 | |
My messy stylesheets just ain't got no style....
Cascading Style Sheets Layout/presentation on the WWW (comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: My messy stylesheets just ain't got no style.... -
10-05-2003
, 07:11 PM
|
And really, honestly, truly, if you asked your doctor for advice about bad breath, and he just said "don't wear green socks" without explanation, what would you think? |
them.
Quote:
|
Oooh, snooty! Look, I don't need or want your 'help'. |
But I will respect your wishes and not burden you with any more
help. I'm sure at least some others have already reached a similar
conclusion.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
#22
| |||
| |||
|
|
In message <bte0ovge1mitd2qs3nk1hsogkd0vp3vok0 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Herbert doughnut (AT) email (DOT) me.ok> writes I know HTML very well, thank you. You only think you do. |
fatuous assertion, which reveals more about your petty, prejudiced,
conceited perception of the world and the other people in it. Which
is a hugely greater deficiency than any lack of knowledge of html or
css.
If I'd known that creating a 'subheading' class would have created so
much excitement (only exceeded by my 'color=' typo caused by many
years of hand-coding html), I'd have called it 'penguin' or something.
You sad, sad man. Troll me no more.
#23
| |||
| |||
|
|
In message <6he0ovki6quadhrsldibuaml4cjpcm0jh2 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Herbert doughnut (AT) email (DOT) me.ok> writes Because, you hasty berk, I have yet to understand why calling someone a female sexual organ is supposed to be an insult. Perhaps you have some issues about them..? |
Cockney rhying slang I didn't know about, but I took a look around and
found this page:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=berk
so thank you for actually enlightening me about something.
#24
| ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
|
|
On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 13:56:04 +0200, Stephen Poley sbpoleySpicedHamTrap (AT) xs4all (DOT) nl> wrote: On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 06:43:04 +0100, Herbert <doughnut (AT) email (DOT) me.ok wrote: Sites with 100% anything tend to look like infant's text books. Most real people (as distinct from the fabled crowd conjured by coding-geeks) don't give it a thought provided it's within a - fairly wide - legibility range. You appear to be contradicting yourself. Do you think that most people find their default settings acceptable or not? Suppose you tell me? On the whole, I do, but I think it's arrogant to assume that what suits me suits the majority. |
leaving the main body text at 100%. For those people who find their
default settings acceptable, this will be acceptable. For those who
don't, and have changed the settings to something they do like, it will
also be acceptable.
The only people who will be dissatisfied will be those who don't like
the default settings but don't know how to change them. And for them you
cannot know that 80% will be an improvement. (Maybe they would prefer
90%, or 120%.) If you are convinced that this last group is
significantly large, you can use the solution I use on my site - see
sig. (I'm not actually convinced this group is so large, but I'm
prepared to entertain the possibility.)
Quote:
|
When I do anything for public consumption, I can only do what initially appears to me to be the most attractive presentation, and attend to and try to accomodate feedback. I certainly wouldn't do something just because the rules dictate, or insist that my clients accept the results because that's "the way things should be" (or because "Brian says so" :-) ). |
use of accumulated experience - and the assembled readership of this
group has a vast amount of experience.
Quote:
|
Whatever, like several others, you're missing the point of my original post, when I made it quite clear I was proposing examples to illustrate a particular aspect of CSS inheritance I find awkward |
sentence starting "In some cases one simply can't ..." However I now
understand your problem is solved by something else.
Quote:
|
FWIW I have used at least ten different versions of at least five different browsers, and I have yet to encounter one where the default text looked like "infant's text books". If your browser, on your monitor, does, then perhaps it's time you learned how to adjust the browser settings. And maybe you learned to be less patronising. |
100% looked like "infant's text books" - indicating that you consider it
much too large. What conclusion am I supposed to draw, other than that
you haven't adjusted (can't adjust?) your browser settings?
