 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneralPHPASPPerlColdFusionFlashHTML, CSS, ScriptsBrowsers |
Webmaster Forum / HTML, CSS, Scripts / CSS / May 2007Different size for different font
In his book "CSS: The Definitive Guide" 2nd edition (pgs. 116-117), Eric Meyer has an interesting discussion about "font-size-adjust" that was evidently dropped in CSS 2.1 due to browser non-support. I'm wondering if there's some way I could still get a primitive version of this functionality, because different fonts display at very different optical sizes for the same nominal sizes. For example, suppose I want type to display in 13px/1.5em Georgia. But if the user doesn't have Georgia installed, and I've simply listed Times New Roman as the alternate font in the usual way (or if "serif" gets interpreted as Times on their system), then the type will display in 13px Times, which is optically much smaller than 13px Georgia (and has optically different xheight/linespacing characteristics too). Even if I used em instead of px, I'm guessing there'd be a substantial size difference. So what I'd really like, in the absence of "font-size-adjust", is something like this: p.someClass {font: 13px/1.5em Georgia, 15px/1.4em "Times New Roman", 14px/1.5em serif;} ...but I have a feeling that wouldn't actually do what I want. Er... would it? Any solution? > different fonts display at very different optical > sizes for the same nominal sizes. > > For example, suppose I want type to display in 13px/1.5em Georgia. Simple solution - don't specify an absolute font-size. If you leave it at the default size (100%), then the user will see the font (be it Georgia or not) in whatever size *they* think is optimal.  SignatureBerg Scripsit Bergamot: >> different fonts display at very different optical >> sizes for the same nominal sizes. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > at the default size (100%), then the user will see the font (be it > Georgia or not) in whatever size *they* think is optimal. You missed the point. Of course absolute font sizes should be avoided, but that doesn't solve the problem. For example, suppose you want to use Arial. Setting just font-family: Arial works for a great majority of users. And there the problem is. If they have set their browser to use a font size that is suitable for their browser's default font, which is probably Times New Roman, they will see Arial in that size, which is probably 12pt (16px). While 12pt Times New Roman looks reasonable on screen, 12pt Arial looks too big to most people. So what can you do? If you ask me, you should just accept that. Too big font size is seldom complained by _users_ (and quite often by designers), and users can reduce the font size if it matters. But many authors set e.g. font-size: 80% or even smaller. This is usually not catastrophic, but it's not nice either, especially to users who have set their browser to use e.g. Arial in 10pt size. The reduction takes the size to 8pt, which is probably too small to be read comfortably. SignatureJukka K. Korpela ("Yucca") http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ >>> different fonts display at very different optical >>> sizes for the same nominal sizes. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > who have set their browser to use e.g. Arial in 10pt size. The reduction > takes the size to 8pt, which is probably too small to be read comfortably. This argument is all well and good in theory, but one important part of it really isn't based -- in my experience -- in the real world. That part is the "users who have set their browser to use...". I've come across maybe two or three people in my years of Web work that have utilized user style sheets beyond a little experimentation, and none of them was your typical mainstream user. Most people don't even know such a thing exists. A few more may change the default font size in the browser View menu, but very few, certainly (IMO) not enough to compromise ideal visual appearance. The way I see it, font size is largely an element of design. That is, the designer can SUGGEST what they believe works best visually, so long as they allow the user to size as needed (by using ems or percentages). This way, one meets the accessibility needs of the vast majority of users, while initially displaying the intended look. I know YMMV, and some folks here will vehemently disagree with this approach, but I've not gotten a single complaint from a client or client user. Signature*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply *** ====================================================== Kevin Scholl http://www.ksscholl.com/ kscholl@comcast.DELETE.net ------------------------------------------------------ Information Architecture, Web Design and Development ------------------------------------------------------ We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of the dreams... ====================================================== > I know YMMV, and some folks here will vehemently disagree with this > approach, but I've not gotten a single complaint from a client or client > user. http://www.ksscholl.com/ Well 75% of 16px is 12px and on my monitor is a bit small for the copy especially when grey on white... Maybe folks don't complain they just don't come back. SignatureTake care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com > > But many authors set e.g. font-size: 80% or even smaller. This is > > usually not catastrophic, but it's not nice either, especially to users [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > them was your typical mainstream user. Most people don't even know such > a thing exists. I assume you mean to include those who look into properties or browser font preferences (Mac). If, in general, a user was not comfortable with the font sizes he was seeing, then he would likely get to do something about it. There is a sort of arms race going on. Mostly, and ridiculously, authors use less than 100% even for main body text (to look neat, to get more in etc). So browsers either come with or are set by technicians or savvy friends or users to show such comfortably. These defaults or adjustments are made to compensate for the unnatural choices of authors in general. When an author uses 100%, it can cause surprise and comment about 'the bigness'. > The way I see it, font size is largely an element of design. That is, > the designer can SUGGEST what they believe works best visually, Perhaps it behoves authors not to think this way as it is too risky and too paper-print orientated in concept. Happier, and much weaker of course, is the idea that font-size _range_ is an element of design. In plain language, if a design looks good at a few clicks either way of text size, so much better is the design for websites. Your stated approach is different and can result in one optimum and everything goes bad after this whereas what many people have been thinking around these parts is that there is a likely a cluster of nice enough and useful enough range of font-size designs, Signaturedorayme >>> But many authors set e.g. font-size: 80% or even smaller. This is >>> usually not catastrophic, but it's not nice either, especially to users [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > comfortable with the font sizes he was seeing, then he would > likely get to do something about it. There is a sort of arms race That's rather my point. Most people, indeed a very small percentage, actually do look into these things. Realistically, most don't need to, and a well-designed site allows a user to resize text through the browser's View menu without having to set a global minimum in the browser setting (i.e., a user style sheet). Unfortunately, there are a great many sites -- too many -- that are not designed in such a manner. > going on. Mostly, and ridiculously, authors use less than 100% > even for main body text (to look neat, to get more in etc). So > browsers either