Re: containing floating img height within a div

On Feb 3, 1:52*pm, Bergamot <berga... (AT) visi (DOT) com> wrote:

Kevin Scholl wrote:

Do
you simply utilize the OS settings ("Large Text" and such), or do you
have some special software that alters text size in OS components?

No need for any special software, though someone with less visual acuity
than me could need it.

Thans for your feedback, Berg.

Kevin Scholl wrote:

On Feb 3, 1:51 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4... (AT) central (DOT) net> wrote:

So having designers scale the font willy-nilly to their preferences is
somehow better? If the base font is always set to 100%|1em then for each

I don't believe I stated that any one methodology is "better" than
another. As I stated previously, I believe the important aspect is
that the text on a site CAN be resized, be it up or down, without
tearing the layout apart. As to the starting point for that text size
-- 1em/100% or designer-specified -- I find that effective arguments
are made either way, and appreciate both. Based on my own extensive
experience, and the current state of the Web and its users, I have my
leanings, but I don't claim a clear-cut right or wrong.

But I am, and my proof is if all sites used 100% then adjustment for
users from site to site would be unnecessary. The text would be readable
for whatever the user has his systems set for. Period.

site the base text would always be whatever the browser default. If it
16px then 16px 24px then 24px 10px then 10px. Whatever it would be
consistent. If "people" find too large then they will learn how to set
the font to more to their linking. Once done they would not have to futz

But unfortunately, they don't learn.

Not what I have witnessed. If they cannot figure it out then the call
tech support and they change it for them. Ask any technician.

with it again. Even clueless IE users will find "Tools|View>Text Size.
Imagine if every application on your system had a different text size at
the whim of the programmer for dialog boxes! There is a reason why all
work off of a system wide default for the UI. Set once and forget it...

Second point. If you find the text too large and you are too clueless to
set your preferences you can still *read* the page...

This is true.

So if the content is important, then don't hamper the user's ability to
read it. Now, I am not saying .8em text does not have its place, just
don't use for the main content text in your site and absolutely do not
set it to #px!


--
Take care,

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

Bergamot wrote:

Jeff wrote:
Bergamot wrote:
Jeff wrote:
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.
Please show the research that supports this claim.

Hell, I can tell you from personal experience!

Anecdotal accounts are irrelevant. I have plenty of my own that say the
opposite.

You have your own very personal reasons.
Now, I'm not a statistician, and I don't have time to do your homework.

And you have ignored the question:

Show me a commercial 3 column site that uses 1em throughout. Not a
very small business site or an educational site.

Why can't you do that? You've been given a very long list of
mainstream commercial sites that set a smaller font size. It's not like
I've asked you to find a Yetti, or is it?

All this may not be to your liking, but it is the way it is. You
can't get commercial work if your site's text looks childishly large in
comparison. Now, if you want to change the world, go ahead and do
commercial work that fits your criteria. Good luck with that. Seriously.

Jeff

Please show an unbiased report that supports the "commercial failure"
claim. And I don't care what other sites do. They were made by the same
dee-ziner lemmings that you are following.

Jeff wrote:

Bergamot wrote:
Jeff wrote:
Bergamot wrote:
Jeff wrote:
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.
Please show the research that supports this claim.

Now, I'm not a statistician, and I don't have time to do your homework.

You are the one who is claiming 1em = failure, but haven't supplied any
proof that it is true. Point to a case where a commercial site *failed*
because their text size was too big (to you).

And you have ignored the question:

Show me a commercial 3 column site that uses 1em throughout.

I don't use many commercial sites so don't know of any off hand. It's
not relevant to the task of *proving* 1em = failure, anyway. You made
the claim, so you are the one who needs to prove it, not me.

All this may not be to your liking, but it is the way it is.

It has little to do with what I do or do not like, but has everything to
do with usability and accessibility. Many of those big commercial sites
you seem to be so fond of are failures on those counts, to varying
degrees. By your reasoning, it's OK because they all do it. That's crap.

--
Berg

Bergamot wrote:

Now, I'm not a statistician, and I don't have time to do your homework.

You are the one who is claiming 1em = failure, but haven't supplied any
proof that it is true. Point to a case where a commercial site *failed*
because their text size was too big (to you).

Perhaps the lack of commercial sites using giant fonts is the proof of
failure. One would suspect that, at some point in history, a few
modestly large sites used default font sizing -- and apparently folded
or changed their tune in a hurry.


By the way, even frickin' Jakob Nielsen says:

"Make your default font size reasonably big (at least 10 point) so that
very few users have to resort to manual overrides."

10pt = about .84em, which is smaller than the global font-size: 0.9em; I
usually go with.

The 'usability guru' says designers can substantially knock down font
size (unless "targeting senior citizens"), zero large scale sites agree
with you... but you're screaming bloody murder font-size: 100% is the
*only* rational sizing for a website. It's silly.

Bergamot wrote:

Jeff wrote:
Bergamot wrote:
Jeff wrote:
Bergamot wrote:
Jeff wrote:
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.
Please show the research that supports this claim.

Now, I'm not a statistician, and I don't have time to do your homework.

You are the one who is claiming 1em = failure, but haven't supplied any
proof that it is true. Point to a case where a commercial site *failed*
because their text size was too big (to you).

You misread this.

I am not a commercial site, I am a web developer.

If I did as you wanted, I would fail. What you want is just not done
in the commercial world.

If you want to do commercial work, you can not do as you suggest. Did
I not say this, over and over?

Is this a group for web developers, or is it for web users?

