David E. Ross <nobody@nowhere.not> wrote:
> Whatever you do, I will use my Font- and Font+ buttons to set the size
> to something I can read, thus undoing whatever you have done to set the
> size of your body font.

Others of us simply configure our browsers to enforce a minimum font size,
and/or add

html, body { font-size: 100% !important }

to a user style sheet.
--
Darin McGrew, mcgrew@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, darin@html.com, http://www.HTML.com/

Why is "abbreviated" such a long word?

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Darin McGrew wrote:

> and/or add
>
> html, body { font-size: 100% !important }
>
> to a user style sheet.

I have that setting, too, and it reveals how broken Wikipedia's
styles are. I don't want to inspect their stylesheets in detail
but it seems they have first set the BODY size to something small
and then the P size to something larger.

Wikipedia looks really stupid in this way. They don't understand
how to set up a decent stylesheet.

--
Bugs in Internet Explorer 7
http://www.unics.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/ie7-bugs

Andreas Prilop wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Darin McGrew wrote:
>
>> and/or add
>>
>> html, body { font-size: 100% !important }
>>
>> to a user style sheet.
>
> I have that setting, too, and it reveals how broken Wikipedia's
> styles are. I don't want to inspect their stylesheets in detail
> but it seems they have first set the BODY size to something small
> and then the P size to something larger.
>
> Wikipedia looks really stupid in this way. They don't understand
> how to set up a decent stylesheet.
>

Look at this one too, 'nough said!

http://i2.microsoft.com/shared/core/1/css/core.css


--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

In article <Pine.GSO.4.63.0804171632440.15083@s5b004.rrzn.u ni-hannover.de>, Andreas Prilop writes:
>On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Darin McGrew wrote:

>> html, body { font-size: 100% !important }
>>
>> to a user style sheet.
>
>I have that setting, too, and it reveals how broken Wikipedia's
>styles are.

I used to have it, but I dropped it so that I could read Wikipedia.

>but it seems they have first set the BODY size to something small
>and then the P size to something larger.

I was wondering what it was.

--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
If we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made from meat?

Jonathan N. Little wrote:

> Look at this one too, 'nough said!
>
> http://i2.microsoft.com/shared/core/1/css/core.css

I can top that in ... one note? :-)

http://my.att.net/

There is no CSS file; all ~600 lines ar embedded in every page.

--
-bts
-that's the new "home page" of my soon-to-be-ex ISP

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>
>> Look at this one too, 'nough said!
>>
>> http://i2.microsoft.com/shared/core/1/css/core.css
>
> I can top that in ... one note? :-)
>
> http://my.att.net/
>
> There is no CSS file; all ~600 lines ar embedded in every page.
>

Morons. Wonder what they paid for the piece of work...

Love how it scales when you bump the font up just once!

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Jonathan N. Little wrote:

> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>> Look at this one too, 'nough said!
>>>
>>> http://i2.microsoft.com/shared/core/1/css/core.css
>>
>> I can top that in ... one note? :-)
>>
>> http://my.att.net/
>>
>> There is no CSS file; all ~600 lines ar embedded in every page.
>
> Morons. Wonder what they paid for the piece of work...

Minimum wage. It's all done in-house at BellSouth/SBC (the new parent of
the "new at&t").

> Love how it scales when you bump the font up just once!

The whole site is terrible. When AT&T Worldnet was still in charge, that
team of developers would listen to us subscribers and actually implement
changes from good advice. They turned it over to "corporate" in October
and the whole mess has gone downhill fast. I can't show you the new
large, animated Flash ads right in the middle of your Webmail Inbox.

--
-bts
-a soon-to-be-ex-Day-One Worldnet subscriber

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

> The whole site is terrible. When AT&T Worldnet was still in charge, that
> team of developers would listen to us subscribers and actually implement
> changes from good advice. They turned it over to "corporate" in October
> and the whole mess has gone downhill fast. I can't show you the new
> large, animated Flash ads right in the middle of your Webmail Inbox.
>
"-a soon-to-be-ex-Day-One Worldnet subscriber"

Use to be a Worldnet-er back in the mid 90's... it was long distance
$.35/minute call. Them were the days of dash browsing after 11:00pm when
rate was only $.11, dump downloads of email and clicking Netscape's
handy "offline" icon... Great advancement today...no broadband but at
least not a toll call. :-\


