Using top-level selectors

On 2008/04/19 14:37 (GMT-0500) Bergamot apparently typed:

Felix Miata wrote:

The article may be focusing on Windows users, but not IE.

Why any OS focus? Is there something different about too small web page text
for Windows users compared to other users. As I see it, such a scope
limitation is useless if not counter-productive.

So OEM or 12pt isn't relevant, especially considering that IE doesn't support a minimum
font size.

It's good that included facts are facts rather than perpetuated myths. Does
either 16px or 12pt need to be in there? I think not, but if you're going to,
be accurate at least as to the most widely installed browser on the planet.

You made it sound like an advert in favor of switching to Safari (are

There was no such intent.

you a Mac lover, perchance?).

I have about 25 working puters. Roughly 97% of their collective uptime is on
OS/2 & Linux, with maybe 2% on doz and less than 1% on Mac. A native Safari
version is available for neither OS/2 nor Linux.

Besides, it would be foolish to give up a browser you are
otherwise happy with over this.

All other things being equal, I very much think not. In basic function,
Safari is remarkably similar to Firefox. Anyone unmarried to extensions
should be equally comfortable with either.

Now as to new version http://www.bergamotus.ws/misc/sensib...xt-sizing.html

Webkit and KHTML are not exactly the same thing.

The differences are irrelevant, as far as the article is concerned.
Safari is KHTML-based,

It was my point that it is not wise to call a fork of some thing the name of
that thing from which it was forked. Originally, Webkit and KHTML were
exactly the same thing, but that ceased to be true quite some time back. You
don't call Firefox Mozilla, do you? Why not substitute Safari for either
instead, and make it perfectly clear what you are talking about?

Konqueror behaves the same as Safari as far as
minimum font size goes.

Konq does not provide the same scheme with regard to default sizes. It
differs in preferring the generic desktop settings for font-family and
font-size, uses pt rather than px for sizing preferences, as well as not
providing the separate sizes for monospace and proportional. As a
consequence, they are merely very similar, not exactly equivalent.

Your opinion that Safari won't take significant share
on Windows ignores the share on Mac.

What does the Mac share have to do with Safari on Windows?

It has to do with total Opera share vs. total Safari share vs. total Firefox
share vs. total IE share. AFAICT, the purported topic is
sensible-css-text-sizing, not
sensible-css-text-sizing-for-web-surfers-using-windows.

Regardless, the focus of the article is Windows users.
What happens on Mac (or Linux) isn't significant in the scheme of things.

Why should either be true? Are you not aware that deeziners also use Macs to
create their too small text? Have you not noticed that apple.com is king of
the mousetypers? Isn't the purpose of the article to sway <em>all</em> web
deeziners into respectful, sensible font sizing?

IMO, the word "monitor" when referring to a computer display has become an
anachronism.

So call me a dinosaur.

You think other dinosaurs are your article's prime target audience? It
wouldn't surprise me if half the (apparently youthful) deeziner population
doesn't even know why the term "monitor" was ever used. Also, we now have a
lot of users of various monolithic devices surfing the web, who also don't
appreciate smaller than default text sizes. Maybe you could just replace
monitor with display in some places, leaving readers to know from use of the
anachronism you're older than the average web author. ;-)

I didn't say that setting was on body, but I've seen attempts at font
settings as small as 6pt. They're not common, but do exist.

On my web server, 6pt is 12px, perfectly intelligible if I use a magnifying
glass to examine it.

Most users of minimum size seem to set the default at their comfort level,
and the minimum as something less, which means text, while always legible,
will nevertheless often be too small for <em>comfort</em> while minimum size
is in effect.

I'm not sure what your point there is, but I set my default at what I
consider optimum. The minimum is the smallest I find tolerable for
reading any quantity of text. If that were too small for me I would have
bumped it up long ago.

I presume by optimum you mean highest comfort level? If true, then the
smaller minimum you set would represent sub-optimum, which is another way of
saying reduced comfort, which in turn is another way of saying "too small"
for comfort yet still remaining legible. That's the meaning of what I wrote
anyway, addressed to your paragraph following "you get the picture", where
your language is "never be too small for the user's comfort". I equate the
minimum size setting with minimum tolerance level, not minimum comfort level.

Think some more about your target audience and what you want from it. Isn't
it mostly precisionists? Do you think such people relate well to factual
errors or language easily interpreted multiple ways in an article with a goal
to change their behavior? I submit that high precision in fact inclusion and
word selection will maximize your article's authority and persuasive power
among the target audience.
--
"Either the constitution controls the judges, or the
judges rewrite the constitution." Judge Robert Bork

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/

Felix Miata wrote:

On 2008/04/19 14:37 (GMT-0500) Bergamot apparently typed:

So OEM or 12pt isn't relevant, especially considering that IE doesn't support a minimum
font size.

It's good that included facts are facts rather than perpetuated myths.

