Re: Critique my CSS style

#1

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 05:56:39 -0800, Randall Fox
<fox_no_spam-usenet001 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

How bad would I be if I change the <body> font size from 1em to .9em..
I designed the page for my resolution, and now I just want to scale it
down a bit.. Would that be a bad way to do it?

It is tempting, isn't it. I keep doubting the correctness of this 100% or
1em thing. I know that a webauthor is supposed to serve out 100% for a
font size, so it adapts to whatever font size the visitor has set for
him/herself.
AFAICS the reality in the world that is directly surrounding me, and is
closest to me, and is more or less representative for my targeted
audience, is that people don't change many (or even any) of their browser
settings. So if I set (for example) WinXP IE6 back to its settings 'out of
the box' and look at my pages, I think 'That's no good. The font is too
large.' And so will many of my visitors.
Other side of the story is that people with any knowledge on browser
settings, especially those who need to know (like people who have visual
problems), get exactly the font size that they prefer. Also: better safe
than sorry, and a font size too large never hurt no one. Too small makes
things illegable.

End of story: stick to 100% (or 1em, but first 100% for body) so everybody
can read your content (and then spread the word on browser settings,
especially font sizes :-) ).

--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.

Quote:

#2

Barbara de Zoete wrote:

Quote:

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 05:56:39 -0800, Randall Fox
fox_no_spam-usenet001 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

How bad would I be if I change the <body> font size from
1em to .9em.. I designed the page for my resolution, and
now I just want to scale it down a bit.. Would that be a
bad way to do it?

It is tempting, isn't it. I keep doubting the correctness
of this 100% or 1em thing. I know that a webauthor is
supposed to serve out 100% for a font size, so it adapts
to whatever font size the visitor has set for him/herself.
AFAICS the reality in the world that is directly
surrounding me, and is closest to me, and is more or less
representative for my targeted audience, is that people
don't change many (or even any) of their browser settings.
So if I set (for example) WinXP IE6 back to its settings
'out of the box' and look at my pages, I think 'That's no
good. The font is too large.' And so will many of my
visitors. Other side of the story is that people with any
knowledge on browser settings, especially those who need
to know (like people who have visual problems), get
exactly the font size that they prefer.

Which is probably larger, cause they are dealing with a lot of
Verdana 75% sizes on the World Wide Web. Means that if they
managed to set their browsers to get those sites legible,
they'll see your and my font-size (100%) even larger.
I guess it's a vicious cycle until enough web authors actually
stick to the 100%.

Quote:

Also: better safe
than sorry, and a font size too large never hurt no one.
Too small makes things illegable.

That's true too.

Quote:

End of story: stick to 100% (or 1em, but first 100% for
body) so everybody can read your content (and then spread
the word on browser settings, especially font sizes :-) ).

I do stick to 100%, although I'm currently giving in to a
client who feels 85% is better. Trying to convince them
otherwise though :-)

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: Status Quo - Fun, Fun, Fun

#3

"Barbara de Zoete" <b_de_zoete (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

It is tempting, isn't it. I keep doubting the correctness of this 100% or
1em thing. I know that a webauthor is supposed to serve out 100% for a
font size, so it adapts to whatever font size the visitor has set for
him/herself.
AFAICS the reality in the world that is directly surrounding me, and is
closest to me, and is more or less representative for my targeted
audience, is that people don't change many (or even any) of their browser
settings. So if I set (for example) WinXP IE6 back to its settings 'out of
the box' and look at my pages, I think 'That's no good. The font is too
large.' And so will many of my visitors.

It's caused by: font-family:"Arial Unicode MS",Arial,sans-serif; it
unavoidably causes the serif/sans-serif x-height issue.

The path of true enlightenment is not to specify anything, including
font family. That solves the font to large/small issue.

--
Spartanicus

#4

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 19:17:40 +0000, Spartanicus <me (AT) privacy (DOT) net> wrote:

Quote:

So if I set (for example) WinXP IE6 back to its settings 'out of
the box' and look at my pages, I think 'That's no good. The font is too
large.' And so will many of my visitors.

It's caused by: font-family:"Arial Unicode MS",Arial,sans-serif; it
unavoidably causes the serif/sans-serif x-height issue.

Ah, that :-) Had to google about a bit. Probably, but so do a lot of other
fonts (and at least it is no Verdana ;-) )

Quote:

The path of true enlightenment is not to specify anything, including
font family. That solves the font to large/small issue.