--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>
>> http://i2.microsoft.com/shared/core/1/css/core.css
>
> I can top that in ... one note? :-)
>
> http://my.att.net/
>
> There is no CSS file; all ~600 lines ar embedded in every page.

un-freakin'-believable

Calling them morons was being kind, I think

--
Berg

On 2008-04-16, Don Li wrote:
> On Apr 16, 11:15am, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
><a.nony.m...@example.invalid> wrote:
>> Don Li wrote:
>> > I've tried
>>
>> Please read this:http://tekrider.net/html/fontsize.php
>>
>> > .. What did I do wrong?
>>
>> You decided to pick a size which would make many visitors (including me)
>> squint at the monitor. If 100% is too large for your own taste, decrease
>> your own browser's default size. But leave it adequate for me.
>>
>> I expect your post was just a test. Normally you would move the styling
>> to your CSS style sheet.
>
> People. Please consider the following factors:
> a) the majority of my users are likely not knowing how to set font
> size with their browser and I don't intend to provide instruction on
> that (once again, they are not you, not tech savvy);
> b) the 'small' font size looks good (not the default 100% size) for
> the home page (feedback from beta users).

Then you need a wider selection of beta users.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Bergamot wrote:

> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>
>>> http://i2.microsoft.com/shared/core/1/css/core.css
>>
>> I can top that in ... one note? :-)
>>
>> http://my.att.net/
>>
>> There is no CSS file; all ~600 lines ar embedded in every page.
>
> un-freakin'-believable
>
> Calling them morons was being kind, I think

That's a good example for those who argue, "But X's page must be done
right -- it's a biiiig company!"


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net

Andreas Prilop wrote:
>
> how broken Wikipedia's
> styles are. I don't want to inspect their stylesheets in detail
> but it seems they have first set the BODY size to something small
> and then the P size to something larger.

That same practice, and how stupid it is, has been discussed over in
ciwas over the last week or so. Seems to be a rash of posts using this
font sizing method lately. It's A Very Bad Thing.

The funny thing about wikipedia's styles, though, is that body text
coincidently ends up at just about 100% when my browser's minimum font
size (17px) is enforced.

body {
font: x-small sans-serif; (17px minimum overrides)
}
/* scale back up to a sane default */ (sane is subjective, I guess)
#globalWrapper {
font-size: 127%; (of 17px = 21.59px)
}

Then subsequent rules put the font-size of many other elements at about
94% (of 21.59). That's 20.29px. My default is 20px, so I don't even
notice their ridiculous styles.

> Wikipedia looks really stupid in this way. They don't understand
> how to set up a decent stylesheet.

Unfortunately, they are not alone.

--
Berg

On Apr 16, 9:58am, Don Li <tatata9...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've tried
> <body style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica;font-size:0.8em;">
> or
> <body style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica;font-size:11pct;">
> or
> <body style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica;font-size:80%;">
> to no avail. In IE7 it shows up as Medium. What did I do wrong?
>
> Thanks.

I'd like to end the 'religious war' by summing it up for the benefit
of future inquirers.
Possible solutions depends on specific needs and environment (not one-
size-fits-all):
a) use font-size 100% with a separate css file (default UA should
really do the same);
b) set default font-size to a smaller one and yet it's still legible
across all pages (of a site or app) provided you have controled use
environment like Intranet and UA;
c) provide a font size manipulation javascript function visibly, like
a (small), A (normal, A+ (large) ...

Don Li wrote:
>
> c) provide a font size manipulation javascript function visibly, like
> a (small), A (normal, A+ (large) ...

No, please. This is such a wasted effort. All browsers have this ability
built in. If you really think your users are so dumb they don't know how
to do this themselves, then teach them how to adjust their browser
settings. That's something they can use on other sites, not just yours.

I have yet to see one of the stupid custom font control things that even
came close to my preferred text size.

--
Berg

Don Li wrote:
> On Apr 16, 9:58 am, Don Li <tatata9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I've tried
>> <body style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica;font-size:0.8em;">
>> or
>> <body style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica;font-size:11pct;">
>> or
>> <body style="font-family:Verdana,Arial,Helvetica;font-size:80%;">
>> to no avail. In IE7 it shows up as Medium. What did I do wrong?
>>
>> Thanks.
>
> I'd like to end the 'religious war' by summing it up for the benefit
> of future inquirers.
> Possible solutions depends on specific needs and environment (not one-
> size-fits-all):

That is way the design should incorporate the user's default.