Quote:
|
I don't think it's appropriate to expect that users should adjust anything to view any website. |
convenient line-length). Users should adjust their browser once to their
preferred font-size, and should not have to change it again for any
website. So why do so many web-authors, including apparently yourself,
force them to readjust their settings by using main text sizes like 80%?
Quote:
|
But since you come to hark back to this point, yes, I do think that an information (i.e. text) rich web page looks pretty ghastly when the font size is 100%. Dismount from your elevated perspective and imagine printing a novel at the same relative font-size. |
if you would adjust your browser settings. But apparently even
suggesting that is "patronising".
Quote:
|
I'm using Agent here, at its default font settings. I reckon the text is about half the height of 100% arial in IE. |
Quote:
|
And I've been persuaded against using Times New Roman, though that, I accept, looks reasonably ok at 100%. However, it seems commonly accepted that the sans-serif fonts are just a little easier on the eye on screen, |
fact that the most common sans-serif font (Arial) is quite a bit wider
than the most common serif font (Times New Roman). So if you set them
both to the same smallish font-size, Arial will be more readable. But
I'm not convinced that this is a property of sans-serif fonts as such. I
use Georgia as my default serif font; it is about the same width as
Arial and I find it just as readable.
Quote:
|
and convey a less archaic impression (I gather that such an aesthetic consideration is a moot point for people who put coding above content). |
discussions around here consist of the regulars trying to convince
people that content is the number 1 priority.
You could of course leave the font-family to default as well. Then those
people who consider serif fonts "archaic" (I don't think you'll find
many typographers among them, BTW) and have set a serif font as their
default will get the font they like.
Quote:
|
I appreciate the time you've given in writing, Stephen (or at least most of it ;-) ). |
--
Stephen Poley
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
#25
| |||||
| |||||
|
|
In article <6he0ovki6quadhrsldibuaml4cjpcm0jh2 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com> in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Herbert doughnut (AT) email (DOT) me.ok> wrote: And really, honestly, truly, if you asked your doctor for advice about bad breath, and he just said "don't wear green socks" without explanation, what would you think? You were given explanations, you just chose not to benefit from them. |
Quote:
|
p {font-family: "arial", "verdana", |
Quote:
|
font-size: 80%; |
an explanatory page, I immediately reviewed it and thanked them for
it. However, Captain Brian completely ignored my actual question in
favour of nit-picking, which seems to be a damn-near habitual
knee-jerk response around here.
Quote:
|
Oooh, snooty! Look, I don't need or want your 'help'. Funny, I thought you posted here asking for exactly that. |
consider help..
Quote:
|
But I will respect your wishes and not burden you with any more help. I'm sure at least some others have already reached a similar conclusion. |
#26
| |||
| |||
|
|
Herbert wrote: Ooo! Ouch. You've ruined my day, now, Captain Brian, you hero you.. Welcome to the killfiles. HAND. |
in this thread if you're interested) or supine in the face of arrant
irrelevant smart-ass nit-picking.
Killfiles = "I'm not playing any more". Never used 'em.
#27
| |||
| |||
|
|
In message <lid0ov433g0cvj7ovdj2hfo480r77dc4vh (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Herbert doughnut (AT) email (DOT) me.ok> writes I'm 100% open to advice. Liar. |
(#000000).
Quote me where someone gave me advice, as distinct from high-handed
admonition (i.e. no clue as to 'why'), particularly where it pertained
to my actual original query, and I failed to thank them for it.
You're just being thoughtlessly petty and spiteful. I find people
like you amusing, but pathetic.
