On 5/19/05, Felix Miata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Tom Hamshere wrote: > > > Still, I don't understand how it could be made better without > > degrading it for everybody else. > > Reevaluate a basic assumption. The assumption you made is because the > default is too big for you and needs to be reduced by 20%, that both: > 1-most others have the same need, and, 2-it is your job to "fix" it for > them. In spite of the fact that it is standard web design practice, this > is absurd, and extremely rude.
I doubt that anything you can say is going to make me change the default font size to something that the majority of people on the majority of systems would consider to be ugly. It's absurd. > Virtually everyone has the ability, whether they know it or not, to > change his own settings. This includes you. Assuming others have done > this, whether or not they in fact have, is called respect. Yes it is. It's also quite dumb. Most people I've met don't even know the option's there. They get very confused when it gets changed by accident. People who have problems, or like to see something bigger or smaller, do tend to know it's there. Thus I'd go with sticking with what's common, so that my website behaves like most others, over what's specified in the standards. The idea that our site and our site alone should have ugly, bigger-than-average text is a rather unappealing one. > If you've never done it before, Google the newsgroup > comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets for font size discussions. > You'll see among the regulars there NO respect for those who don't > respect user settings. Ah, I see, they have religion. End of argument, I guess. -- Tom Hamshere ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
