Re: containing floating img height within a div

Kevin Scholl wrote:

So the question becomes, do you leave everything at the default 1em/
100%, which most people do in fact consider large, for the sake of the
minority? Or do you design sites that can be effectively zoomed, safe
in the knowledge that the small subset of users that might need to
enlarge knows how to do so? I can appreciate Berg's viewpoint, and
sympathize with poor vision (as my own is horrific without corrective
lenses), but if the site can be zoomed and remain usable, it seems
much more logical to me to go with the majority.

I do have a question for Berg (or anyone else who sets their minimum
font rather larger than the "norm". I'm curious what you do about
operating system settings, since most of them default to font sizes
even smaller than most Web sites? And yes, this is a serious question,
not some kind of flame bait.

If all site designers would set the base *normal* font size on their
site to *normal*, i.e., 100% or 1em, then for the most part zooming
would be unnecessary except when using a public or someone else's
computer. Normal would be your *normal*! No need to zoom from site to site.

We have this problem with audio levels and commercials on TV, for years
folks have complained the base audio level of commercial tends to be
much, much louder than the programs. When the commercial comes on you
get blasted--turn it down and then you cannot hear when the program
returns. Siting there with a finger ever-present on the remote is not
the way to watch TV! Every so often it gets so egregious that complaints
pour in and for a time the volume will moderate. Then they will creep
back up in volume again... Don't commit the same offense with your website.


--
Take care,

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

Jonathan N. Little wrote:

Kevin Scholl wrote:

So the question becomes, do you leave everything at the default 1em/
100%, which most people do in fact consider large, for the sake of the
minority? Or do you design sites that can be effectively zoomed, safe
in the knowledge that the small subset of users that might need to
enlarge knows how to do so? I can appreciate Berg's viewpoint, and
sympathize with poor vision (as my own is horrific without corrective
lenses), but if the site can be zoomed and remain usable, it seems
much more logical to me to go with the majority.

I do have a question for Berg (or anyone else who sets their minimum
font rather larger than the "norm". I'm curious what you do about
operating system settings, since most of them default to font sizes
even smaller than most Web sites? And yes, this is a serious question,
not some kind of flame bait.

If all site designers would set the base *normal* font size on their
site to *normal*, i.e., 100% or 1em, then for the most part zooming
would be unnecessary except when using a public or someone else's
computer. Normal would be your *normal*! No need to zoom from site to site.

We have this problem with audio levels and commercials on TV, for years
folks have complained the base audio level of commercial tends to be
much, much louder than the programs. When the commercial comes on you
get blasted--turn it down and then you cannot hear when the program
returns. Siting there with a finger ever-present on the remote is not
the way to watch TV! Every so often it gets so egregious that complaints
pour in and for a time the volume will moderate. Then they will creep
back up in volume again... Don't commit the same offense with your website.

Technically it is most likely compression, not a change in the overall
amplitude (volume) of the audio. Compression reduces the dynamic range
of the audio making it *seem* louder.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
Advice - Do not use a hatchet to remove a fly from your forehead.

Ed Mullen wrote:

Technically it is most likely compression, not a change in the overall
amplitude (volume) of the audio. Compression reduces the dynamic range
of the audio making it *seem* louder.

Oh compression is employed for sure! Help my kids in their recording
sessions, run with Wave Hammer and you sure get a boost, but we have a
Fox and an NBC station where the commercial audio is definitely louder
than on other stations... but regardless the effect is disruptive and a
major annoyance for view and one should not do the same with fonts on
their website.


--
Take care,

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

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

Jonathan N. Little wrote:

We have this problem with audio levels and commercials on TV, for
years folks have complained the base audio level of commercial tends
to be much, much louder than the programs. When the commercial comes
on you get blasted--turn it down and then you cannot hear when the
program returns.

I asked a TV guy about that many years ago, while complaining about the
loud commercials. He said, "Oh no, the volume is the same. It's just
that there is *more sound* crammed into the signal during a commercial,
so it *seems* louder."

He was right and it's due to the commercial sound being compressed.

Essentially, the peak amplitude (the loudest sound) is the same in the
show and the commercial: It's limited by the TV station. However, the
commercial is compressed. That is, most of the low-level sounds are
raised in amplitude to be higher (closer to the peaks). This auditory
effect fools the brain into perceiving the commercial to be louder.