It's a fact that both Opera and gecko browsers default to 16px, at least
on Windows. What's the myth?

Does
either 16px or 12pt need to be in there? I think not,

I think the reader should have something tangible to relate to. A
designer will relate to either one.

Besides, it would be foolish to give up a browser you are
otherwise happy with over this.

All other things being equal, I very much think not.

All other things are not equal, though.

In basic function,
Safari is remarkably similar to Firefox.

I'm not a Firefox fan, but I've tried the Windows version of Safari and
found nothing that would make me want to switch to it. Heck, I can
barely even read the tiny type in the UI.

You
don't call Firefox Mozilla, do you?

No, I call it gecko, though it is a mozilla-based browser. Seamonkey is
also gecko, as are several other browsers. Konqueror and Safari are
likewise both KHTML.

Konq does not provide the same scheme with regard to default sizes.

But it does behave the same with respect to its minimum font size
setting. How it determines the default text size isn't relevant *to the
article*. And that's true for any other browser or O/S.

On my web server, 6pt is 12px,

Most desktop display devices (notice I didn't say monitor ) are not
properly calibrated. That's especially true for Windows users.

Think some more about your target audience and what you want from it. Isn't
it mostly precisionists? Do you think such people relate well to factual
errors or language easily interpreted multiple ways

So what specifically is easily interpreted in multiple ways?

in an article with a goal
to change their behavior? I submit that high precision in fact inclusion and
word selection will maximize your article's authority and persuasive power
among the target audience.

I'll consider what you said about all that. You do have a point about
precision (no pun intended) but most of that extra stuff you mentioned
just makes the article way longer than it already is, to no great
benefit that I can determine. For example, the parts about how Windows
IE users can change their default type size and the various display/dpi
settings. It's boring and strays too far from the point I want to make -
the usage and effects of minimum font size on that squirrelly deeziner
font sizing method.

BTW, I targeted Windows because that's where about 90% of the users are
(more or less, depending on the site). At the sites I manage, Firefox is
averaging about 20% of the browser share, though not all of them are
Windows users.

--
Berg

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

Michael Everson says about his Everson Mono Unicode:
"I have found it quite legible at sizes as small as 4 points."
( http://www.evertype.com/emono/ )

I wonder whether this statement applies to the Latin script only
or also to all the other scripts that Everson Mono covers.

--
In memoriam Alan J. Flavell
http://groups.google.com/groups/sear...Alan.J.Flavell

On 2008/04/22 10:47 (GMT-0500) Bergamot apparently typed:

Felix Miata wrote:

On 2008/04/19 14:37 (GMT-0500) Bergamot apparently typed:

So OEM or 12pt isn't relevant, especially considering that IE doesn't support a minimum
font size.

It's good that included facts are facts rather than perpetuated myths.

It's a fact that both Opera and gecko browsers default to 16px, at least
on Windows. What's the myth?

That 16px is the default on the most widely deployed browser on the planet.
If 16px was the IE default, then 'font-size: medium' with the browser's text
sizer set to medium would always be the same size as 'font-size: 16px', but
it isn't. It is however always equal to 'font-size: 12pt'.

Besides, it would be foolish to give up a browser you are
otherwise happy with over this.

All other things being equal, I very much think not.

All other things are not equal, though.

Exactly equal, of course not. Very similar, I think very much so.

In basic function,
Safari is remarkably similar to Firefox.

I'm not a Firefox fan, but I've tried the Windows version of Safari and
found nothing that would make me want to switch to it. Heck, I can
barely even read the tiny type in the UI.

I noticed that very quickly, and almost as quickly found that apparently no
one else who might have, attempted to do anything about it. I filed an Apple
bug (#5816271), but I don't know if anyone but me or Apple devs can access
it. I also filed a Webkit bug: http://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18001

Konqueror and Safari are likewise both KHTML.

No they are not. Konq is KHTML. Safari is Webkit.

Most desktop display devices (notice I didn't say monitor ) are not
properly calibrated. That's especially true for Windows users.

Most OS X users not only default to an arbitrary DPI like on doz, but also
they have no way to correct it.

Think some more about your target audience and what you want from it. Isn't
it mostly precisionists? Do you think such people relate well to factual
errors or language easily interpreted multiple ways

So what specifically is easily interpreted in multiple ways?

More than I care to spend time on any time soon. Maybe some other time.

BTW, I targeted Windows because that's where about 90% of the users are

Are you targeting windoz users, or deeziners? Ordinary Windoz users can't fix
stupidly designed web sites.

Do you want your article to be a reference for good design practices? Most
good web design practices are OS (and browser) agnostic, as well as body font
size agnostic. ;-)
--
"Either the constitution controls the judges, or the
judges rewrite the constitution." Judge Robert Bork

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/

Felix Miata <UgaddaBkidding.due2UCE (AT) dev (DOT) nul> writes:

Are you targeting windoz users, or deeziners?