> a) use font-size 100% with a separate css file (default UA should
> really do the same);

Not sure what you mean by this. You default font for your page should be
100% of the whatever the the user has set his UA default. <100% should
only be used for limited, non-essential text, boilerplate.

> b) set default font-size to a smaller one and yet it's still legible
> across all pages (of a site or app) provided you have controled use
> environment like Intranet and UA;

No, folks have varying acuity of eyesight and preferences within
"closed" environments as out in the wild and woolly Internet. Unless
you're on of those BSOFH and just like to torment your co-workers.

> c) provide a font size manipulation javascript function visibly, like
> a (small), A (normal, A+ (large) ...

No, JavaScript is almost never the solution. Don't screw with the user's
default font size and there will be now need to of him to fiddle with
microfonts...No need for extra features if you don't cause the problem
in the first place.


--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

On 4/19/2008 12:46 PM, Bergamot wrote:
> Don Li wrote:
>> c) provide a font size manipulation javascript function visibly, like
>> a (small), A (normal, A+ (large) ...
>
> No, please. This is such a wasted effort. All browsers have this ability
> built in. If you really think your users are so dumb they don't know how
> to do this themselves, then teach them how to adjust their browser
> settings. That's something they can use on other sites, not just yours.
>
> I have yet to see one of the stupid custom font control things that even
> came close to my preferred text size.
>

In general, use of a, A, A+ on a Web page gives really bad results for a
browser window that is less than full screen and with 800x600 resolution.

One of the capabilities of SeaMonkey and Firefox (both Mozilla browsers,
based on the Gecko rendering engine) is to add the PrefBar extension.
PrefBar allows the user to setup Font-, Font+, and Font= buttons on a
toolbar outside of the displayed Web page (among many other things); the
Font= button restores the original size in case the user forgets how
many times Font- or Font+ was selected.

--
David Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

Have you been using Netscape and now feel abandoned by AOL?
Then use SeaMonkey. Go to <http://www.seamonkey-project.org/>.

David E. Ross wrote:

> .. is to add the PrefBar extension. PrefBar allows the user to setup
> Font-, Font+, and Font= buttons

It is a nice extension (especially for the JavaScript checkbox) but one
can also just press Control-Plus, Control-Minus, and Control-Zero as
well.

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Vista

On Apr 20, 10:34 am, "David E. Ross" <nob...@nowhere.not> wrote:

> In general, use of a, A, A+ on a Web page gives really bad results for a
> browser window that is less than full screen and with 800x600 resolution.
>

Why is it any worse - in general - than a user changing the size of
his text himself? If the method is via PHP to deliver, eg, a bigger
font-size from a stylesheet alternative. In other words, you press A+
and this causes the server to change the applicable css instruction.

Patricia Aldoraz wrote:
> On Apr 20, 10:34 am, "David E. Ross" <nob...@nowhere.not> wrote:
>
>> In general, use of a, A, A+ on a Web page gives really bad results
>
> Why is it any worse - in general - than a user changing the size of
> his text himself?

Because *no* web author has *any* clue as to what the user considers
small, medium or large type. The choices provided by such clueless
authors are invariably inadequate for the job.

> If the method is via PHP to deliver, eg, a bigger
> font-size from a stylesheet alternative. In other words, you press A+
> and this causes the server to change the applicable css instruction.

<sigh>

What's your idea of "bigger" type?

--
Berg

Bergamot wrote:

> What's your idea of "bigger" type?


XXXXXXX X X X XXXXXXX
X X X X X
X X X X X
X XXXXXXX X XXXXXXX
X X X X X
X X X X X
X X X X XXXXXXX


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net

Scripsit Bergamot:

>>> In general, use of a, A, A+ on a Web page gives really bad results
>>
>> Why is it any worse - in general - than a user changing the size of
>> his text himself?
>
> Because *no* web author has *any* clue as to what the user considers
> small, medium or large type. The choices provided by such clueless
> authors are invariably inadequate for the job.