I am not nearly daring enough for that. I did try that once. Somehow
shivered just after uploading the styles and quickly added font family
again. Control freak perhaps? :-) Or just not truely enlightened yet?

--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.

Quote:

#5

On 15 Feb 2005 19:08:11 GMT, Els <els.aNOSPAM (AT) tiscali (DOT) nl> wrote:

Quote:

Barbara de Zoete wrote:

Other side of the story is that people with any
knowledge on browser settings, especially those who need
to know (like people who have visual problems), get
exactly the font size that they prefer.

Which is probably larger, cause they are dealing with a lot of
Verdana 75% sizes on the World Wide Web. Means that if they
managed to set their browsers to get those sites legible,
they'll see your and my font-size (100%) even larger.

Never thought of that. You're right of course. So about everybody gets
font sizes of a 100% too large rendered on their screens (present
company[1] exepted).

[1] Being about anybody who lurks or participates in newsgroups related to
webauthoring and design :-) , just to be on the safe side.

Quote:

I guess it's a vicious cycle until enough web authors actually
stick to the 100%.

LOL <some private fun: I firstly read vicious as meaning evil, wich in a
way it is :-) >

It is true. I just don't see that break even point or even turning point
happening in any near future. Do you? There are more and more people with
WYSI(n)WYG applications or blogs on pre-set servers with pre-set and
pretty much fixed templates, that get to publish their stuf. In many a
small company it is the (seamingly) most capable amateur that gets the
project of puting up a company website (again using without knowledge or
scruples one of those WYSI(n)WYG apps). No matter how (technically)
professional some, they are way outnumbered by the 'publish on the fly'
many. Or so I think. I have nothing to back this up.

Quote:

End of story: stick to 100% (or 1em, but first 100% for
body) so everybody can read your content (and then spread
the word on browser settings, especially font sizes :-) ).

I do stick to 100%, although I'm currently giving in to a
client who feels 85% is better. Trying to convince them
otherwise though :-)

How do you go about convincing such a client, if I may ask? Where do their
belief and convictions come from?

--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.

Quote:

#6

Barbara de Zoete wrote:

Quote:

Other side of the story is that people with any
knowledge on browser settings, especially those who need
to know (like people who have visual problems), get
exactly the font size that they prefer.

Which is probably larger, cause they are dealing with a
lot of Verdana 75% sizes on the World Wide Web. Means that
if they managed to set their browsers to get those sites
legible, they'll see your and my font-size (100%) even
larger.

Never thought of that. You're right of course. So about
everybody gets font sizes of a 100% too large rendered on
their screens (present company[1] exepted).

[1] Being about anybody who lurks or participates in
newsgroups related to webauthoring and design :-) , just
to be on the safe side.

Clever you <g>

Quote:

I guess it's a vicious cycle until enough web authors
actually stick to the 100%.

LOL <some private fun: I firstly read vicious as meaning
evil, wich in a way it is :-)

Yup, funny how in Dutch the word 'vicieus' is only used in
this context, thus losing the impact as 'slecht'. (ik dacht
vroeger altijd dat vicieus betekende dat het niet stopte,
altijd maar door draaide :-) )

Quote:

It is true. I just don't see that break even point or even
turning point happening in any near future. Do you?

Nope, but as more people are buying larger screens with higher
resolutions, the 100% fonts are getting nicer to look at.
I always find my font way too big when I check my site om
someone else's smaller monitor. I use 19 inch set to 1280x1024
myself. 100% Verdana is just fine on that, and Arial easily
readable.

Quote:

There
are more and more people with WYSI(n)WYG applications or
blogs on pre-set servers with pre-set and pretty much
fixed templates, that get to publish their stuf. In many a
small company it is the (seamingly) most capable amateur
that gets the project of puting up a company website
(again using without knowledge or scruples one of those
WYSI(n)WYG apps). No matter how (technically) professional
some, they are way outnumbered by the 'publish on the fly'
many. Or so I think. I have nothing to back this up.

Me neither ;-)

Quote:

End of story: stick to 100% (or 1em, but first 100% for
body) so everybody can read your content (and then
spread the word on browser settings, especially font
sizes :-) ).

I do stick to 100%, although I'm currently giving in to a
client who feels 85% is better. Trying to convince them
otherwise though :-)

How do you go about convincing such a client, if I may ask?
Where do their belief and convictions come from?

