Re: containing floating img height within a div

On 2009-02-10, dorayme wrote:
....

You remind me that serif fonts are not such a bad choice these days!

I disagree; they are to small for me to read at 100% size (my
browser is set to the correct size for reading sans-serif fonts).
It would be nice if browsers allowed setting different sizes for
different fonts.

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

In article <e41d5$49928722$cef88ba3$12733 (AT) TEKSAVVY (DOT) COM>,
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohnson (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

On 2009-02-10, dorayme wrote:
...
You remind me that serif fonts are not such a bad choice these days!

I disagree; they are too small for me to read at 100% size (my
browser is set to the correct size for reading sans-serif fonts).
It would be nice if browsers allowed setting different sizes for
different fonts.

It does seem a pita to set preferences in many browsers to overcome this
difficulty. One setting that overcomes this problem with serif will
doubtless have downsides for sans serif (too big!). Thanks for letting
me know, though I was not about to rush into serif body text...

Perhaps serif body text should be set at 105% or thereabouts, maybe
110%. There are a lot of things that influence readability. Perhaps the
serif 100% texts you have seen have not had sufficient line height? Or
maybe it is simply too small at 100%!

Who knows the answers to all these things? There are so many
considerations in website building. Perhaps it is worth having serif for
body text at 100% in some commercial sites if it is to avoid it at 75%
and win an argument with a client! <g>

--
dorayme

dorayme wrote:

In article <e41d5$49928722$cef88ba3$12733 (AT) TEKSAVVY (DOT) COM>,
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohnson (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

On 2009-02-10, dorayme wrote:
...
You remind me that serif fonts are not such a bad choice these days!
I disagree; they are too small for me to read at 100% size (my
browser is set to the correct size for reading sans-serif fonts).
It would be nice if browsers allowed setting different sizes for
different fonts.

It does seem a pita to set preferences in many browsers to overcome this
difficulty. One setting that overcomes this problem with serif will
doubtless have downsides for sans serif (too big!). Thanks for letting
me know, though I was not about to rush into serif body text...

Perhaps serif body text should be set at 105% or thereabouts, maybe
110%.

And just what happened to that magic number of 100%, the one you said
had so much meaning?

Perhaps it's best to just allow font zooming (without breaking)
without worrying so much about initial size, after all?

100% is a different size for different fonts. Of course you could just
level the field and set fonts using px, but that is anathema here.

Seems like 100% is not a panacea after all.

Jeff


There are a lot of things that influence readability. Perhaps the

serif 100% texts you have seen have not had sufficient line height? Or
maybe it is simply too small at 100%!

Who knows the answers to all these things? There are so many
considerations in website building. Perhaps it is worth having serif for
body text at 100% in some commercial sites if it is to avoid it at 75%
and win an argument with a client! <g

In article <__qdnem8j7DtQw_UnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d (AT) earthlink (DOT) com>,
Jeff <dont_bug_me (AT) all (DOT) uk> wrote:

dorayme wrote:
In article <e41d5$49928722$cef88ba3$12733 (AT) TEKSAVVY (DOT) COM>,
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohnson (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

On 2009-02-10, dorayme wrote:
...
You remind me that serif fonts are not such a bad choice these days!
I disagree; they are too small for me to read at 100% size (my
browser is set to the correct size for reading sans-serif fonts).
It would be nice if browsers allowed setting different sizes for
different fonts.

It does seem a pita to set preferences in many browsers to overcome this
difficulty. One setting that overcomes this problem with serif will
doubtless have downsides for sans serif (too big!). Thanks for letting
me know, though I was not about to rush into serif body text...

Perhaps serif body text should be set at 105% or thereabouts, maybe
110%.

And just what happened to that magic number of 100%, the one you said
had so much meaning?

Perhaps it's best to just allow font zooming (without breaking)
without worrying so much about initial size, after all?

100% is a different size for different fonts. Of course you could just
level the field and set fonts using px, but that is anathema here.

Seems like 100% is not a panacea after all.

Jeff


There are a lot of things that influence readability. Perhaps the
serif 100% texts you have seen have not had sufficient line height? Or
maybe it is simply too small at 100%!