Regardless, it still can be pretty annoying.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
I wonder how much deeper would the ocean be without sponges.

Kevin Scholl wrote:

I do have a question for Berg (or anyone else who sets their minimum
font rather larger than the "norm". I'm curious what you do about
operating system settings, since most of them default to font sizes
even smaller than most Web sites?

Odd question, I think. If I have trouble with small text on some web
sites, why would you think I'd be satisfied with default system
settings? I changed those that needed adjusting to something that works
better for me, just like I changed default browser settings to suit me.

My system is set up perfectly for *me*. The only trouble I ever have is
with some web sites. Other apps give me no such grief, as long as they
use native Windows widgets and system settings for their GUI (not all
do). For the few that don't, most are so familiar to me that I don't
really need to read anything in the UI.

--
Berg

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Kevin Scholl
<kscholl (AT) comcast (DOT) net> writing in news:f096b8a8-d51a-48f6-8ea1-
689aa4b9bd31 (AT) w34g2000yqm (DOT) googlegroups.com:

I do have a question for Berg (or anyone else who sets their minimum
font rather larger than the "norm". I'm curious what you do about
operating system settings, since most of them default to font sizes
even smaller than most Web sites? And yes, this is a serious question,
not some kind of flame bait.

I have a friend who is a medical transcriptionist, and recently, I had
to rid her computer of a nasty virus. She had her resolution set at
640x480, and was complaining that she had to do a lot of horizontal
scrolling. When I suggested she bump up the resolution, she said she
didn't want to because then she would have problems with the os system
sizes. I showed her that she could bump it up and change the default
font sizes. Now she does not have as many issues.

I have another friend who also complains about small text on web sites,
and he has his resolution set at 800x600, for the same reason.

I have yet another friend, with much better eyes, who has a large
resolution, small text on everything, and complains that some text is
too large, so he zooms it down to what is comfortable for him.

--
Adrienne Boswell at Home
Arbpen Web Site Design Services
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

Jonathan N. Little wrote:

Kevin Scholl wrote:

So the question becomes, do you leave everything at the default 1em/
100%, which most people do in fact consider large, for the sake of the
minority? Or do you design sites that can be effectively zoomed, safe
in the knowledge that the small subset of users that might need to
enlarge knows how to do so? I can appreciate Berg's viewpoint, and
sympathize with poor vision (as my own is horrific without corrective
lenses), but if the site can be zoomed and remain usable, it seems
much more logical to me to go with the majority.

I do have a question for Berg (or anyone else who sets their minimum
font rather larger than the "norm". I'm curious what you do about
operating system settings, since most of them default to font sizes
even smaller than most Web sites? And yes, this is a serious question,
not some kind of flame bait.

If all site designers would set the base *normal* font size on their
site to *normal*, i.e., 100% or 1em, then for the most part zooming
would be unnecessary except when using a public or someone else's
computer. Normal would be your *normal*! No need to zoom from site to site.

I wondered how you were able to do commercial work while following
that advice, so I dialed up the url in your sig.

And what I found was lots and lots of settings for font-size: .8em
and font-size: 80%.

So what's the deal here? Is it that 1 em is fine except when you need to
fit something in? The only thing you have at 1em is a very wide main
column, everything else is 80%. I'm thinking that if you had a more
traditional multi column setting that you would find too few words per
line, and too long pages and would be sizing those down too.

1 em may be fine for essentially 1 column pages but it is
commercially unfeasable most anywhere else.

Don't evangelize 1em until you can live with it.

We have this problem with audio levels and commercials on TV, for years
folks have complained the base audio level of commercial tends to be
much, much louder than the programs.

What compression does is reduce dynamic range. At a normal setting you
have most sound at low level (a typical paragraph) and what needs to be
emphasized (like a h1 or h2 heading) at higher volume. What commercials
do is consider everything to be a heading and tend to have these at the
upper volume range with nothing softer.


When the commercial comes on you

get blasted--turn it down and then you cannot hear when the program
returns. Siting there with a finger ever-present on the remote is not
the way to watch TV!

And such is designing at 1em when everyone else is at less. If I reduce
you main text to what I find comfortable, I can no longer read your
navigation.

1 em is not a panacea.

It's better to just design so that you can zoom for those that need it.