come with or are set by technicians or savvy > friends or users to show such comfortably. These defaults or Honestly, I don't see this happening. A browser's font settings being set to anything but the default is an exceedingly rare occurrence in my experience. Again, I'm not saying my experience is the be-all, end-all, though. > adjustments are made to compensate for the unnatural choices of > authors in general. When an author uses 100%, it can cause [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > likely a cluster of nice enough and useful enough range of > font-size designs, Perhaps I should have specified to this point. Certainly I expect a well-designed site to "behave" as font sizes are changed, at least within some reason (I doubt all but the simplest sites would not break layout if text is resized to its absolute maximium). Signature*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply *** ====================================================== Kevin Scholl http://www.ksscholl.com/ kscholl@comcast.DELETE.net ------------------------------------------------------ Information Architecture, Web Design and Development ------------------------------------------------------ We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of the dreams... ====================================================== > > going on. Mostly, and ridiculously, authors use less than > > 100% even for main body text (to look neat, to get more in [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > exceedingly rare occurrence in my experience. Again, I'm not > saying my experience is the be-all, end-all, though. The problem with personal experience of this sort of thing is that it's likely to give very distorted results because of the small sample size, particluarly when the real value is fairly small. The people most likely to have changed (or have changed for them) their browsers font settings are those with impaired (in whatever degree) eyesight, and depending on such things as agegroup, you may or may not encounter a representative sample of such people... but they're the ones for whom this "80% is the new 100%" silliness causes the most inconvenience. SignatureJón Fairbairn Jon.Fairbairn@cl.cam.ac.uk >>> going on. Mostly, and ridiculously, authors use less than >>> 100% even for main body text (to look neat, to get more in [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > they're the ones for whom this "80% is the new 100%" > silliness causes the most inconvenience. Jon, Given my years of work in this field, and the number and nature of the sites on which I've worked, I wouldn't count my sample as small. It's almost certainly in the top echelon of people here. I agree with your assessment of those most likely the change their font settings. I've dealt with such groups and testing therefor. Tis why in my initial response I stress the need to allow for easy font resizing, regardless of the "default". Signature*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply *** ====================================================== Kevin Scholl http://www.ksscholl.com/ kscholl@comcast.DELETE.net ------------------------------------------------------ Information Architecture, Web Design and Development ------------------------------------------------------ We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of the dreams... ====================================================== > > The problem with personal experience of this sort of thing > > is that it's likely to give very distorted results because [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > my sample as small. It's almost certainly in the top echelon > of people here. Even the very topmost person here (whatever that means) is likely to have encountered only a small sample of the people out there looking at websites. SignatureJón Fairbairn Jon.Fairbairn@cl.cam.ac.uk >> Given my years of work in this field, and the number and >> nature of the sites on which I've worked, I wouldn't count >> my sample as small. It's almost certainly in the top echelon >> of people here. > Even the very topmost person here (whatever that means) is > likely to have encountered only a small sample of the people > out there looking at websites. The only thing that matters is that that quantity is nonzero. It's about respect and doing the right thing, something few web designers choose to practice. Signature"The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining ever brighter till the full light of day." Proverbs 4:18 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ > >> Given my years of work in this field, and the number and > >> nature of the sites on which I've worked, I wouldn't count [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > The only thing that matters is that that quantity [of people who are adversely affected by smaller fonts] > is nonzero. As far as whether to do the right thing is concerned, I quite agree. But my point was that his claim to have sampled a large proportion of people strikes me as unlikely, so his impression of the number of people who would be affected as small (effectively zero is what his argument implied) is invalid. > It's about respect and doing the right thing, something > few web designers choose to practice. Alas so. SignatureJón Fairbairn Jon.Fairbairn@cl.cam.ac.uk > [re: font-size:75% and other tiny settings] > > I've not gotten a single complaint from a client or client user. FYI, I've had font size discussions with almost everyone I've worked with. You might be surprised at the number of users that are secretly dissatisfied with the tiny type size prevalent on web sites. Once I teach them how to adjust their browser settings (usually to make the default larger), their only remaining complaint is that it doesn't work on every web site. BTW, I've never gotten a single complaint from a client or client user about font-size:100% being too big, so your lack of complaints doesn't mean there aren't any, just they don't tell you about it. SignatureBerg > BTW, I've never gotten a single complaint from a client or client user > about font-size:100% being too big, so your lack of complaints doesn't > mean there aren't any, just they don't tell you about it. Unfortuntaly I've had such a complaint from a client (and for this particular client I'm too far down the hierarchy to have much say in the matter). It seems to me that the root cause of this is that the font default sizes on Windows (IE at any rate) are rather strange. Having looked at every sans font available in a default install of Windows XP, I found that not one of them has the same x height as the default serif font. While I guess that the argument might be that it's harder to make a good looking sans font with an x height of that number of pixels¹, it's not obviously true to me, and the consequences are dire -- particularly when you consider that, strangely, some of the sans fonts have x heights /smaller/ than the default serif font. [1] with current screen resoloutions, the default font sizes are small enough numbers of pixels that whether the x is an odd or even number of pixels tall does make a difference, though I don't see how sans/serif puts one either side of this. SignatureJón Fairbairn Jon.Fairbairn@cl.cam.ac.uk > > BTW, I've never gotten a single complaint from a client or client user > > about font-size:100% being too big, so your lack of complaints doesn't [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > cause of this is that the font default sizes on Windows (IE > at any rate) Well, this depends on how you view the strength of the alternative explanation I gave. I too have had complaints about 100% being too big from clients but where it is perfectly clear that they are not using IE (but Mac and other browsers). I would think this business of X height that you mention is marginal to the real explanation, namely that quite a few people have become used to seeing sites with less