#28
| |||||||||||
| |||||||||||
|
|
On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 17:44:38 +0100, Herbert <doughnut (AT) email (DOT) me.ok wrote: On Sun, 05 Oct 2003 13:56:04 +0200, Stephen Poley sbpoleySpicedHamTrap (AT) xs4all (DOT) nl> wrote: |
Quote:
|
On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 06:43:04 +0100, Herbert <doughnut (AT) email (DOT) me.ok wrote: Sites with 100% anything tend to look like infant's text books. Most real people (as distinct from the fabled crowd conjured by coding-geeks) don't give it a thought provided it's within a - fairly wide - legibility range. You appear to be contradicting yourself. Do you think that most people find their default settings acceptable or not? Suppose you tell me? On the whole, I do, but I think it's arrogant to assume that what suits me suits the majority. Exactly - that is the whole point. This problem is best addressed by leaving the main body text at 100%. For those people who find their default settings acceptable, this will be acceptable. For those who don't, and have changed the settings to something they do like, it will also be acceptable. The only people who will be dissatisfied will be those who don't like the default settings but don't know how to change them. And for them you cannot know that 80% will be an improvement. (Maybe they would prefer 90%, or 120%.) If you are convinced that this last group is significantly large, you can use the solution I use on my site - see sig. (I'm not actually convinced this group is so large, but I'm prepared to entertain the possibility.) |
intended, and that if it looks unpleasant, that's a communication in
itself. Altering the size of the text in my browser may also throw
out some juxtaposed elements, so I simply put up with it and look at
the content. Since visiting sites, say, from a search engine summary,
can be like flipping through a book directory, stopping to adjust the
text sizes is more likely to cause problems: i.e. one site the text is
'too small', the next it's 'too big': adjusting for one will
exacerbate the problems in the next. Unless I'm going to be spending
some time reading a page, I just let it be.
Quote:
|
When I do anything for public consumption, I can only do what initially appears to me to be the most attractive presentation, and attend to and try to accomodate feedback. I certainly wouldn't do something just because the rules dictate, or insist that my clients accept the results because that's "the way things should be" (or because "Brian says so" :-) ). That matches with most people here. But it certainly makes sense to make use of accumulated experience - and the assembled readership of this group has a vast amount of experience. |
for being abrupt, patronising, or dismissive. Quite the contrary, in
fact.
Quote:
| Whatever, like several others, you're missing the point of my original post, when I made it quite clear I was proposing examples to illustrate a particular aspect of CSS inheritance I find awkward I didn't miss the point completely; I tried to address it in the sentence starting "In some cases one simply can't ..." However I now understand your problem is solved by something else. FWIW I have used at least ten different versions of at least five different browsers, and I have yet to encounter one where the default text looked like "infant's text books". If your browser, on your monitor, does, then perhaps it's time you learned how to adjust the browser settings. And maybe you learned to be less patronising. That's a pretty bizarre response. You stated that using a font-size of 100% looked like "infant's text books" - indicating that you consider it much too large. What conclusion am I supposed to draw, other than that you haven't adjusted (can't adjust?) your browser settings? |
explanation which one may not have considered. Such as the one above.
In any case, I think one should aim to match the look of one's page to
the default settings.
Quote:
| I don't think it's appropriate to expect that users should adjust anything to view any website. I agree entirely (with the exception of reducing window-size to a convenient line-length). Users should adjust their browser once to their preferred font-size, and should not have to change it again for any website. So why do so many web-authors, including apparently yourself, force them to readjust their settings by using main text sizes like 80%? |
up, I don't see how anyone can _permanently_ adjust their browser to
the font setting they want (that deviates from default). Conversely,
I have _never_ had anyone complain that a site I produced caused them
illegibility problems.
I think the clue is in your words "so many web-authors". Maybe they
do it because the audience expects it?
Quote:
| But since you come to hark back to this point, yes, I do think that an information (i.e. text) rich web page looks pretty ghastly when the font size is 100%. Dismount from your elevated perspective and imagine printing a novel at the same relative font-size. No problem. 100% looks perfect to me. It would look perfect to you too, if you would adjust your browser settings. But apparently even suggesting that is "patronising". |
Declaring that I don't know how is patronising.
And you didn't actually acknowledge the complete context of that
point: books printed for adults do not have text equating to the
on-screen 100% font. But kiddies' books do.
