt = 1/72.
I just changed
David,
on Monday, February 20, 2006 at 21:47 wsg@webstandardsgroup.org wrote:
On the subject of trying to please everyone
I know that it is impossible to please everyone, but I'd like to find
a method which makes the world better for at least one person without
doing any harm to others ;-)
Martin Heiden wrote:
I know that it is impossible to please everyone, but I'd like to find
a method which makes the world better for at least one person without
doing any harm to others ;-)
Touché!
(Have you read A theory of justice by John Rawls ;-))
Actually, no. But I just googled and
Hi!
I read a lot of threads about font-sizing lately, but I still did
not catch the point of best practice yet.
I use to set the body font-size to 62.5% for getting 1em = 10px at
default settings. (It's much easier for me and the browser to
calculate round values...) Then I increase
Martin Heiden wrote:
I read a lot of threads about font-sizing lately, but I still did
not catch the point of best practice yet.
I use to set the body font-size to 62.5% for getting 1em = 10px at
default settings.
Eek! Never rely on default settings, many users will change them.
So if a
Lachlan Hunt
but lot's of people (mostly designers) who prefer smaller
font-sizes.
It's unfortunate that so many designers prefer small font
sizes. They
fail to realise that while they may think small fonts may
look good from
a design perspective and are easily readable on their
...
Yes, we as developers
can educate them, but when they see their competitor sites (and
even big sites from the likes of IBM and co.) *all* setting a slightly
smaller default font size, they expect the same on their site as well.
A yes, but all those other sites are wrong and I do it the
Default font sizes also depend on the cultural background of the
viewers/users. The default setting on Windows works out to be the
same size as Times New Roman 10 pt when printed on Letter size paper.
Australian's prefer default sizes of Times New Roman 12 pt when
printed on A4 paper. I
people that use the Internet world wide. Consider this: the number of
people that visit my relatively small site every single day would be
more people than I've met in my entire life time, so it's hardly...
This could be read in two ways. You have a hugely popular site, or you need
to get out
Russ
Gentle-persuasion-free-styler
riding a mad Shetland pony ;)
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
On 2/20/06, Martin Heiden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the other hand, I don't know anyone who changed the default
font-size in his/her browser, but lot's of people (mostly designers)
who prefer smaller font-sizes.
Well, the question is: Which group of people is more important? Or
Hi,
on Monday, February 20, 2006 at 12:57 wsg@webstandardsgroup.org wrote:
A far more fundamental group of people (which I already mentioned
in my first email on this discussion) is of course that of
the clients who pay for web design/development.
That's one point.
The other problem that I
Christian Montoya wrote:
Most users might say that
the site is unusually big but very comfortable on the eyes, and
that's not a bad thing.
However, with many clients, it won't even get to live stage unless their
wishes for smaller font size is implemented.
In the end there's no reason to
Lachlan Hunt wrote Mon, 20 Feb 2006 22:32:22 +1100:
IMHO, any smaller than 'small' (approx 82%) is too small for main body copy
Title the following 'The meaning of small'. It's simply a collection
of facts and observations about CSS small.
The CSS2 spec recommended a 1.2 factor between
Martin Heiden wrote:
I use to set the body font-size to 62.5% for getting 1em = 10px at
default settings. ...
Martin, you may like to consider the effect of defining a small font size
on the BODY element. Georg Sørtun did some experiments that illustrate
the problem:
russ - maxdesign wrote:
people that use the Internet world wide. Consider this: the number
of people that visit my relatively small site every single day
would be more people than I've met in my entire life time, so it's
hardly...
This could be read in two ways. You have a hugely popular
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
russ - maxdesign wrote:
Could it not be argued that the unimportant legal content is
sometimes more important to some users than the general content on the
page? :)
I'm sure there are some that think such notices should be shown in large
bold letters, read and agreed to
Mike Brown wrote:
Russ
I think you need to do some research on porn site best practices here
and report back to the list :)
Mike never visited a porn site so wouldn't know
sarcasm class=tuiYeah, right/sarcasm
:-p
**
The discussion
28 matches
Mail list logo
