Re: [WSG] EM bug in Safari 5?
Felix, FYI, I was not complaining and yes I do understand and constantly have to tell my print designer pixel-control -freak clients that websites cannot look the same, unable to look the same; I also understand how the EM works, perhaps not as precise as you do but I do know what I need to know. What I see in Safari right now, is not normal, perhaps it's a Safari specific bug that you mentioned early, but I want to learn more before I decide to sign up an account to file a bug; or this maybe just how Safari handles a layout when the container width sets in EM and is a normal behavior; in 5 years I have only done less than 5 sites that used EM for width and I have never seen this until now. I am quite certain chances for any web developer to stumble on this 'bug' or 'this behavior of Safari' is very rare because 1) EM layout is of minority; 2) it requires the browse font size be reduced or increased to trigger the behavior. If this is how Safari has always been, then yes, I still think EM is not stable to use for layout width, precisely the reason that you raised a number of time, that some users do set their font sizes bigger/smaller. http://greensho.nexcess.net/em-vs-px/18px-fontsize.png tee On Jul 30, 2010, at 5:25 PM, Felix Miata wrote: > On 2010/07/30 14:05 (GMT-0700) tee composed: > >> I did another test by increasing Safari's font size to 18px, and the >> layout expanded. This makes the EM not stable to use for layout. I wonder >> if it has always like this for Safari or is a new bug. > > I'm having a hard time understanding what seems to be your complaint, which > is that the size of an em can vary. Variation in size of an em is WAD. Are > you sure you understand the definition? It might help to read it in context > of all its modern relatives: http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-values/ > > It may be that your meaning of "stable" will be addressed through appropriate > use of rem instead of em as browser support for that new unit becomes the > norm. > > In the mean time remember the web is not paper. Flexibility and absence of > rigid sameness is the web's inherent advantage. > http://dowebsitesneedtolookexactlythesameineverybrowser.com/ > -- > "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant > words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) > > 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 > *** > *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] EM bug in Safari 5?
On 2010/07/30 14:05 (GMT-0700) tee composed: > I did another test by increasing Safari's font size to 18px, and the > layout expanded. This makes the EM not stable to use for layout. I wonder > if it has always like this for Safari or is a new bug. I'm having a hard time understanding what seems to be your complaint, which is that the size of an em can vary. Variation in size of an em is WAD. Are you sure you understand the definition? It might help to read it in context of all its modern relatives: http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-values/ It may be that your meaning of "stable" will be addressed through appropriate use of rem instead of em as browser support for that new unit becomes the norm. In the mean time remember the web is not paper. Flexibility and absence of rigid sameness is the web's inherent advantage. http://dowebsitesneedtolookexactlythesameineverybrowser.com/ -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) 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] EM bug in Safari 5?
THanks Jody. I did another test by increasing Safari's font size to 18px, and the layout expanded. This makes the EM not stable to use for layout. I wonder if it has always like this for Safari or is a new bug. tee On Jul 30, 2010, at 11:47 AM, Jody Tate wrote: > If this helps: my MacBook Pro is about 2 months old and Safari's default is > 16px. > > -jody > > > On Jul 30, 2010, at 11:38 AM, tee wrote: > >> >>> >>> I had this issue to then I checked safari's default font size and it >>> was set to 12px instead of 16px like the other browsers. Once I >>> changed that setting to 16px then they all looked the same. I would >>> suggest verifying in your browsers that they all have the same px size >>> set for their default font size before testing. >> >> Thanks for bringing this up. I changed it and now Safari renders the width >> similar to others. >> >> This is very strange! The font size in my Safari is 14px. I'd just had this >> computer about 6 months ago, and have no memory I altered the font size for >> the reason I did in previous machine (mentioned in my previous email). >> >> Other browsers have default 16px. >> >> Do you have idea how Safari makes the calculation that resulted 121px >> differences with 14px font size setting when width is set to 62em. >> >> tee >> >> *** >> 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 > *** > *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] EM bug in Safari 5?
If this helps: my MacBook Pro is about 2 months old and Safari's default is 16px. -jody On Jul 30, 2010, at 11:38 AM, tee wrote: > >>> >> >> I had this issue to then I checked safari's default font size and it >> was set to 12px instead of 16px like the other browsers. Once I >> changed that setting to 16px then they all looked the same. I would >> suggest verifying in your browsers that they all have the same px size >> set for their default font size before testing. > > Thanks for bringing this up. I changed it and now Safari renders the width > similar to others. > > This is very strange! The font size in my Safari is 14px. I'd just had this > computer about 6 months ago, and have no memory I altered the font size for > the reason I did in previous machine (mentioned in my previous email). > > Other browsers have default 16px. > > Do you have idea how Safari makes the calculation that resulted 121px > differences with 14px font size setting when width is set to 62em. > > tee > > *** > 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] EM bug in Safari 5?