On a related note, are you targeting teens, or toddlers?

(*sigh*)

--

|| hexadecimal EBB
o-o decimal 3771

--oOo--( )--oOo-- octal 7273
205 goodbye binary 111010111011

Felix Miata wrote:

On 2008/04/22 10:47 (GMT-0500) Bergamot apparently typed:

BTW, I targeted Windows because that's where about 90% of the users are

Are you targeting windoz users, or deeziners?

Windows users are most *affected* by this ridiculous design practice,
simply because of their sheer numbers. It is not an IE problem, though
you think I should bring up a bunch of unrelated and unimportant (to me)
IE factors, nor is pushing Safari the answer.

BTW, you are free to write your own article on the clagnut issue, if you
don't think I'm doing it well.

--
Berg

On 2008/04/23 23:09 (GMT-0500) Bergamot apparently typed:

Felix Miata wrote:

On 2008/04/22 10:47 (GMT-0500) Bergamot apparently typed:

BTW, I targeted Windows because that's where about 90% of the users are

Are you targeting windoz users, or deeziners?

Windows users are most *affected* by this ridiculous design practice,
simply because of their sheer numbers.

Can users do anything significant about the problem? Not likely. Can
deeziners? Certainly. Can the teachers of deeziners? Absolutely.

The problem and its solution are 100% platform agnostic. The problem affects
100% of Gecko and Opera users of minimum font size equally, regardless of
platform. It affects 100% of Gecko, Opera, IE, KHTML and Webkit users of user
stylesheets containing 'body {font-size: 100% !important}', 'body {font-size:
1em !important}', or 'body {font-size: medium !important}', regardless of
platform, as well. Limiting the target of the article to some arbitrary
subset of the entire universe seems pointless, and likely counter-productive,
in the fight against the ridiculous design practice.

BTW, you are free to write your own article on the clagnut issue

IIRC I saw you mention at least one of them upthread:
http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/Clagnut/bbcnSS.html
http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/Clagnut/eonsSS.html

The latter was originally written last June.
--
"Either the constitution controls the judges, or the
judges rewrite the constitution." Judge Robert Bork

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/

Felix Miata wrote:

On 2008/04/23 23:09 (GMT-0500) Bergamot apparently typed:

BTW, you are free to write your own article on the clagnut issue

IIRC I saw you mention at least one of them upthread:
http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/Clagnut/bbcnSS.html
http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/Clagnut/eonsSS.html

Actually, you mentioned them, not me.

The huge screenshots in those pages make it quite difficult to figure
out what you're trying to say, but if you think that gets the message
across better than what I wrote, then I guess we're done.

--
Berg

On 2008/04/24 10:23 (GMT-0500) Bergamot apparently typed:

Felix Miata wrote:

On 2008/04/23 23:09 (GMT-0500) Bergamot apparently typed:

BTW, you are free to write your own article on the clagnut issue

IIRC I saw you mention at least one of them upthread:
http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/Clagnut/bbcnSS.html
http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/Clagnut/eonsSS.html

Actually, you mentioned them, not me.

I guess I wasn't clear. Your Fri, 11 Apr 2008 22:41:46 -0500 post strongly
implied you had visited the latter.

The huge screenshots in those pages make it quite difficult to figure
out what you're trying to say,

They aren't huge on my systems, each being considerably smaller than full
screen, as little as less than half screen, depending on system.

but if you think that gets the message
across better than what I wrote, then I guess we're done.

I invite you to explain how the image sizes make understanding the message to
be difficult.

Looking at bbcnSS, the small SeaMonkey windows blocking portions of the
Firefox windows provide the context that shows default environment. In the
upper screenshot, you should be able to see that the BBC site text is
considerably smaller than the default, and distinctly smaller even than the
UI text in the browsers. In the middle, after application of either minimum
font size or user CSS, you should be able to see that the BBC site text has
grown to be considerably smaller than the default. In the last, you're
supposed to be able to see approximately how the BBC site would look if more
intelligent and respectful CSS was used on the BBC site in the first place.
This is what the actual page text is supposed to explain.
--
"Either the constitution controls the judges, or the
judges rewrite the constitution." Judge Robert Bork

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/

Felix Miata wrote:

On 2008/04/24 10:23 (GMT-0500) Bergamot apparently typed:

Felix Miata wrote:

http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/Clagnut/bbcnSS.html
http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/Clagnut/eonsSS.html

The huge screenshots in those pages make it quite difficult to figure
out what you're trying to say,

I invite you to explain how the image sizes make understanding the message to
be difficult.

How clear is your message if you aren't using a full size browser window?

The first time I went to one of those pages, I didn't know what I was
looking at. More than 1/3 of it was off the right side of the screen and
I didn't bother scrolling over there. The text annotations don't really
stand out, at least not to me. Note that I'm not the only person who
expressed confusion at what those pages were trying to say.

You wrote it, so of course the meaning is clear to you.

--
Berg