than 100% for body text, their browsers are set for this to be comfortable (this includes _these- people being comfortable with the default). It comes as out of the ordinary to their eye. The truth is that 100% does often involve more scrolling on sites where someone is saying something that might actually be worth reading! But with sufficient patience and persuasion with clients, and layout to accomodate information, the war can be advanced towards 100% Signaturedorayme > > Unfortuntaly I've had such a complaint from a client (and > > for this particular client I'm too far down the hierarchy to [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the real explanation, namely that quite a few people have become > used to seeing sites with less than 100% for body text, Sure, but I was arguing that one of the reasons that sites started having <100% body text was this x-height issue (namely the designer selects a sans font, sees it looks bigger than intended and shrinks it without thinking of the reasons why). Once more than a few sites have been designed like that, users have to respond, and lo and behold 80% is the new 100% :-( SignatureJón Fairbairn Jon.Fairbairn@cl.cam.ac.uk > > > Unfortuntaly I've had such a complaint from a client (and > > > for this particular client I'm too far down the hierarchy to [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > like that, users have to respond, and lo and behold 80% is > the new 100% :-( Ah well, perhaps you are on to something on the history of the 'arms race' here. Methinks there are less subtle forces at work. Young earthlings with superb eyesight, a huge amount of rubbish that is thought needed to be seen on home pages especially and so on. Call me cynical. Signaturedorayme > Ah well, perhaps you are on to something on the history of the > 'arms race' here. Methinks there are less subtle forces at work. > Young earthlings with superb eyesight, a huge amount of rubbish > that is thought needed to be seen on home pages especially and so > on. Call me cynical. BODY { font-size: 1px; } There! Make'em break out their magnifying glasses, even with their 20-something eyes! This whole argument is just as asinine, the base font size should be 100% of the users default. and if properly designed will work regardless of the user settings. You can help yourself as a designer be avoiding using fonts that are "artificially oversize" or mixing optional fonts of divergent characteristics. I don't have Verdanda on my Linux box. Until some truly working system for font embedding|delivery happens you must design with flexibility that you do not precisely what fonts will be available for your web design. SignatureTake care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com > > Ah well, perhaps you are on to something on the history of the > > 'arms race' here. Methinks there are less subtle forces at work. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > This whole argument is just as asinine, What whole argument are you talking about? Fairbairn and I were just discussing a particular historical development and speculating on the causes. We were moderate, careful, articulate, low-profile, humble, meaning no harm to anyone and you come in waving 1px font sizes, magnifying glasses and making like Christ in the temple with the money lenders? Signaturedorayme [...] >> Sure, but I was arguing that one of the reasons that sites >> started having <100% body text was this x-height issue [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > that is thought needed to be seen on home pages especially and so > on. Call me cynical. A tiny font gives a superficial impression of importance and "high tech", which is why it's used on corporate websites, which are often content-free anyway. Big fonts look too much like children's books. Also if you make the actual words easy to see it's too obvious they're just BS. > if you make the actual words easy to see it's too obvious they're just > BS. LOL SignatureBerg > Big fonts look too much like children's books. Also > if you make the actual words easy to see it's too obvious they're just > BS. ! Signaturedorayme > A tiny font gives a superficial impression of importance and "high > tech", which is why it's used on corporate websites, which are often > content-free anyway. Big fonts look too much like children's books. Also > if you make the actual words easy to see it's too obvious they're just > BS. Until you're sitting in the chair of your visitor, you know neither how big is big nor how small is small. What is known is that if you think the 12pt default is too big, your perspective does not match that of average web users: http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/2S/font.htm Signature"The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining ever brighter till the full light of day." Proverbs 4:18 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ > http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/2S/font.htm That study was done back in 2000. It would be interesting to see what has changed since then, considering the improvements in display devices over the past few years. SignatureBerg > > http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/2S/font.htm > > That study was done back in 2000. It would be interesting to see what > has changed since then, considering the improvements in display devices > over the past few years. Well, they give enough information to be able to repeat the experiment. SignatureChris Scripsit Kevin Scholl: > This argument is all well and good in theory, Before that statement, you quoted my entire message, practically speaking. Comprehensive quoting generally indicates lack of comprehensive reading on Usenet. In particular, you missed the point that my argument was practical - actually, more practical than yours. > -- in my experience -- in the real world. Your personal opinions don't become any more objective if you call them the real world. > A few more may change the default font size in the browser View menu, > but very few, certainly (IMO) not enough to compromise ideal visual > appearance. "IMO" is the key here; there's your real world: you _don't care_ about people who set the font size. Of course, this is just the top of the iceberg. There are millions of people around who have never touched any relevant browser settings and to whom their browser's basic font size is the _smallest readable_ size. So you want to go below that, in your quest for "ideal visual appearance" (i.e., a look that pleases _your_ eyes, or the eyes of your team, or whatever). The default setting of 12pt is good exactly _because_ it is somewhat too large to most people when sans-serif fonts are used. Give some thought to the variation of people and browsing conditions, and you'll see this. > The way I see it, font size is largely an element of design. That is, > the designer can SUGGEST what they believe works best visually, so > long as they allow the user to size as needed You don't present any concrete method so that we could evaluate it. If you're suggesting body { font-size: 80% }, then that's usuallu not catastrophic, as I wrote, though it prevents users from _easily_ selecting a fairly large font size (since "largest" in the font size menu of IE is relative to the size set on the page). But your tone of voice suggests something more drastic. Even if it didn't, many newbies and clueless "advanced" authors will apply your principles so that they set the font size to the smallest value they can read in optimal circumstances. This is often accompanied with other settings that reduce legibility further. And, for example, the page mentioned in your sig ( http://www.ksscholl.com/ ) uses tiny text, in gray on a little lighter gray background. Even when I set the font size to "largest" on IE, it's inconveniently small due to insufficient contrast, and this means that for millions of people, it's too small to read. Of