Can anything be done?

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 23:49:47 -0500, "Karl Core"
<karl (AT) NOSPAMkarlcore (DOT) com> declared in alt.html.critique:

Sure. Nothing wrong with deprecated elements/ code bloat, right?

Right. Especially ones that make the text too small to read. :-)

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au

Weyoun the Dancing Borg wrote:

No, they cannot. After a certain point, you can't make it smaller,
and I am saying that at 800x600, the smallest is still too large. ; )

then do as I do and type <font size="2"



solves a LOT of problems hehe

That's not an option when you using CSS. <sigh>
--

Bonnie Granat
www.granatedit.com

Karl Core wrote:

"Weyoun the Dancing Borg" <blah (AT) blah (DOT) blah> wrote in message
news:hJgYb.7309$vo1.675 (AT) newsfep4-winn (DOT) server.ntli.net...

No, they cannot. After a certain point, you can't make it smaller, and I

am

saying that at 800x600, the smallest is still too large. ; )

then do as I do and type <font size="2"


Sure. Nothing wrong with deprecated elements/ code bloat, right?

I dunno really. I mean it depends what the site is for. If it's a
professioanl website then sure, CSS etc, but if it's just a personal
site, there's no need for PHP, SSS, CSS and XHTML is there?

I mean, if <font size="2"> works, and that's all they want, why not use it?

Bonnie Granat wrote:

Weyoun the Dancing Borg wrote:
font size="2"

That's not an option when you using CSS. <sigh

No, that's right, it is not an option when you use CSS. That was the point.






--
_______________________________________
/\ \
\_| Le Eagle Eyes Today |

http://www.norml.org |
|
| |
|.| |
web: http://www. |.| e-mail: weyoun@|
dancingborg |\./| dancingborg|
.co.uk |\./| .co.uk|
. |\./| .|
\^.\ |\\.//| /.^/ |
\--.|\ |\\.//| /|.--/ |
\--.| \ |\\.//| / |.--/ |
\---.|\ |\./| /|.---/ |
\--.|\ |\./| /|.--/ |
\ .\ |.| /. / |
_ -_^_^_^_- \ \\ // / -_^_^_^_- _ |
- -/_/_/- ^ ^ | ^ ^ -\_\_\- - |
__________________________________|__
\_/____________________________________/

Duende wrote:

While sitting in a puddle Bonnie Granat scribbled in the mud:

It's a browser defect.
No it isn't.

If there were a full

If I were unfortunate enough to be using low
resolution,
You would be using it because with poor vision at higher resolutions
the text would be to small to read.

I would be using *what*? I said that if my only choice were low resolution
(800x600,say), sites like mine would be unpleasant to read because the type
is so large -- in Internet Explorer. If everyone used CSS and wound up with
sites with type the size of the type on my site at 800x600, I wouldn't use a
computer. Maybe that's why so many people resist using CSS -- the dominant
browser DOES have a defect -- it cannot bring the text size down to 80%, the
way Opera can, for example. Opera's not fun to use, though, so I don't use
it. But the fact remains that in IE, you *cannot* bring the smallest text
size down any smaller. In Opera, I can view my page at 800x600 resolution at
80%, and it's perfect. But I cannot do it in Internet Explorer. That's a
browser defect, if I ever saw one.

All of this discussed presumes that a person wears corrective lenses if he
or she needs them. We don't use the computer to compensate for poor vision.

I would not use a computer, because the type is just too big.
Reading type that is too big can cause rapid fatigue. ; )

Not as rapid as trying to read text that is to small.

You can magnify text with reading glasses, but you cannot make it smaller in
the Internet Explorer browser.

I have 20/350 in both eyes, and I used to need lenses or glasses for
everything. Now I don't need them for the computer or anything within one
foot of my eyes. ; )


--

Bonnie Granat
www.granatedit.com

Weyoun the Dancing Borg wrote:

Bonnie Granat wrote:

Weyoun the Dancing Borg wrote:
font size="2"

That's not an option when you using CSS. <sigh

No, that's right, it is not an option when you use CSS. That was the
point.

Netscape and Opera both have a mechanism by which you can size the page.
Internet Explorer does not. That's my point. I prefer it as a browser,
though, and this issue doesn't affect me because I use high resolution. I'm
thinking not of my own viewing, but of others who are like me. Many people
are nearsighted, and as they get older, they become more far-sighted -- like
I have.