Who knows the answers to all these things? There are so many
considerations in website building. Perhaps it is worth having serif for
body text at 100% in some commercial sites if it is to avoid it at 75%
and win an argument with a client! <g

I half knew this easy going reply to Chris would topple the castle you
thought I was defending. You jumped in early and were not mollified by
my more weasely words towards the end. But you do have have a nice point
Jeff. It is not such a magic number and this discussion about serif
fonts has blown a hole in its magic. It turns out that it is a magic
number for sans-serif!<g>

If someone were to demand some sort of clear instruction from me, I
would say to try hard to keep to the 100% for *whatever* font is set for
body text. I would let folk who cannot read 100% suffer diabolical
torture for the infinite amount of time it took them to click once up or
make their own stylesheets or find and use a browser that overcomes the
limitation Chris mentions. Just as I would sit here with cold heart at
all the elderly folk who find it hard to read 100% sans-serif because
they don't in fact make provisions in their preferences. I would not
fully take the imperfection of the world on my shoulders (unlike another
visitor to your earth)

body {font-size: 100%;} - the default btw, useful to put in because of
an issue with IE - is not a perfect magic trick. But I will go on using
it because it will fool and please more people than it will displease
and certainly in the long run if the world improves. I am sending men
around - yes, with guns and in a very big old black Buick with running
boards - to have a little chat with browser makers to provide a
preference for the size of serif fonts.

Btw, I think iCab might have provisions in preferences for this but it
requires some attention to work out if it is so. I won't go into it here.

--
dorayme

dorayme wrote:

In article <__qdnem8j7DtQw_UnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d (AT) earthlink (DOT) com>,
Jeff <dont_bug_me (AT) all (DOT) uk> wrote:

dorayme wrote:
In article <e41d5$49928722$cef88ba3$12733 (AT) TEKSAVVY (DOT) COM>,
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohnson (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

On 2009-02-10, dorayme wrote:
...
You remind me that serif fonts are not such a bad choice these days!
I disagree; they are too small for me to read at 100% size (my
browser is set to the correct size for reading sans-serif fonts).
It would be nice if browsers allowed setting different sizes for
different fonts.
It does seem a pita to set preferences in many browsers to overcome this
difficulty. One setting that overcomes this problem with serif will
doubtless have downsides for sans serif (too big!). Thanks for letting
me know, though I was not about to rush into serif body text...

Perhaps serif body text should be set at 105% or thereabouts, maybe
110%.
And just what happened to that magic number of 100%, the one you said
had so much meaning?

Perhaps it's best to just allow font zooming (without breaking)
without worrying so much about initial size, after all?

100% is a different size for different fonts. Of course you could just
level the field and set fonts using px, but that is anathema here.

Seems like 100% is not a panacea after all.

Jeff


There are a lot of things that influence readability. Perhaps the
serif 100% texts you have seen have not had sufficient line height? Or
maybe it is simply too small at 100%!

Who knows the answers to all these things? There are so many
considerations in website building. Perhaps it is worth having serif for
body text at 100% in some commercial sites if it is to avoid it at 75%
and win an argument with a client! <g


I half knew this easy going reply to Chris would topple the castle you
thought I was defending. You jumped in early and were not mollified by
my more weasely words towards the end. But you do have have a nice point
Jeff. It is not such a magic number and this discussion about serif
fonts has blown a hole in its magic. It turns out that it is a magic
number for sans-serif!<g

With such beautiful prose as you have written, I think I shall bow to
the master!

Cheers,
Jeff

If someone were to demand some sort of clear instruction from me, I
would say to try hard to keep to the 100% for *whatever* font is set for
body text. I would let folk who cannot read 100% suffer diabolical
torture for the infinite amount of time it took them to click once up or
make their own stylesheets or find and use a browser that overcomes the
limitation Chris mentions. Just as I would sit here with cold heart at
all the elderly folk who find it hard to read 100% sans-serif because
they don't in fact make provisions in their preferences. I would not
fully take the imperfection of the world on my shoulders (unlike another
visitor to your earth)

body {font-size: 100%;} - the default btw, useful to put in because of
an issue with IE - is not a perfect magic trick. But I will go on using
it because it will fool and please more people than it will displease
and certainly in the long run if the world improves. I am sending men
around - yes, with guns and in a very big old black Buick with running
boards - to have a little chat with browser makers to provide a
preference for the size of serif fonts.

Btw, I think iCab might have provisions in preferences for this but it
requires some attention to work out if it is so. I won't go into it here.