course, _those_ people who have _severe_ eyesight problems have already somehow configured, or have had someone to configure, their browsing environment to deal with such issues, e.g. by disabling all author stylesheets; otherwise they wouldn't be browsing at all. But a much larger group just finds the page too difficult to use due to its _visual presentation_. Moreover, if you think that most people don't even use the font size menu, you should be worried about hundreds of millions of people who just can't read tiny gray text on gray background. They simply go away. Now you might say that they are not your potential customers. But your potential customers, tough young people with good eyesight, might understand the importance of thinking about _their_ customers in a manner that you don't seem to care about. SignatureJukka K. Korpela ("Yucca") http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ > Scripsit Kevin Scholl: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > comprehensive reading on Usenet. In particular, you missed the point > that my argument was practical - actually, more practical than yours. No, quoting the entire message in this case indicates that I recognized that this was a fairly new thread, and that those reading it might want some reference. Everything I left was pertinent to my reply. >> -- in my experience -- in the real world. > > Your personal opinions don't become any more objective if you call them > the real world. No more personal opinion that yours. If I can support my comments -- as I did -- with a basis in what I regularly see, that's real world. >> A few more may change the default font size in the browser View menu, >> but very few, certainly (IMO) not enough to compromise ideal visual >> appearance. > > "IMO" is the key here; there's your real world: you _don't care_ about > people who set the font size. I DO care. As I present later in my reply, I believe that font sizes should be applied such that anyone can resize them if necessary. However, should one cater to the clear minority to the detriment of the majority, when that minority has the easy means to adjust? I think not. > Of course, this is just the top of the iceberg. There are millions of > people around who have never touched any relevant browser settings and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > large to most people when sans-serif fonts are used. Give some thought > to the variation of people and browsing conditions, and you'll see this. Again, I DO see this. >> The way I see it, font size is largely an element of design. That is, >> the designer can SUGGEST what they believe works best visually, so >> long as they allow the user to size as needed > > You don't present any concrete method so that we could evaluate it. If Yes, I did. > you're suggesting body { font-size: 80% }, then that's usuallu not > catastrophic, as I wrote, though it prevents users from _easily_ I hardly call a click or two difficult. And better that click of two for a few people, as opposed to most. > selecting a fairly large font size (since "largest" in the font size > menu of IE is relative to the size set on the page). But your tone of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > And, for example, the page mentioned in your sig ( A design a couple of years old, I'll add. > http://www.ksscholl.com/ ) uses tiny text, in gray on a little lighter A dark gray on an extremely light gray fading to white is hardly illegible. FWIW, I test in grayscale, and have had visually-impaired people look at my work. None have expressed any trouble. It seems to me you're grasping here to try to make your point. > gray background. Even when I set the font size to "largest" on IE, it's > inconveniently small due to insufficient contrast, and this means that [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > understand the importance of thinking about _their_ customers in a > manner that you don't seem to care about. I guess I'll just say that I'll agree to disagree on this topic in general. However, I am a put off by YOUR tone, which is very condescending. Unfortunately, as I see that tends to be your way in these discussions. It's no wonder that so few people are willing to even reply with _potential_ alternatives or even thoughts for discussion. Signature*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply *** ====================================================== Kevin Scholl http://www.ksscholl.com/ kscholl@comcast.DELETE.net ------------------------------------------------------ Information Architecture, Web Design and Development ------------------------------------------------------ We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of the dreams... ====================================================== >> And, for example, the page mentioned in your sig ( > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > people look at my work. None have expressed any trouble. It seems to > me you're grasping here to try to make your point. The main page at ksscholl.com (once I enabled JavaScript to actually find it - that's a bad idea) is unreadable with its current font sizing and colors. Once I increased it to about 130%, I could then read it. So, I read the little blurb about 'copying Vista', and click on the "read <" link. Expecting to find another page on your site with the same grey-on-grey. No, I am greeted with a HUUUGE banner on a cnet.com page. I decrease font size to read that page, hit my back button, and then have to increase it again for yours. What a pain in the butt that was. Apparently, cnet.com knows how to set proper font sizes You are driving your readers away... Signature-bts -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck On May 21, 9:33 am, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.m...@example.invalid> wrote: > >> And, for example, the page mentioned in your sig ( > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > -bts > -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck Let me (again) reiterate that my personal site is an old design (some three years old), done well before these issues were much in the limelight (nor does it require JavaScript). It's not what I would consider a viable example in this case. That said, I'm curious as to you resolution setting, as well as whether you're utilizing a user style sheet in any way. The CNet page appears to have the same font size as my page at default settings, so your finding is odd. Herein lies my primary point, and purpose for posting in this thread to begin with. I'm not trying to be combative here. Rather, I'm trying to determine why some of the people in this forum design and develop based on the assumption that viewers are utilizing user style sheets, or to a lesser degree, regularly resize the text in their browsers. I just don't see it happen much at all (be it in usability testing or common usage), nor do I hear of it from fellow designers/developers. It simply seems odd that a methodology would be so driven by a clear minority, when it's that very minority that typically has the knowledge and gumption to make a settings change if necessary. >> The main page at ksscholl.com (once I enabled JavaScript to actually >> find it - that's a bad idea) is unreadable with its current font [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > three years old), done well before these issues were much in the > limelight Ok, we'll give you that, but only if you fix it. :-) > (nor does it require JavaScript). Then why does it take you to the folllowing when JavaScript is disabled? "what happened? You have been directed to this page because your browser does not support current Web standards used to build this site. Or, your browser does not have Javascript [sic] enabled, which is highly recommended in order to fully appreciate all that the site has to offer." ..and there is no link on this page to get you to the rest of the site that "doesn't require