>> > > I had this issue to then I checked safari's default font size and it > was set to 12px instead of 16px like the other browsers. Once I > changed that setting to 16px then they all looked the same. I would > suggest verifying in your browsers that they all have the same px size > set for their default font size before testing. Thanks for bringing this up. I changed it and now Safari renders the width similar to others. This is very strange! The font size in my Safari is 14px. I'd just had this computer about 6 months ago, and have no memory I altered the font size for the reason I did in previous machine (mentioned in my previous email). Other browsers have default 16px. Do you have idea how Safari makes the calculation that resulted 121px differences with 14px font size setting when width is set to 62em. tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] EM bug in Safari 5?
On 7/29/10 10:29 AM, tee wrote: It's been quite a while I have to do a site using EM unit for the layout width (with max/min-widths treatment), I am getting a shrunk page in Safari. In these two examples, the width is 62em which is around 992px according to pxtoem dot com, but in Safari 5 it's around 871px in actual size. First I thought maybe it's because I mixed the EM and % (for left/content columns), so I did another test page using EM only, still getting the same result. EM and % http://greensho.nexcess.net/em-vs-px/em-width.html http://greensho.nexcess.net/em-vs-px/em-width.png EM only http://greensho.nexcess.net/em-vs-px/em-width.html http://greensho.nexcess.net/em-vs-px/safari-ss.png My monitor is 27" 2560x1440 resolution, but I don't think this is the reason. Can you confirm if you see the same? FWIW - My laptop came set to 120 DPI. While Gecko renders 100% as 16px, Opera and IE translate 1em as 20px. I don't think there is any strict correlation between pixels and EMs. There are just too many settings, OS and browser, that change the relationship. (aside) I recently tried to use @media queries to alter a layout. I used EMs to control the "tipping points." This works in conforming browsers, but I notice that IE 9 preview ignores EMs - it only seems to work with pixels. Hmm. Cordially, David -- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] EM bug in Safari 5?
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 12:29 PM, tee wrote: > It's been quite a while I have to do a site using EM unit for the layout > width (with max/min-widths treatment), I am getting a shrunk page in Safari. > > In these two examples, the width is 62em which is around 992px according to > pxtoem dot com, but in Safari 5 it's around 871px in actual size. First I > thought maybe it's because I mixed the EM and % (for left/content columns), > so I did another test page using EM only, still getting the same result. > > EM and % > http://greensho.nexcess.net/em-vs-px/em-width.html > http://greensho.nexcess.net/em-vs-px/em-width.png > > EM only > http://greensho.nexcess.net/em-vs-px/em-width.html > http://greensho.nexcess.net/em-vs-px/safari-ss.png > > My monitor is 27" 2560x1440 resolution, but I don't think this is the reason. > > Can you confirm if you see the same? > I had this issue to then I checked safari's default font size and it was set to 12px instead of 16px like the other browsers. Once I changed that setting to 16px then they all looked the same. I would suggest verifying in your browsers that they all have the same px size set for their default font size before testing. -- Jason Arnold http://www.jasonarnold.net *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] EM bug in Safari 5?
On 2010/07/29 13:42 (GMT-0700) tee composed: > On Jul 29, 2010, at 12:55 PM, Felix Miata wrote: >>> It appears that safari does not equate font-size: 100% == 16px; >> If Safari's default has been adjusted to something other than 16px to >> accommodate user requirements, or in any other browser, it shouldn't. There's >> _no_ valid point in assuming any particular px size as a default size. > All browsers in my machine use default font size, because I find this is the > only way I could make websites render more consistently. Used to have 2px > extra large in all my browsers, it was very bad as I forgot about it, and a > number of sites I did, the font sizes turned out much smaller in clients' > machines. If you don't either: 1-have multiple browsers and/or profiles each with a multiplicity of default sizes set, or 2-constantly change the defaults in the only/few browser(s) you use, then you're testing inadequately for the way browsers are built by their developers and expected to be used by real users. Whether initial browser defaults are adequate for any particular environment depends on too many factors to expect no one to change them or need to change them. The web isn't paper. Paper design paradigms (e.g. consistence of mere appearance) are inappropriate for web design. On 2010/07/29 16:35 (GMT-0400) tee composed: > em only (width)- I forgot the correct link in my original post. > http://greensho.nexcess.net/em-vs-px/em-width2.html > It has nothing to do with Corbel font. > font: normal 16px/1.5em Arial, sans-serif > http://greensho.nexcess.net/em-vs-px/em-width3.html > font: normal 100%/1.5em Arial, sans-serif > http://greensho.nexcess.net/em-vs-px/em-width4.html > font: normal 1em/1.5em Arial, sans-serif > http://greensho.nexcess.net/em-vs-px/em-width5.html > Anybody has a Safari 4 to test on? I don't seen any difference on http://greensho.nexcess.net/em-vs-px/em-width.html between Safari 4.0.3 & FF 3.6.8, but I have my old G3 Tiger Mac on a big CRT display where 16px is actually a big enough default to use. -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) 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] EM bug in Safari 5?