Let's put it another way. If I were forced to use a low resolution monitor,
I'd use a different browser. ; )

Why IE doesn't do what the others do, I don't know. But I prefer it to the
others, because they're so annoying and distracting. Of course, it's really
because I'm used to it. I have tried using the others, but I gave up soon
after due to frustration about really bad GUI and controls that work the
reverse of the way they should (or close to it).
--

Bonnie Granat
www.granatedit.com

"Bonnie Granat" <bgranat (AT) granatedit (DOT) com> wrote

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
Quoth the raven named Bonnie Granat:

I'm sure there's some code one could use that would determine
the user's resolution and supply a particular page, but I don't
know JavaScript.

Monitor resolution is not related to browser window size. Let's not
forget that... <g


Right. I'm talking about resolution only here -- just the size of the
elements in the window, not the size of the window itself.

Resolution is also not related in any way to the font size a visitor
is using, not just in their browsers, but for all applications. Just
keep your font-size at 100% and all will be well, for /all/ your
visitors.

Right. But what I am saying is this:

- Given that in low resolution, elements on the screen look bigger than
they
do in high resolution, and
- Given that 800 x 600 is low resolution,

- In the Internet Explorer browser, if onw is using low resolution, one
cannot reduce the size of the text on the screen enough to make the type
size comparable to what it is in high resolution.

It's a browser defect. If I were unfortunate enough to be using low
resolution, I would not use a computer, because the type is just too big.

No, it is not a browser defect. It is not a defect of anything. It is just
the way it is.

Only a few years ago (well 20 of them) there was no such thing as a 800x600
screen. ALL screens were 600x400 and some of them were 320x200.

Live with it or go out and by a screen capable of 1600x1200 but *do not*
expect your viewers to.

Reading type that is too big can cause rapid fatigue. ; )

Once again, in *your* opinion.

Cheers
Richard.

rf wrote:

Live with it or go out and by a screen capable of 1600x1200 but *do
not* expect your viewers to.

That's just not the point at all....... <sigh>

If Opera and NS can let you size the text, IE should. You have entirely
missed the point.

Reading type that is too big can cause rapid fatigue. ; )

Once again, in *your* opinion.

No, not just in my opinion. It's a scientific fact. Just because you never
heard of eye fatique doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


--

Bonnie Granat
www.granatedit.com

Bonnie Granat wrote:

Weyoun the Dancing Borg wrote:
Bonnie Granat wrote:

Weyoun the Dancing Borg wrote:
font size="2"

That's not an option when you using CSS. <sigh

No, that's right, it is not an option when you use CSS. That was the
point.

Netscape and Opera both have a mechanism by which you can size the
page.

I should have said "size the text."

Bonnie

In message <403142a7 (AT) andromeda (DOT) dragon.com>, Bonnie Granat
<bgranat (AT) granatedit (DOT) com> writes

jake wrote:
In message <71c7825b.0402161215.5c07ba4 (AT) posting (DOT) google.com>, Bonnie
Granat <bgranat (AT) granatedit (DOT) com> writes
If I build my site according to the recommendations given by my
esteemed colleagues here, then when someone views it in 600 x 800
resolution, the type is huge, even on the smallest setting in
Internet Explorer.

Can anything be done?

As always, many thanks.

The latest edition of my site is at:

Home http://www.granatedit.com/

Inside Page http://www.granatedit.com/technicalediting.html

---------
Bonnie Granat
http://www.granatedit.com


I'm looking at it on a 17" screen (15.5" diagonal) at 800x600 with
Text Size set to "Medium".

Looks OK to me.

If I needed to I could always set the text size to 'Smaller' ......
but it's OK as it is.

regards.

Can you compare the size of the body type with something you'd see in a
newspaper? Isn't it the size of a small headling -- say, 14 points? When I
said 12 points earlier, that's a bit small, it's more like 14 points here.


OK ..... printing out a piece of Tahoma text in a selection of sizes

from MS word and holding it up to the screen, it's about 16pt in size.
It's a little bit bigger than I would have liked, but setting the text
size to 'smaller' in my browser makes it too small for me.

But the screen is a much lower resolution device compared with paper, so
it's the same as 12pt text on my screen.

Also, Tahoma appears -- visually -- to be a 'big' font, see:

http://www.gododdin.demon.co.uk/ng/verdana.htm (sizes in %) or
http://www.gododdin.demon.co.uk/ng/verdana2.htm (sizes in pt)

** So, if the text size is bothering you, then take Tahoma out of the
list of suggested fonts so that most people see Arial or something
similar. **

(Note; If I switch over to Opera and look at your site in my own
preferred font -- Georgia, with 'View/Zoom' set to 100% -- the text
seems quite 'normal'.)

But --if you do this -- then your navigation lists may well be too small
and will have to be set back to 100%.

regards.

--
Jake