JavaScript". So why do that? > It's not what I would consider a viable example in this case. I (and others) were discussing the site in your sig. If that isn't a 'viable example' ... well ... > That said, I'm curious as to you resolution setting, as well as > whether you're utilizing a user style sheet in any way. Screen resolution? Not important. Firefox default font size? Factory stock. As a developer, I would have mentioned if I was using any user-defined style sheet that would affect your site. I do not do that, so I can test my own sites as others would see them. > The CNet page appears to have the same font size as my page at default > settings, so your finding is odd. Herein lies my primary point, and > purpose for posting in this thread to begin with. Start Firefox. Look at your kssholl.com main page. Press Control-Plus twice (which is what I did so I could read it). Click the link to the CNET page about Vista. "From the box to the code, Redmond is clamping down, ..." is grey-on-grey. Wait until you are 65 years old and tell me if you can read it. > I'm not trying to be combative here. Rather, I'm trying to determine > why some of the people in this forum design and develop based on the > assumption that viewers are utilizing user style sheets, or to a > lesser degree, regularly resize the text in their browsers. I would say that hardly any of normal people have user style sheets. They don't know what they are. To a far more *greater degree*, you are going to find users with vision difficulties (many people over 50) who will have discovered how to resize fonts if they can't read a site. Or if they haven't figured how to do that, they just go back to Google and find something else to read. > I just don't see it happen much at all (be it in usability testing or > common usage), nor do I hear of it from fellow designers/developers. Don't read these groups much? > It simply seems odd that a methodology would be so driven by a clear > minority, What minority? Us web developers? Do you expect the average surfer to know anything about authoring? > when it's that very minority that typically has the > knowledge and gumption to make a settings change if necessary. Ahh, if only the majority of web authors knew how to do this... We have too many developers 'round the planet who do stupid stuff like one of my ISPs does on its Home and News pages. They use a silly JavaScript font-size-chooser, with the three sizes of "A", and the underlying CSS changes from 65% to 75% to 92%. At "medium" (75%) the text is barely above the flyspeck stage. I've been telling them for years to simply set it to 100% so everyone benefits and no JavaScript 'chooser' is necessary. They don't listen. Signature-bts -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck > Then why does it take you to the folllowing when JavaScript is disabled? [snip] > ..and there is no link on this page to get you to the rest of the site > that "doesn't require JavaScript". So why do that? Sure there is. Did you miss the "Continue anyway" at the bottom of the page? As I mentioned, this site is rather old, and at one time included a fair amount of DHTML examples and such. Hence the warning page. But the site does not require Javascript, nor states that it does. Recommended, yes (like so many sites nowadays), but not required. > Screen resolution? Not important. Firefox default font size? Factory > stock. As a developer, I would have mentioned if I was using any > user-defined style sheet that would affect your site. I do not do that, > so I can test my own sites as others would see them. But resolution IS important in this case. Higher resolutions will of course make text appear smaller on screen. For example, someone running 1600x1200 would certainly find 10 or 11px text unreadable; no likely so at 800x600. > > The CNet page appears to have the same font size as my page at default > > settings, so your finding is odd. Herein lies my primary point, and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Press Control-Plus twice (which is what I did so I could read it). > Click the link to the CNET page about Vista. Okay, did that, and it only supports what I mentioned, that the body text appears to be set to roughly the same size as my own site. The article TITLE on CNet is quite large, and their navigation breaks down a bit (a whole other can o' worms), but the content of the article is the same size as mine (albeit verdana as opposed to arial). Am I missing something? > "From the box to the code, Redmond is clamping down, ..." is > grey-on-grey. Wait until you are 65 years old and tell me if you can > read it. For the record, that is #666 on a background that is #EEE fading to #FFF (white). Studies for years have shown that high contrast such a black on white cause the eyes to tire quickly, so I softened the contrast. Not the highest contrast, to be sure, but not flagged by contrast analyzers, either. > > I'm not trying to be combative here. Rather, I'm trying to determine > > why some of the people in this forum design and develop based on the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > going to find users with vision difficulties (many people over 50) who > will have discovered how to resize fonts if they can't read a site. Or Exactly! > if they haven't figured how to do that, they just go back to Google and > find something else to read. Quite possible. But then this falls under the auspices of intended audience and the need to retain that audience. My personal site that appears to be under the magnifying glass is a playground of sorts. It's not really geared toward mass consumption. Take a different site, say for example the http://www.compsolutionat.com/ from my portfolio, and you have a different situation. In fact, that site is presents products FOR visually impaired persons, and was tested by a number of such people, getting very favorable reviews. > > I just don't see it happen much at all (be it in usability testing or > > common usage), nor do I hear of it from fellow designers/developers. > > Don't read these groups much? Newsgroups are not often a valid indication of the "normal" user. Those who typically post are not what I would refer to as typical users. Sure, we can relay findings and observations, but then we run into exactly what's happening here. That is, a wide scale of results, with a lot of variables at play. > > It simply seems odd that a methodology would be so driven by a clear > > minority, > > What minority? Us web developers? Do you expect the average surfer to > know anything about authoring? No, which is my point... > > when it's that very minority that typically has the > > knowledge and gumption to make a settings change if necessary. > > Ahh, if only the majority of web authors knew how to do this... I wasn't referring to the authors, but users. The visually impaired (whatever the reason, be it age, injury, birth defect, whatever) generally will know how to adjust their font sizes. The average, typical user does not, because they do not NEED to. So as authors, does it not seem more logical to present our work in its optimal visual manner for the majority, while allowing the minority to do what they must? or is it better to cater to the minority, to the visual detriment of the majority? As I previously alluded to, these groups aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Every project and its intended audience may be (and usually is) different. There are a lot of considerations at play that must be looked into. This is why I have a hard time understanding why a developer would lock themselves into ALWAYS leaving text at 100%. Consider this as well, just to play devil's advocate. If text less than 100% is so problematic, why do the various operating systems and their applications all employ default text that is roughly equivalent to 11px for their chrome elements (e.g., menus)? Isn't this too small for someone such as yourself? How do you deal with that? > We have too many developers 'round the planet who do stupid stuff like > one of my ISPs does on its Home and News pages. They use a silly > JavaScript font-size-chooser, with the three sizes of "A", and the > underlying CSS changes from 65% to 75% to 92%. At "medium" (75%) the > text is barely above the flyspeck stage. I won't argue the "stupidity" (or more to the point, needlessness) of such controls. But I must ask, do the browser text size options continue work as expected? > I've been telling them for years to simply set it to 100% so everyone > benefits and no JavaScript 'chooser' is necessary. They don't listen. *shrug* >> Then why does it take you to the folllowing when JavaScript is >> disabled? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Sure there is. Did you miss the "Continue anyway" at the bottom of > the page? No, I had found it. 'Tis about 450 words into the essay, and the link says "clicking here". It is not an obvious link, well below the fold; if it were mine, I would have something similar to this at or near the top of the page: Enter Main Site >> Screen resolution? Not important. Firefox default font size? Factory >> stock. As a developer, I would have mentioned if I was using any [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > running 1600x1200 would certainly find 10 or 11px text unreadable; no > likely so at 800x600. ..and all of this changes between a 15" monitor and a 20", which is why it is not important. >> Start Firefox. Look at your kssholl.com main page. Press >> Control-Plus twice (which is what I did so I could read it). Click >> the link to the CNET page about Vista. > > Okay, did that, and it only supports what I mentioned, that the body > text appears to be set to roughly the same size as my own site. The Roughly. I'll agree with "roughly." <lol> These screenshots were made as I described. Press Ctrl+ twice with box-stock Firefox. http://k75s.home.att.net/show/ksscholl01.jpg http://k75s.home.att.net/show/ksscholl02.jpg > For the record, that is #666 on a background that is #EEE fading to > #FFF (white). Yes, I read your style sheet. > Studies for years have shown that high contrast such a > black on white cause the eyes to tire quickly, so I softened the > contrast. Not the highest contrast, to be sure, but not flagged by > contrast analyzers, either. I use black on an off-white, which works well. Pale grey on off-white doesn't. I think I will pass by the rest of your comments, as it's obvious we have different opinions which will never meet. And, it's time to do some lawn mowing. Signature-bts -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck >> But resolution IS important in this case. Higher resolutions will >> [snip] > > ..and all of this changes between a 15" monitor and a 20", which is why > it is not important. Not to mention other factors like the workspace lighting, the user's eyesight, quality of the graphics card, etc. which are different for each user, and beyond anyone's control. >> Studies for years have shown that high contrast such a >> black on white cause the eyes to tire quickly, so I softened the >> contrast. > > I use black on an off-white, which works well. Agreed. Black (or near black) text on a very pale background is much easier on the eye than any color on a white background. Too much white can be quite glaring. > Pale grey on off-white doesn't. My monitor has 3 preset brightness settings (for text vs game playing) and none of them made the #fff/#666 combination more readable for me. Forget #eee/#666. Maybe I just need to sit in the dark, too. :( SignatureBerg In article <XNl4i.13764$Sa4.1184@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, > And, it's time to do some > lawn mowing. So... what about ride-on mowers? They surely don't suck? Signaturedorayme > In article > <XNl4i.13764$Sa4.1184@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > So... what about ride-on mowers? They surely don't suck? Actually, they do, for a partial rotation. Then they blow ... the grass out the side (or into the bag). :) Signature*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply *** ====================================================== Kevin Scholl http://www.ksscholl.com/ kscholl@comcast.DELETE.net ------------------------------------------------------ Information Architecture, Web Design and Development ------------------------------------------------------ We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of the dreams... ====================================================== > > In article > > <XNl4i.13764$Sa4.1184@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Actually, they do, for a partial rotation. Then they blow ... the grass > out the side (or into the bag). :) Indeed. But seriously, to get back to the more relevant topic, the beauty of a motorbike as distinct from a car is that it is often not that much more than is needed to get a person about with dash and verve. A ride-on mower can also share in this aesthetic but is in great danger of being developed by wrong headed commercial interests to include facilities (seats for the kids, enclosure, air-conditioning, ...) that tend to suckiness. Signaturedorayme >> And, it's time to do some lawn mowing. > > So... what about ride-on mowers? They surely don't suck? I sometimes wish I had one. We have two houses with lawns to mow - one a bit over an acre, the other about a third-acre, and all we have is this 21-inch self-propelled hand mower... Signature-bts -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck In article <OVr4i.14668$Sa4.13175@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, > >> And, it's time to do some lawn mowing. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a bit over an acre, the other about a third-acre, and all we have is > this 21-inch self-propelled hand mower... Sounds like you need what they use in the park behind me, a tractor pulling a cylinder mower, many feet wide along. Signaturedorayme [...] >> "From the box to the code, Redmond is clamping down, ..." is >> grey-on-grey. Wait until you are 65 years old and tell me if you can [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > contrast. Not the highest contrast, to be sure, but not flagged by > contrast analyzers, either. I'm with on you on that one, the grey on white on your page is comfortable to read. Black on white is OK. White on black and I start up Lynx. If that fails and I still want to read the page, I read the source in a text editor. >> ..and there is no link on this page to get you to the rest of the site >> that "doesn't require JavaScript". > > Sure there is. Did you miss the "Continue anyway" at the bottom of the > page? You really expect people to read that whole page? I didn't bother reading past the first paragraph. It told me everything I really needed to know. I was not amused, enlightened, or impressed - quite the opposite. > But the site does not require Javascript, nor states that it > does. Recommended, yes (like so many sites nowadays), but not > required. If JS truly isn't required, then sending people to that "error" page off the bat is just plain rude. If you have parts where JS is necessary, then note it on the related page, not in a splash page to your site. > For the record, that is #666 on a background that is #EEE fading to > #FFF (white). Studies for years have shown that high contrast such a > black on white cause the eyes to tire quickly, so I softened the > contrast. Low contrast is a readability problem for a lot of people. Small type is a readability problem for a lot of people. The 2 combined is the worst of both worlds. :( SignatureBerg In article <1179766109.179831.91660@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>, > I wasn't referring to the authors, but users. The visually impaired > (whatever the reason, be it age, injury, birth defect, whatever) > generally will know how to adjust their font sizes. The average, > typical