Font size issues. Opinions please.

In article <Xns95455B25E3A07mrzaphoddirectcaold (AT) 24 (DOT) 71.223.159>, Dave
Patton <spam (AT) trap (DOT) invalid> wrote:

[snip]

Other things to look at are that you shouldn't be using
tables for layout - use CSS instead.

I always avoided CSS in the past because Netscape 4.7 (Mac) never seemed
to deal with it too well, and that was my main browser. Web pages that
suck also recommended CSS for layout so I'll try to educate myself about
that as I update and modify the site.

Ta.

Andy D.
--
Andy D.
http://members.westnet.com.au/andydolphin
Fine art gallery - online, Western Australia
Landscapes, seascapes and still life paintings in oils.

In article <Xns95455B25E3A07mrzaphoddirectcaold (AT) 24 (DOT) 71.223.159>, Dave
Patton <spam (AT) trap (DOT) invalid> wrote:

andyd (AT) elsewhere (DOT) com (Andrew D) wrote in news:andyd-1408042242030001@dip-
220-235-63-45.wa.westnet.com.au:

http://members.westnet.com.au/andydolphin/

Which has 22 validation erros. It's always
best to first fix any validation errors before
asking for help, or worrying about other things.

I did see some validation errors related, it seems, to the lack of a
Doctype declaration. I have been trying to determine what doctype I need
to use to match the html - created in Macromedia Dreamweaver 3.0. Any
hints here would also be appreciated.

You have it backwards. Select a doctype, and use it for all
your pages. Use either HTML 4.01 Transitional, or better yet,
HTML 4.01 Strict. You then author pages that validate to that
doctype. If Dreamweaver is 'getting in the way' then use a
different authoring tool, or ask in a dreamweaver-related
newsgroup/forum for tips/techniques of how to use it to
author valid HTML.

Other things to look at are that you shouldn't be using
tables for layout - use CSS instead.

Okay, I've had a bit of a play with the html and tried validating using
4.01 transitional DTD. I've narrowed errors down to 2 and both relate to
the use of a background image in a table cell - which I gather is not
strictly valid html - but which I also gather is widely supported
regardless?

Obviously, if/when I shift over to css rather than tables for layout, I
guess this problem will go away (and no doubt a host of other problems
will arise).

It does appear a number of the errors were created by
Dreamweaver/Fireworks, the most frustrating being a looong comment
declaration beginning with "<!---------------". Fixing this took some
figuring out. Other errors occured as a result of Dreamweaver allowing
non-compliant code.


Thanks to everyone who's offered opinion/advice.
--
Andy D.
http://members.westnet.com.au/andydolphin
Fine art gallery - online, Western Australia
Landscapes, seascapes and still life paintings in oils.

In article <pan.2004.08.15.08.58.14.483585 (AT) tobyinkster (DOT) co.uk>, Toby
Inkster <usenet200408 (AT) tobyinkster (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

Andrew D wrote:

I always avoided CSS in the past because Netscape 4.7 (Mac) never seemed
to deal with it too well,

That's like saying you should avoid Javascript because Internet Explorer
2.0 doesn't deal with it too well.

Yeah, I know. I was just admitting my shortcomings. It's been a while
since I've sat and created a web page and until a short while ago (weeks,
not years) I still used NS4.7 as my browser of choice. As such I created
it for me.

Netscape 7.2 is due out this month!

After the advice given here (and now being the proud owner of a
brand-spanking new version of Mozilla Firefox) I will certianly be looking
at CSS.

Dreamweaver 3.0 (the tool I'm using) actually has CSS features and my
initial investigations suggest that I seriously need my head read for not
investigating them years ago.

Use CSS if you want. Use Javascript if you want. Just be aware that not
all browsers support them and that some people have disabled them. Ensure
that your pages can be read and navigated when these optional extras are
turned off.

I'll avoid Javascript unless it is the only way to achieve something
important. I am one of those who often turns it off to get rid of annoying
stuff. If anyone has any stats, I'd be interested to know how many people
disable their style sheets, and why?
--
Andy D.
http://members.westnet.com.au/andydolphin
Fine art gallery - online, Western Australia
Landscapes, seascapes and still life paintings in oils.

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 15:57:57 GMT, Dave Patton <spam (AT) trap (DOT) invalid>
wrote:

andyd (AT) elsewhere (DOT) com (Andrew D) wrote

http://members.westnet.com.au/andydolphin/

Other things to look at are that you shouldn't be using
tables for layout - use CSS instead.

Yes. CSS is *much* more fashionable. You can have your site look
*exactly* the same, and it'll only be 2-3 times more trouble for you
to set up. No matter what your main interests are, you *must* drop
everything now and study CSS.

As someone else posted, the default text size is 100%. Your pages will
look slightly different as people dial the text size up and down, but
that's the price you pay for making it readable for all. Don't worry
about it.

I like your sketches.

Quoth the raven Frogleg:

Yes. CSS is *much* more fashionable. You can have your site look
*exactly* the same, and it'll only be 2-3 times more trouble for
you to set up. No matter what your main interests are, you *must*
drop everything now and study CSS.

<lol>

It's not difficult at all, just different.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

Andrew D wrote:

Toby Inkster wrote:

Use CSS if you want. Use Javascript if you want. Just be aware that not
all browsers support them and that some people have disabled them.

If anyone has any stats, I'd be interested to know how many people
disable their style sheets, and why?

I think Toby meant the disabling of JS. Whilst some people do specify
user stylesheets that can override some of the rules you have in yours,
I don't know of anybody that disables stylesheets in their entirety. (In
fact, I've heard of no such method for doing so \o/ )

--
Ben M.

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 14:53:10 GMT, Ben Measures
<saint_abroadremove (AT) removehotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Andrew D wrote:
Toby Inkster wrote:

Use CSS if you want. Use Javascript if you want. Just be aware that not
all browsers support them and that some people have disabled them.

If anyone has any stats, I'd be interested to know how many people
disable their style sheets, and why?

I think Toby meant the disabling of JS. Whilst some people do specify
user stylesheets that can override some of the rules you have in yours,
I don't know of anybody that disables stylesheets in their entirety. (In
fact, I've heard of no such method for doing so \o/ )

Opera allows this, it seems.

Toby Inkster wrote:

Ben Measures wrote:

I think Toby meant the disabling of JS.

... and CSS.

My apologies.

Whilst some people do specify user stylesheets that can override some
of the rules you have in yours, I don't know of anybody that disables
stylesheets in their entirety.

I do. Not always, but if a website has an annoying font or colour scheme,
or if there's weird overlapping text effects, disabling the style sheet is
usually the best fix.

Now I can claim to know 1.

(In fact, I've heard of no such method for doing so \o/ )

[Ctrl]+[G] works nicely.

Tut tut, being browser specific without specifying the browser

--
Ben M.