Quote:
|
I'm using Agent here, at its default font settings. I reckon the text is about half the height of 100% arial in IE. So adjust IE to a size where 100% looks acceptable to you. |
little aesthetic distaste, and they are almost always either naively
primitive sites laden with garish animated gifs, or ones discussing
CSS. Most sites attempt, for better or worse, to define a style and
presentation appropriate to their content, and generally, the font
size is reduced from 100%.
Quote:
|
And I've been persuaded against using Times New Roman, though that, I accept, looks reasonably ok at 100%. However, it seems commonly accepted that the sans-serif fonts are just a little easier on the eye on screen, This is a debatable point. I suspect that this claim is based on the fact that the most common sans-serif font (Arial) is quite a bit wider than the most common serif font (Times New Roman). So if you set them both to the same smallish font-size, Arial will be more readable. But I'm not convinced that this is a property of sans-serif fonts as such. I use Georgia as my default serif font; it is about the same width as Arial and I find it just as readable. |
Quote:
|
and convey a less archaic impression (I gather that such an aesthetic consideration is a moot point for people who put coding above content). Which people would they be? You'll find that quite a few of the discussions around here consist of the regulars trying to convince people that content is the number 1 priority. |
such subjective considerations are at odds with the rigours of coding
to 'established' datum lines, and have looked at pages produced by the
advocates of 'correct' coding, all too often they were dull as
concrete slabs. Even self-obsessed. The most interesting thing about
some of them was the 'validated' badge.
Quote:
|
You could of course leave the font-family to default as well. Then those people who consider serif fonts "archaic" (I don't think you'll find many typographers among them, BTW) and have set a serif font as their default will get the font they like. |
benefit of people who totally ignore it and choose their own anyway?
One might as well produce the page to suit oneself, one's client, and
the majority of their visitors: and if there's any adverse comment
(unknown to me), adjust as appropriate.
Anyway, apart from the analogy you ignored above, we're not talking
about publishing paper-based material, are we? Personally, I don't
like sans-serif fonts on the printed page, especially in a novel
(text-books are ok-ish), and wasn't advocating this. I meant
'archaic' in the on-screen context (how quickly things become
out-of-date in cyberspace... even that word!).
Some years ago I did a site using Times, but the observation was that
it looked like I hadn't bothered to specify a font (as in "don't know
how to adjust browser settings"). Not, I hastily mention, from the
'top dogs (and bitches)' of ciwas or ciwah, but from the client.
Quote:
| I appreciate the time you've given in writing, Stephen (or at least most of it ;-) ). I am trying to help. Honest. |
but life's just a bit more messy than that, I think...
Thanks again for offering some thought-provoking ideas, it often helps
to have one's ingrained approaches challenged.
#29
| |||
| |||
|
|
That's a pretty bizarre response. You stated that using a font-size of 100% looked like "infant's text books" - indicating that you consider it much too large. What conclusion am I supposed to draw, other than that you haven't adjusted (can't adjust?) your browser settings? |
Specifying a font-size smaller or larger than 100% should be allowed. They
are merely design "recommendations". Much like saying that the page should
use Arial. "How dare you say I use Arial? I want to use Times New Roman for
every page I view! You stoopid deeziners!"
</devil's advocate>
Let's see how many people I pissed off with that one.
Jonathan
--
http://www.snook.ca/
#30
| |||
| |||
|
|
Oh I'm dead. Basically because I won't act 'subservient' (see above in this thread if you're interested) or supine in the face of arrant irrelevant smart-ass nit-picking. Killfiles = "I'm not playing any more". Never used 'em. |
A killfile, among the adult population, is somewhat comparable to the OFF
switch on a TV set or a radio. If what is being said is something you don't
care to listen to, you can turn it off.
It's a shame that too many parents see the TV, or the Internet, as a
babysitter and let people like Herbert loose on us.
--
- Tina Holmboe Greytower Technologies
tina (AT) greytower (DOT) net http://www.greytower.net/
[+46] 0708 557 905
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.