user does not, because they do not NEED to. Fine, but you need to be fully aware that complaints will not surface if the irritations are not very serious. Better to be safe than sorry and use 100% if for body text if you can to avoid that below the level where 'most will start complaining loudly. Less people will be disadvantaged this way. > Consider this as well, just to play devil's advocate. If text less > than 100% is so problematic, why do the various operating systems and > their applications all employ default text that is roughly equivalent > to 11px for their chrome elements (e.g., menus)? Isn't this too small > for someone such as yourself? How do you deal with that? Actually, yes! Quite often I have complained about the chrome, especially on my 20" LCD when I am viewing older OS (via Classic on my Mac). The point here is that there is little that can be done about this without serious downsides. But God, in his wisdom, has given us browsers where the websites themselves can be made to be easy to use if the authors make sensible decisions. Signaturedorayme > For the record, that is #666 on a background that is #EEE fading to > #FFF (white). Studies for years have shown that high contrast such a > black on white cause the eyes to tire quickly, so I softened the > contrast. Not the highest contrast, to be sure, but not flagged by > contrast analyzers, either. #666 on #EEE is flagged as insufficient color difference by the one I use: http://juicystudio.com/services/colourcontrast.php One notch off the extremes is quite sufficient softening. I can get by with #333 on #FFF if the text is fully my default size, but #222 and #111 are very much better. Your contrast lowering is excessive, and coupled with your tiny text, makes reading your content painful in the absence of disabling your styles. Signature"The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining ever brighter till the full light of day." Proverbs 4:18 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ > > For the record, that is #666 on a background that is #EEE fading to > > #FFF (white). Studies for years have shown that high contrast such a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > #333 on #FFF if the text is fully my default size, but #222 and #111 are > very much better. My thought too, I was much happier with #333 when I looked at Kevin's site the other day. But as for $111 or #222 being much better, that is an interesting idea... except that at least with #111 it is not very much better than #000. Curiously enough though, there seems to be an argument here for #222. Thanks Felix. Signaturedorayme > Higher resolutions will of course make text appear smaller on screen. Not necessarily for IE. Owing to a bug in how IE applies the Windows desktop default font size adjustment twice, a high-resolution Windows display may display web pages at an excessively _large_ size. If the user has obtained a high resolution display and a monitor of average size it's relatively common (more common than them setting browser user stylesheet) for them to set the Windows desktop display font size to be larger than standard. IE then applies this settings again itself (Windows has already applied it), resulting in browser "1em" sizes being relatively larger than when a lower resolution display has been configured to give equally sized desktop fonts. > For the record, that is #666 on a background that is #EEE fading to > #FFF (white). Studies for years have shown that high contrast such a > black on white cause the eyes to tire quickly, so I softened the > contrast. Sounds like urban legend to me. Can you cite any such studies? I suspect most who think black on white is too contrasty have incorrectly adjusted display brightness and contrast settings. Manufacturers tend to set these values to arbitrarily high defaults in order to more readily lure buyers. My eyes tire least quickly when text is easiest to read, which means a correctly set display, maximum contrast text (black or virtual black, not "gray"), and my choice of text size. Signature"The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining ever brighter till the full light of day." Proverbs 4:18 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ Scripsit Felix Miata: >> For the record, that is #666 on a background that is #EEE fading to >> #FFF (white). Studies for years have shown that high contrast such a >> black on white cause the eyes to tire quickly, so I softened the >> contrast. > > Sounds like urban legend to me. I don't think it even counts as an urban legend. It's simply crap, nonsense, or trolling. Its assumed trolling value is probably based on the assumption that people will confuse the issue of the effects of "pure white" on screen in large quantities. You addressed this issue accordingly. It's a matter of tuning the monitor, if needed. If authors second-guess this (and cause trouble to all those users who see nothing wrong with "white" since their monitor's "white" is properly tuned), then it's a poor authoring practice, but Kevin Scholl additionally wants to use bad contrast. SignatureJukka K. Korpela ("Yucca") http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ > Scripsit Felix Miata: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I don't think it even counts as an urban legend. It's simply crap, nonsense, > or trolling. Well, I can't speak for actual studies, but my uncle is a specialist in lighting and vision (reader in ergonomics at Loughborough University, now retired[1]) and we've had this conversation... High contrast environments are generally harder on the eyes, particularly black text on a white or clear background at high light intensity levels (e.g. a printed page in strong sunlight, staring at the screen for a really bright overhead projector, etc.) [0] BUT... Whether or not this situation has a noticeable effect on the person looking at the high contrast depends on a number of factors, including duration, age, eye health, and ambient light levels. In other words, there's a difference between staring at a projector screen in a room that is otherwise completely dark, compared to the same screen in a room with normal ambient illumination (e.g. window shades open) Where this becomes really important (and my uncle's particular interest) is for people with eye problems such as cataracts; you can actually improve their ability to read a book by reducing page contrast (use an incandescent light on a dimmer, or a shade that colours the light.) I don't know how this translates to the specific situation of monitor screens[2], since at the time I asked about this computers where not in widespread use, most monitors used white or green text on a black background, and video data projectors were an expensive novelty. That's a whole other field of research and, from what I've seen reported in the media, seems more to do with focus-related eye strain. This would get back more to using a font SIZE that was reasonably legible at a comfortable viewing distance from the monitor (and only the individual user really knows what that is for them!) There are, in addition, certain background/foreground colour combinations which can result in fuzzier-looking text on lower dpi monitors, due to the use of separate RGB pixels. I suspect (although I don't know) that this is not as much of a problem with modern screens that have the three colours in different layers and higher intrinsic physical dpi. Of course, that still doesn't excuse things like pale yellow text on a white background or, in the case of one site I visited (once!), dark red text on a forest green background... [0] There's a reason (quite apart from premature burn-out/burn-in) that early monochrome CRT displays used a black background.