Clarification on Font Size and Inheritance.

#21

Quote:

In Firefox, Tools > Options > General > Fonts & Colors
Adjust your own taste a bit lower than what it is now.

Not sure how we can make this any more clear...

It's not a matter of making it more clear. I'm merely trying to figure
out and understand the technical and background aspects of it all.

The <p> tag inherits the font-size from the <body>. I was just trying
to understand where the <body> inherits the font size from if I use a
percentage value. It's clear to me now that it gets it from the browser
settings.

Anyone can just copy and paste code and make a website work. If I
understand *how* it all works, I can be better at it. Of course, one
can't learn everything in a day :>)

Viken K.

#22

Viken Karaguesian wrote:

Quote:

In Firefox, Tools > Options > General > Fonts & Colors
Adjust your own taste a bit lower than what it is now.

Not sure how we can make this any more clear...

It's not a matter of making it more clear. I'm merely trying to
figure out and understand the technical and background aspects of it
all.

Ok. <g>

Quote:

The <p> tag inherits the font-size from the <body>. I was just trying
to understand where the <body> inherits the font size from if I use a
percentage value. It's clear to me now that it gets it from the
browser settings.

Yes, that is how it works, so long as the body sizing is using
percentage. It will also work if you use a value of em, but Internet
Explorer has a bug whereby using em causes problems. A small increase of
yours may end up displaying double the size.

Quote:

Anyone can just copy and paste code and make a website work.

For some value of "work" <g>

Quote:

If I understand *how* it all works, I can be better at it. Of course,
one can't learn everything in a day :>)

Allow at least .. three? .. days.

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer

#23

"Alan J. Flavell" <flavell (AT) ph (DOT) gla.ac.uk> writes:

Quote:

Viken Karaguesian <vikenk (AT) aol (DOT) com> wrote:

If I set the body to 100% but really want my font-size to be 95%,

Neither you nor any client (let alone users) ever wants *that*. What's
certainly demanded on a reguarly basis is what I'd call 'professional
PR (pixel ratio

marketese'.

There's the widespread half-witted 'accessibility' directive 'use
relative units for font-size instead of absolute ones' (without further
notion, 'relative' includes the 'px' unit of course

, though.

Which usually boils down to scaling some notorious sans-serif of sorts
downwards to a percentage that equals the pretty sight of 12px in a
house and garden 96 dpi environment. And sticking a 'strong
accessibility commitment' on top of it.

This level of insight and commitment is excellently illustrated by the
fine guidelines of the Dutch government for "A durable and accessible
web for everybody". Have a screenshot:
<http://bednarz.nl/img/duur.png>
I do not *need* it like *that* myself, BTW, but on my Laptop any size
that is at least legible is good enough to mess things up (and my
eyesight is perfectly alright for spotting pixels at an arm's length

.

Now for the good news; as a natural person you need not be a hypocrite
and can just choose an absolute (in reality, not per spec) size to your
likes (if that's what your site is all about) with the px unit.
Or be a good boy and decide not to fuck with your visitors.

Quote:

It's the modern example of "Optimized for arguing with customers",
don't you know?
[...]
But there are web site authors who still don't want to know.

This is unfairly overgeneralising as professional web authors are
regularly doing just that, not arguing with *their* customer, when
generating flyshit on demand.

#24

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Eric B. Bednarz wrote:

Quote:

"Alan J. Flavell" <flavell (AT) ph (DOT) gla.ac.uk> writes:

It's the modern example of "Optimized for arguing with customers",
don't you know?
[...]
But there are web site authors who still don't want to know.

This is unfairly overgeneralising as professional web authors are
regularly doing just that, not arguing with *their* customer, when
generating flyshit on demand.

I understand that, but it doesn't wash - the *site* has still been
optimized for arguing with *customers*, no matter what the
subcontracting details behind how the *site* came into being.

If I engaged an architect to build me a house, and I demanded
something that was in clear violation of building codes, I would
expect the architect to advise me of my mistake - not to simply do
what I'd innocently asked for, and leave me to pick up the costs of
the mistake. I don't see why we shouldn't apply the same standards to
web designers.

#25

"Alan J. Flavell" <flavell (AT) physics (DOT) gla.ac.uk> writes:

Quote:

If I engaged an architect to build me a house, and I demanded
something that was in clear violation of building codes, I would
expect the architect to advise me of my mistake - not to simply do
what I'd innocently asked for,

That should go without saying. But you cannot do any *more* than that
-- convincing advice at gunpoint is still illegal in some countries I'm
afraid -- short of turning down the assignment. Which isn't really an
option for everybody's situation, and it might even require some
legalese in advance that wouldn't read as a convincing advertisement to
hire you in the first place.