On Jul 29, 2010, at 12:55 PM, Felix Miata wrote: > >> It appears that safari does not equate font-size: 100% == 16px; > > If Safari's default has been adjusted to something other than 16px to > accommodate user requirements, or in any other browser, it shouldn't. There's > _no_ valid point in assuming any particular px size as a default size. All browsers in my machine use default font size, because I find this is the only way I could make websites render more consistently. Used to have 2px extra large in all my browsers, it was very bad as I forgot about it, and a number of sites I did, the font sizes turned out much smaller in clients' machines. > >> Set your font-size to 16px instead of 100.1% and the width will be fixed. > > 1-it's rude I didn't think about rudeness, but I dislike using pixel in the body :-) tee *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] EM bug in Safari 5?
Thanks! Yes, font size in px in the body tag is the only way to make it work. em only (width)- I forgot the correct link in my original post. http://greensho.nexcess.net/em-vs-px/em-width2.html It has nothing to do with Corbel font. font: normal 16px/1.5em Arial, sans-serif http://greensho.nexcess.net/em-vs-px/em-width3.html font: normal 100%/1.5em Arial, sans-serif http://greensho.nexcess.net/em-vs-px/em-width4.html font: normal 1em/1.5em Arial, sans-serif http://greensho.nexcess.net/em-vs-px/em-width5.html Anybody has a Safari 4 to test on? tee On Jul 29, 2010, at 11:55 AM, Kepler Gelotte wrote: >> It's been quite a while I have to do a site using EM unit for the layout >> width (with max/min-widths treatment), I am getting a shrunk page in >> Safari. > > I see the same problem you mentioned in both safari on windows as well as > safari on the mac. > > It appears that safari does not equate font-size: 100% == 16px; > > Set your font-size to 16px instead of 100.1% and the width will be fixed. > Modern browsers will still be able to resize the font, but for IE you may > want to have a conditional comment and change the font-size back to 100.1%. > *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] EM bug in Safari 5?
On 2010/07/29 14:55 (GMT-0400) Kepler Gelotte composed: > On 2010/07/29 10:29 (GMT-0700) tee composed: >> It's been quite a while I have to do a site using EM unit for the layout >> width (with max/min-widths treatment), I am getting a shrunk page in >> Safari. Here on Linux, it's about 1500px wide in FF and Google Chrome unstable (which uses same Webkit engine as Safari). If Safari isn't doing the same, it must be a Safari-specific bug. http://dowebsitesneedtolookexactlythesameineverybrowser.com/ I wonder for those who do see a difference if it is because on Safari an em may not be generic, but rather specific to the actual font-family. Maybe FF is measuring generically, while Safari is measuring based upon the diminuitive Corbel. Do you see the same result if you remove '"Corbel", Arial,' from the CSS? > I see the same problem you mentioned in both safari on windows as well as > safari on the mac. > It appears that safari does not equate font-size: 100% == 16px; If Safari's default has been adjusted to something other than 16px to accommodate user requirements, or in any other browser, it shouldn't. There's _no_ valid point in assuming any particular px size as a default size. > Set your font-size to 16px instead of 100.1% and the width will be fixed. 1-it's rude 2-it defeats one major purpose of em sizing (to accommodate/honor visitor requirements, while maintaining a design's proportions to whatever extent viewport size permits) > Modern browsers will still be able to resize the font, but for IE you may I've "re"sized in advance by setting my default to to something other than 16px meet my needs. I shouldn't have to do it again on every rude page I load. True resize is a browser defense mechanism. It only need be applied on encountering offensive CSS. -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) 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] EM bug in Safari 5?
> It's been quite a while I have to do a site using EM unit for the layout > width (with max/min-widths treatment), I am getting a shrunk page in > Safari. I see the same problem you mentioned in both safari on windows as well as safari on the mac. It appears that safari does not equate font-size: 100% == 16px; Set your font-size to 16px instead of 100.1% and the width will be fixed. Modern browsers will still be able to resize the font, but for IE you may want to have a conditional comment and change the font-size back to 100.1%. Best regards, Kepler Gelotte Neighbor Webmaster, Inc. 156 Normandy Dr., Piscataway, NJ 08854 www.neighborwebmaster.com phone/fax: (732) 302-0904 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] EM bug in Safari 5?
tee wrote: In these two examples, the width is 62em which is around 992px according to pxtoem dot com, but in Safari 5 it's around 871px in actual size. First I thought maybe it's because I mixed the EM and % (for left/content columns), so I did another test page using EM only, still getting the same result. http://greensho.nexcess.net/em-vs-px/em-width.html My monitor is 27" 2560x1440 resolution, but I don't think this is the reason. Can you confirm if you see the same? Thanks! tee Mac OS X 10.4.11 [116.5dpi] Safari, WebKit, Camino, FF approx 993 to 995px Mac OS X 10.4.11 [116.5dpi] Parallels XP Safari, FF, IE 6/7/8 approx 993 to 995px Best, ~d -- http://chelseacreekstudio.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