Almost all resize features I've seen give the choice of (at most) five
sizes, generally corresponding to the five sizes selectable via IE's
font size menu. So it really sounds like pointless duplication, though
often with added confusion: you can click on A+ and it remains looking
functional, even though you have reached the limit, i.e. the font is as
big as you can get with that "tool".

If we added a control that has more options, say 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14,
15, 16 points, then there would be some added value especially to IE
users, who need to set up a user style sheet if they want anything but
one of the built-in five sizes or the size set on a page.

However, this would need to work thru the server to be adequate, since
otherwise the user would need to select the size on each and every page
when moving around a site. This is manageable but not quite easy and not
quite clean. (You need or info embedded in a URL.)

It could be adequate, for example, for a site intended for people with
disabilities, not so much for their ordinary use on their own computer
(which is something to be arranged separately) but for their use on
other systems where they cannot change settings or just don't have the
time but could set, say, the font size to 36 points when visiting the
one site that is really important to them.

Of course, this cannot be done in HTML, and this topic has become rather
off-topic... (The user interface for setting the font size would
naturally be an HTML form, preferably with text input field for the font
size, but this is the most trivial side of the matter.)

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

On 2008-04-20, Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote:
> Scripsit Bergamot:
>
>>>> In general, use of a, A, A+ on a Web page gives really bad results
>>>
>>> Why is it any worse - in general - than a user changing the size of
>>> his text himself?
>>
>> Because *no* web author has *any* clue as to what the user considers
>> small, medium or large type. The choices provided by such clueless
>> authors are invariably inadequate for the job.
>
> Almost all resize features I've seen give the choice of (at most) five
> sizes, generally corresponding to the five sizes selectable via IE's
> font size menu. So it really sounds like pointless duplication, though
> often with added confusion: you can click on A+ and it remains looking
> functional, even though you have reached the limit, i.e. the font is as
> big as you can get with that "tool".

In theory the a, A, A+ buttons could also change some of the other
styles to adapt to the different font size.

To some extent sizing containers in ems does that, but some designers
might want more discontinuous changes for some reason.

Bergamot wrote:

> Patricia Aldoraz wrote:
>>"David E. Ross" <nob...@nowhere.not> wrote:
>>> In general, use of a, A, A+ on a Web page gives really bad results
>>
>> Why is it any worse - in general - than a user changing the size of
>> his text himself?
>
> Because *no* web author has *any* clue as to what the user considers
> small, medium or large type. The choices provided by such clueless
> authors are invariably inadequate for the job.

I'll agree with that. My former ISP's home page had the a, A, A+ crap
and the choices (in the CSS) were 72%, 84%, and 92%.
(Naturally, JavaScript had to be On to change.)

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Vista

David E. Ross wrote:
> On 4/19/2008 12:46 PM, Bergamot wrote:
>> Don Li wrote:
>>> c) provide a font size manipulation javascript function visibly, like
>>> a (small), A (normal, A+ (large) ...
>> No, please. This is such a wasted effort. All browsers have this ability
>> built in. If you really think your users are so dumb they don't know how
>> to do this themselves, then teach them how to adjust their browser
>> settings. That's something they can use on other sites, not just yours.
>>
>> I have yet to see one of the stupid custom font control things that even
>> came close to my preferred text size.
>>
>
> In general, use of a, A, A+ on a Web page gives really bad results for a
> browser window that is less than full screen and with 800x600 resolution.
>
> One of the capabilities of SeaMonkey and Firefox (both Mozilla browsers,
> based on the Gecko rendering engine) is to add the PrefBar extension.
> PrefBar allows the user to setup Font-, Font+, and Font= buttons on a
> toolbar outside of the displayed Web page (among many other things); the
> Font= button restores the original size in case the user forgets how
> many times Font- or Font+ was selected.
>

So does pressing CTRL+ZERO.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
Still, there is a calm, pure harmony, and music inside of me. - Vincent
Van Gogh

Blinky the Shark wrote:
> Bergamot wrote:
>
>> What's your idea of "bigger" type?
>
>
> XXXXXXX X X X XXXXXXX
> X X X X X
> X X X X X
> X XXXXXXX X XXXXXXX
> X X X X X
> X X X X X
> X X X X XXXXXXX
>
>

Or maybe this?

http://edmullen.net/temp/Clibpoard02.jpg

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
Animal testing is a bad idea - they get nervous and give the wrong answers.