On the upside, talking sense is seldom a problem if there is an even
communication channel available, id est, one person advising one other
who is entitled and willing to make a decision all by herself.
Quite often, that's not the case.

Quote:

and leave me to pick up the costs of
the mistake. I don't see why we shouldn't apply the same standards to
web designers.

If all the houses in your neighbourhood sport the same clear violations,
you are certainly entitled to your own copy. This isn't meant to be
funny, by the way. E.g., the odds really *are* that 'people' will find
their accidental default text size too large if you don't do anything
about it. Because quite literally all the 'normal interest' sites they
visit *have* done that for them, and there _is_ a real problem when real
people (customers, staff members, business relations) start complaining
about that -- and they actually do; expect the advising formerly expert
to be greeted with 'see, I told you so right from the beginning' by the
late client.

There's no conclusion on my account, btw, except that 'doing the
right thing' will not always just fly, neither as a line of
argumentation nor in terms of, eeks, user experience.

#26

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous (AT) example (DOT) invalid> wrote in
<news:1orgo1d3wjj94$.1t8jdz66r8x66.dlg (AT) 40tude (DOT) net> :

Quote:

Viken Karaguesian wrote:

X% of what each and every visitor (including yourself) has
chosen as their personal, preferred size.

OK...I see. If I use the percent value in the <body> tag,
then the base font size is derived from the user's browser
settings.

Exactly.

How many visitors to the average site actually know how to change
the font size in the browser? Probably not as many as we would
like, or the op's situation wouldn't have happened. The site's
owner would have already had his font size reduced.

Perhaps that should be added to the installation routines:
Pick a font size you like and this will be the default, you can
change the appearance of web pages [here]. Have a nice day.

Just a thought.

--
Rob McAninch
http://rock13.com

#27

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Rob McAninch wrote:

Quote:

How many visitors to the average site actually know how to change
the font size in the browser?

Maybe those visitors prefer the size which was selected for them by
their vendor? We really don't know - and, as authors, we shouldn't be
expected to ask. Their choice is their choice - no matter how it was
arrived at. Our job as authors is to work *with* that choice, not to
argue with it, unless we can find some good excuse for interfering.

Authors who say "the font looks too big *to me*" isn't what I'd call
an adequate excuse to interfere with the reader's right to choose.

As a reader, of course, I set a minimum font size in my browser, to
protect me from those idiot authors who persist in trying to reduce
the font size way below what I chose for myself. (I'm glad to see
that Chris Pederick has now implemented the suggestion for an option
to disable that setting when one is *reviewing* web pages, rather than
trying to *use* them - web developer toolbar version 1.0.)

#28

Viken Karaguesian wrote:

Quote:

The current site I'm working on uses Arial font, as requested by my
"client" (I'm volunteering my time, 'cause this is fun for me). I set
the font to 100%, but they complained that it looked too big (tall).
They showed me examples of other sites that used Arial font, and said
"make it look like that". Reducing the font to 95% gave it the look
they wanted.

Show your client the marvels of his browser. Specifically how to adjust

the default font size.
Also, what is the client using? A 21" monitor at 800x600?

Quote:

Actually, I think that Arial is easier to read at 95% than at 100%. The
letters don't look so tall and bunched together.

That only applies to your particular monitor, screen resolution, color

depth, default font size, quality of font package(s) installed, font
rendering subsystem, font smoothing, and personal taste. If you can adjust
all of those properties at the visitor's machine, you are a wizard. But
the visitor may not appreciate it.

--
jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

#29

Alan J. Flavell <flavell (AT) ph (DOT) gla.ac.uk> wrote:

Quote:

As a reader, of course, I set a minimum font size in my browser, to
protect me from those idiot authors who persist in trying to reduce
the font size way below what I chose for myself.

FWIW, in addition to setting a minimum font size, I also use my user style
sheet to apply "font-size: 100% !important" to the HTML and BODY elements.
--
Darin McGrew, mcgrew (AT) stanfordalumni (DOT) org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, darin (AT) htmlhelp (DOT) com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/

"Shin: a device for finding furniture in the dark." - Steven Wright

#30

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Rob McAninch
<rob_13 (AT) excite (DOT) com> spouted in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:

Quote:

Perhaps that should be added to the installation routines:

That assumes that the browser is actually installed by the user, not by
e.g. the company technician or a friend who "knows computers".

It also ignores that commonly-used browser-like OS component that is
installed as part of Windows, not installed separately.

So perhaps it's a nice theory, but it would never work (and yes, I
realise your comment was at least partly tongue in cheek). :-)

--
Mark Parnell
================================================== ===
Att. Google Groups users - this is your last warning:
http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/