If you want to encourage usability, focus not on the default font
size. Have I not said that more than once?

My job, as I see it, is to to take a design and make it as cleanly as
possible. To make it reasonably zoomable without breaking and functional
and easy for most to use.

You are locked into 1 em. That is what this whole useless thread is
about.

Do you want to influence the people that can do something, or do you
want to drive them out of business?

Jeff

And you have ignored the question:

Show me a commercial 3 column site that uses 1em throughout.

I don't use many commercial sites so don't know of any off hand. It's
not relevant to the task of *proving* 1em = failure, anyway. You made
the claim, so you are the one who needs to prove it, not me.


All this may not be to your liking, but it is the way it is.

It has little to do with what I do or do not like, but has everything to
do with usability and accessibility. Many of those big commercial sites
you seem to be so fond of are failures on those counts, to varying
degrees. By your reasoning, it's OK because they all do it. That's crap.

On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 17:15:33 -0800
Steve Broski <stevebroski (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in:
<4988eb88$0$95524$742ec2ed (AT) news (DOT) sonic.net>

[snip]

By the way, even frickin' Jakob Nielsen says:

"Make your default font size reasonably big (at least 10 point)
so that very few users have to resort to manual overrides."

Interesting that you would quote a snip from a page that is titled
"Let Users Control Font Size (Alertbox Aug. 2002)"

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20020819.html

Another quote from that same source.

[quote]
Another example of harmful Web technology comes with the
increasing use of style sheets, which let web designers
specify the exact size of text down to the pixel.
Unfortunately, many designers are using this ability, leading
to reduced readability of an increasing number of websites.
[quote]

Marginalia of Web Design (Alertbox for November 1996):
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9611.html

Another commonly seen mistake in text design is the use of
large or small font sizes as the body text of a page. Page
designers sometimes think that the default text in their
browser is wrong for the effect they want to achieve, and it
is certainly acceptable to make a small percentage of the
text on a given page large or small, as appropriate. It is
not recommended to change the font size of all the text on a
page since the user must be assumed to have set the default
font size in his or her browser to exactly the size that is
most comfortable for that user on his or her monitor. Any
other font size is thus by definition suboptimal for reading
body text.

10pt = about .84em, which is smaller than the global font-size: 0.9em; I
usually go with.

How did you come to the point size?

The 'usability guru' says designers can substantially knock down
font size (unless "targeting senior citizens"), zero large scale
sites agree with you... but you're screaming bloody murder
font-size: 100% is the *only* rational sizing for a website. It's
silly.

Who is the ‘usability guru’? Do you have a reference for the quote?



--

BootNic Tue Feb 3, 2009 10:02 pm
It's not that some people have willpower and some don't. It's that
some people are ready to change and others are not.
*James Gordon*

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkmJBWEACgkQylMUzZO6jeIeswCg06ARCaRnjO lMtSJMaX/6TDJQ
jRkAnjNaPUnjS72jeIT79Y/CWIWRdh9a
=6a6N
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Feb 3, 7:02*pm, BootNic <bootnic.bou... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:
[quote]On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 17:15:33 -0800
Steve Broski <stevebro... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in:
4988eb88$0$95524$742ec... (AT) news (DOT) sonic.net

[snip]

By the way, even frickin' Jakob Nielsen says:

"Make your default font size reasonably big (at least 10 point)
so that very few users have to resort to manual overrides."

Interesting that you would quote a snip from a page that is titled
"Let Users Control Font Size (Alertbox Aug. 2002)" *

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20020819.html

Another quote from that same source.

[quote]
* *Another example of harmful Web technology comes with the
* *increasing use of style sheets, which let web designers
* *specify the exact size of text down to the pixel.
* *Unfortunately, many designers are using this ability, leading
* *to reduced readability of an increasing number of websites.

Don't think anyone's arguing to define font size in px.

Marginalia of Web Design (Alertbox for November 1996):
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9611.html

So... are you saying he's contradicting himself?

10pt = about .84em, which is smaller than the global font-size: 0.9em; I
usually go with.

How did you come to the point size?

To 10 point? Not clear what you're asking. Default on a browser runs
around 12pt, or are we now worrying about DPI as well?

The 'usability guru' says designers can substantially knock down
font size (unless "targeting senior citizens"), zero large scale
sites agree with you... but you're screaming bloody murder
font-size: 100% is the *only* rational sizing for a website. It's
silly.

Who is the ‘usability guru’? Do you have a reference for the quote?

Google 'nielsen "usability guru"' and you'll get about 37,000
results. Which reference do you want?

<snip>

The 'usability guru' says designers can substantially knock down font
size (unless "targeting senior citizens"), zero large scale sites agree
with you... but you're screaming bloody murder font-size: 100% is the
*only* rational sizing for a website. It's silly.

Pragmatism comes with necessity. Bergamot can afford to hold on to
his idealisms, it cost him nothing. To insist that others do... is
misleading them.

This is not to say that 100% should never be used.

Jeff

Jeff wrote:

snip

The 'usability guru' says designers can substantially knock down font
size (unless "targeting senior citizens"), zero large scale sites
agree with you... but you're screaming bloody murder font-size: 100%
is the *only* rational sizing for a website. It's silly.

Pragmatism comes with necessity. Bergamot can afford to hold on to his
idealisms, it cost him nothing. To insist that others do... is
misleading them.

This is not to say that 100% should never be used.

Thank &deity; there is a zoom key for browser because so many deziners
hold you opinion!

--
Take care,

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