Well, this client's first and foremost concern was
accessibility, from just about all the possible angles.
So I got the mockup with 100%, and they said "I know it is
conform accessibility, but can't the font be a bit smaller
than that?" So I said yes, but then they asked why
accessibility and nice design seemed difficult to mix
(probably a rhetorical question), and I took the opportunity
to explain about different screen sizes and user browser
settings and stuff. Waiting for them to pick up on the hint
really :-)

(I'm just happy that they chose Arial, and not Verdana as the
preferred font... <g> )

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: Status Quo - Roadhouse Medley (Roadhouse Mix)

#7

On 15 Feb 2005 20:34:44 GMT, Els <els.aNOSPAM (AT) tiscali (DOT) nl> wrote:

Quote:

Barbara de Zoete wrote:

I guess it's a vicious cycle until enough web authors
actually stick to the 100%.

LOL <some private fun: I firstly read vicious as meaning
evil, wich in a way it is :-)

Yup, funny how in Dutch the word 'vicieus' is only used in
this context, thus losing the impact as 'slecht'. (ik dacht
vroeger altijd dat vicieus betekende dat het niet stopte,
altijd maar door draaide :-) )

Well, what do you know. I thought so too, right up to the point that your
text made me pick up 'De Dikke van Dale' :-D See, learn something every
day.

Quote:

I do stick to 100%, although I'm currently giving in to a
client who feels 85% is better. Trying to convince them
otherwise though :-)

How do you go about convincing such a client, if I may ask?
Where do their belief and convictions come from?

Well, this client's first and foremost concern was
accessibility, from just about all the possible angles.
So I got the mockup with 100%, and they said "I know it is
conform accessibility, but can't the font be a bit smaller
than that?" So I said yes, but then they asked why
accessibility and nice design seemed difficult to mix
(probably a rhetorical question), and I took the opportunity
to explain about different screen sizes and user browser
settings and stuff. Waiting for them to pick up on the hint
really :-)

Hope for you you win the battle. Every battle adds up to winning an entire
war.

--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.

Quote:

#8

Barbara de Zoete wrote:

Quote:

your text made me pick up 'De Dikke van Dale'

"pick up" ??
Too much work. Add this link to your bookmarks:
http://www.vandale.nl/opzoeken/woord.../?zoekwoord=%s
;-)

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: The Doors - Break On Through (To The Other Side)

#9

On 15 Feb 2005 22:20:08 GMT, Els <els.aNOSPAM (AT) tiscali (DOT) nl> wrote:

Quote:

Barbara de Zoete wrote:

your text made me pick up 'De Dikke van Dale'

"pick up" ??
Too much work. Add this link to your bookmarks:
http://www.vandale.nl/opzoeken/woord.../?zoekwoord=%s
;-)

<blockquote>
Omdat er onderhoudswerkzaamheden plaatsvinden, is de
on-lineversie van het eendelige Van Dale Hedendaags
Nederlands op dit moment niet raadpleegbaar. De
webmaster is hier al van op de hoogte gebracht.

Probeert u het later nog eens[1].
</blockquote>

Never happens to me with the books :-P

[1]Because of maintenance actifvities, the on-line version of the 'Van
Dale Contemporary Dutch' cannot be used at this moment. The webmaster has
been informed.
Please try again later.

--
,-- --<--@ -- PretLetters: 'woest wyf', met vele interesses: ----------.

Quote:

#10

Barbara de Zoete wrote:

Quote:

your text made me pick up 'De Dikke van Dale'

"pick up" ??
Too much work. Add this link to your bookmarks:
http://www.vandale.nl/opzoeken/woord.../?zoekwoord=%s
;-)

blockquote
Omdat er onderhoudswerkzaamheden plaatsvinden, is de
on-lineversie van het eendelige Van Dale Hedendaags
Nederlands op dit moment niet raadpleegbaar. De
webmaster is hier al van op de hoogte gebracht.

Probeert u het later nog eens[1].
/blockquote

Never happens to me with the books :-P

And never happened to me with this site either!
Honest! :-)

Quote:

[1]Because of maintenance actifvities, the on-line version
of the 'Van Dale Contemporary Dutch' cannot be used at
this moment. The webmaster has been informed.
Please try again later.

Well okay, but you can try the link, costs nothing, and if it
doesn't work, /then/ you pick up the heavy book :-)

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: The Doors - Soul Kitchen