Jeff


Every so often it gets so egregious that complaints

pour in and for a time the volume will moderate. Then they will creep
back up in volume again... Don't commit the same offense with your website.

Jeff wrote:

Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Kevin Scholl wrote:

So the question becomes, do you leave everything at the default 1em/
100%, which most people do in fact consider large, for the sake of the
minority? Or do you design sites that can be effectively zoomed, safe
in the knowledge that the small subset of users that might need to
enlarge knows how to do so? I can appreciate Berg's viewpoint, and
sympathize with poor vision (as my own is horrific without corrective
lenses), but if the site can be zoomed and remain usable, it seems
much more logical to me to go with the majority.

I do have a question for Berg (or anyone else who sets their minimum
font rather larger than the "norm". I'm curious what you do about
operating system settings, since most of them default to font sizes
even smaller than most Web sites? And yes, this is a serious question,
not some kind of flame bait.

If all site designers would set the base *normal* font size on their
site to *normal*, i.e., 100% or 1em, then for the most part zooming
would be unnecessary except when using a public or someone else's
computer. Normal would be your *normal*! No need to zoom from site to
site.

I wondered how you were able to do commercial work while following
that advice, so I dialed up the url in your sig.

And what I found was lots and lots of settings for font-size: .8em and
font-size: 80%.

Yes you did, for specialty text, like address line in the footer and
menu items captions on images. The bulk, the main content is:

BODY {

font-family:

Arial,

Helvetica,

Tahoma,

Geneva,

"Lucida Sans",

"Centery Gothic",

"AvantGuarde Bk Bt",

"Lucidux Sans",

Gothic,

sans-serif;

font-size: 100%;
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Also some legacy from earlier versions. My new version in the works
dumps that damn flyout menu...

--
Take care,

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

On Feb 2, 5:13*pm, Jeff <dont_bug... (AT) all (DOT) uk> wrote:

* *1 em may be fine for essentially 1 column pages but it is
commercially unfeasable most anywhere else.

That pretty much sums it up.

The irony is the argument that "larger fonts = better" could possibly
be true, but it doesn't really matter. The surfer has certain
expectations in layout and presentation that has evolved, primarily,
from the past sites they've seen. And given virtually every single
major site tames font size downward, those expectations have been
clearly defined. (At least, the 50 or so I've checked on since getting
involved in this discussion with zero exceptions)

One can go ahead and use default ~16px fonts on the site, and doing so
may well make it easier for a surfer to read -- but it also 'looks
wrong' by failing to match expectations. That's suicide on a
commercial site -- particularly in a lesser known sites (a.k.a. not
top 500 site) where credibility is determined in short order. Default
fonts might manage to make it slightly easier to read content but
runs the very real risk of appearing amateur to the majority of your
traffic surfer. In that scenario, very few commercial sites can
afford to be "right" be using a larger font (which I still question,
as I don't think browser suppliers are better able to determine
default size versus the marketplace).

As I said before, academia, research, governmental sites, etc... a
larger font might make sense. Handcuffing commercial work under the
guise that you're "right" in using "non-standard" font sizing,
dropping more content below the fold, etc... that's just ego.

Steve Broski wrote:

On Feb 2, 5:13 pm, Jeff <dont_bug... (AT) all (DOT) uk> wrote:

1 em may be fine for essentially 1 column pages but it is
commercially unfeasable most anywhere else.

That pretty much sums it up.

snip

As I said before, academia, research, governmental sites, etc... a
larger font might make sense. Handcuffing commercial work under the
guise that you're "right" in using "non-standard" font sizing,
dropping more content below the fold, etc... that's just ego.

It may be a little instructive of just who is giving out the 1em
advice. I've been seeing this for years in these groups and I don't
think anyone who has recommended that has a commercial portfolio. Not to
disparage acadamia and personal or very small business sites, but you
just won't get much work designing commercial sites that don't fit in
with expectations. If you advise people to use 1 em, because it is
"right", bear in mind that you are almost surly dooming them to
commercial failure. That's not really fair. Your battle there was lost
shortly after the advent of CSS, back in the pre css days everything was
1em and in some hideous default ,usually serif font. And if it wasn't,
it was tag soup.

There's been a remarkable number of battles won, like separating
content and presentation and relegating tables for tabular data. The
same developers who are doing that are setting fonts for smaller than 1
em and there is no indication that will change.

Jeff