[3] [1] He was one of the first to study the effects of fluorescent lighting on employees in offices. [2] I'm quite sure ergonomists have studied the effects of screen contrast and intensity vs. duration of use, but I'm equally sure I can't be bothered to look it up. Besides, a computer user can adjust brightness, contrast, and ambient light levels to suit. [3] You know you've done too much C programming when your footnotes are zero-indexed... Scripsit Kevin Scholl: > Let me (again) reiterate that my personal site is an old design (some > three years old), done well before these issues were much in the > limelight (nor does it require JavaScript). It's not what I would > consider a viable example in this case. If you are giving others advice on using font sizes, shouldn't you design at least one page where font size issues are dealt with adequately, in your opinion? Feel free to babble pointlessly while evading such challenges. You can't really lose your cause any more than you already have lost. SignatureJukka K. Korpela ("Yucca") http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ >> The main page at ksscholl.com (once I enabled JavaScript to actually >> find it - that's a bad idea) is unreadable with its current font sizing >> and colors. Once I increased it to about 130%, I could then read it. So, >> I read the little blurb about 'copying Vista', and click on the "read <" >assumption that viewers are utilizing user style sheets, or to a >lesser degree, regularly resize the text in their browsers. The only time that I resize the text in my browser is when I have the misfortune of encountering a site where the author decided that s/he know better than I what size I can easily read. As long as you don't do something like set the body to 10pt or 70%, I'm fine. If you shrink my text, then I need to resize it -- or not read your content. SignatureMichael F. Stemper #include <Standard_Disclaimer> Always remember that you are unique. Just like everyone else. Scripsit Kevin Scholl: > No, quoting the entire message in this case indicates that I > recognized that this was a fairly new thread It was simply foolish, as is your continued massive quoting. Read a tutorial on Usenet, or _read_ some constructive discussions, and you'll see that massive quoting typically indicates stupidity or intentional misbehavior. >> The default setting of 12pt is good exactly _because_ it is somewhat >> too large to most people when sans-serif fonts are used. Give some >> thought to the variation of people and browsing conditions, and >> you'll see this. > > Again, I DO see this. Yet you have decided to use text sizes like 70%. What you do does not match what you claim to understand. > A dark gray on an extremely light gray fading to white is hardly > illegible. FWIW, I test in grayscale, and have had visually-impaired > people look at my work. None have expressed any trouble. It seems to > me you're grasping here to try to make your point. What you claim to have heard is immaterial when I can see, and many other people can see, that you actually have tiny text with insufficient color contrast. > I guess I'll just say that I'll agree to disagree on this topic in > general. That's not a surprise. > However, I am a put off by YOUR tone, which is very condescending. When people have no rational arguments, they start talking about other people's tones, motives, and things like that. SignatureJukka K. Korpela ("Yucca") http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ > It was simply foolish, as is your continued massive quoting. Read a tutorial > on Usenet, or _read_ some constructive discussions, and you'll see that > massive quoting typically indicates stupidity or intentional misbehavior. Nowhere am I retaining previous comments unrelated to my responses. I am snipping appropriately, and don't need a tutorial to tell me that. > Yet you have decided to use text sizes like 70%. What you do does not match > what you claim to understand. Of course it does. You're being too hard-headed to accept my words at face value. Does a percentage-based font allow a vision-impaired user to resize IF THEY NEED TO, while retaining an optimal visual experience for the vast majority of users under default settings? Yes. Simple as that. > > However, I am a put off by YOUR tone, which is very condescending. > > When people have no rational arguments, they start talking about other > people's tones, motives, and things like that. Pot calling the kettle black. After all, you were the one that opted to accuse me of impracticality, downplay my experience as foolish, and generally question my professionalism. All while adding little to the topic of discussion, nor providing any viable argument against any of my points. You know, I don't post all that often in Usenet for precisely this reason. There's always someone with a holier-than-thou attitude who thinks they're some kind of forum police, keeping people from posting legitimate questions or alternatives that could generate useful discussion. Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Jon, dorayme -- at least they demonstrate some candor despite the difference of opinions. It's not that you don't occasionally make some good points of consideration, Jukka, but rather that they often get lost in the egotistical muck. Scripsit Kevin Scholl: > Does a percentage-based font allow a vision-impaired user > to resize IF THEY NEED TO, while retaining an optimal visual > experience for the vast majority of users under default settings? Yes. No, because when you have set the font size to 70%, many people won't be able to reach a sufficiently large size - unless they do something complicated like override page settings or even use a user style sheet, and you claim they can't do such things. And it's not optimal. It's only what you have personally chosen, declaring your taste as optimal. > You know, I don't post all that often in Usenet Promises, promises. SignatureJukka K. Korpela ("Yucca") http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ > Does a percentage-based font allow a vision-impaired user > to resize IF THEY NEED TO, When you as web designer choose to make an arbitrary reduction from their choice, whether that choice is affirmative or passive, it's an eminently reasonable presumption that they will need to. This is the reason why modern browsers feature a zoom function, in order to defend against web authors who affirmatively choose not to respect site visitors. > while retaining an optimal visual > experience for the vast majority of users under default settings? Yes. > Simple as that. Not simple. You: 1-are not using my eyes 2-are not sitting in my chair 3-are not seeing my display Therefore you have no concept of optimal visual experience from any perspective nor for any environment except your own. You OTOH probably: 1-have above average eyesight (few people with poor eyes in web design business) 2-have larger than average display (working at it most of day, well deserved) 3-don't need to actually use (read) your page (intimate familiarity) This distorts your perspective as compared to average web users. http://css.nu/articles/font-analogy.html http://www.informationarchitects.jp/100e2r?v=4 http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html Signature"The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining ever brighter till the full light of day." Proverbs 4:18 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ Scripsit Jonas Smithson: > In his book "CSS: The Definitive Guide" 2nd edition (pgs. 116-117), > Eric Meyer has an interesting discussion about "font-size-adjust" > that was evidently dropped in CSS 2.1 due to browser non-support. It has now been implemented on Firefox 2 (on Windows). > p.someClass {font: 13px/1.5em Georgia, 15px/1.4em "Times New Roman", > 14px/1.5em serif;} > > ...but I have a feeling that wouldn't actually do what I want. Er... > would it? I doubt that. It violates CSS syntax. You might be able to do something via client-side scripting, but that would be off-topic here. SignatureJukka K. Korpela ("Yucca") http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.