Comments on: Site http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/07/10/site/ Stephanie Booth's online ramblings. Mon, 01 Dec 2008 20:28:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: sniffles http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/07/10/site/#comment-430395 sniffles Tue, 17 Jul 2001 08:41:00 +0000 http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/07/10/site/#comment-430395 <p>Why do I get the feeling the guy who wrote that article is a Mac user :)<br> <br> I use pt rather than px for accessibility reasons, which the article <br>outlines. I think it is saying that if you want to create print-perfect <br>kind of designs, px is the go.<br> <a href="http://alistapart.com/stories/fear4/3.html">http://alistapart.com/stories/fear4/3.html</a><br> Running in px, do you have complaints from users of different <br>resolutions? I've just found that using pt, resolution isn't a problem so <br>much (because it shouldn't be). And with px there is the issue that <br>printers understand pixels differently from screen. I don't know the <br>extent of support for media="print". (someone else might?) <br> I was also in a corporate environment where NS4 was the standard - in pt, <br>you can easily adjust change the size of the font as it appears within <br>your browser (Ctrl+[ and Ctrl+]), not so in px. I later discovered that <br>this is the contrary in IE 5, <em>and</em> it isn't particularly obvious how this <br>'accessibility' feature can be used. Bleh.<br> Sorry I'm not much help :)</p> Why do I get the feeling the guy who wrote that article is a Mac user :)

I use pt rather than px for accessibility reasons, which the article
outlines. I think it is saying that if you want to create print-perfect
kind of designs, px is the go.
http://alistapart.com/stories/fear4/3.html
Running in px, do you have complaints from users of different
resolutions? I've just found that using pt, resolution isn't a problem so
much (because it shouldn't be). And with px there is the issue that
printers understand pixels differently from screen. I don't know the
extent of support for media=”print”. (someone else might?)
I was also in a corporate environment where NS4 was the standard - in pt,
you can easily adjust change the size of the font as it appears within
your browser (Ctrl+[ and Ctrl+]), not so in px. I later discovered that
this is the contrary in IE 5, and it isn't particularly obvious how this
'accessibility' feature can be used. Bleh.
Sorry I'm not much help :)

]]> By: Tara http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/07/10/site/#comment-430394 Tara Mon, 16 Jul 2001 16:17:00 +0000 http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/07/10/site/#comment-430394 <p>Does this mean that in your experience, pt is more "stable" than px??<br> <em>confused</em>: <a href="http://alistapart.com/stories/fear4/">http://alistapart.com/stories/fear4/</a></p> Does this mean that in your experience, pt is more “stable” than px??
confused: http://alistapart.com/stories/fear4/

]]> By: sniffles http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/07/10/site/#comment-430393 sniffles Mon, 16 Jul 2001 09:35:00 +0000 http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/07/10/site/#comment-430393 <p>eew. that didn't work. <br> <br> That was supposed to have said:<br> <br> I've stuck to using pt's for now, because it seems a lesser sin than <br>using px's <-- this could present problems with printing.<br> <br> Bring on CSS3. And the browsers which support it, of course. :)</p> eew. that didn't work.

That was supposed to have said:

I've stuck to using pt's for now, because it seems a lesser sin than
using px's <– this could present problems with printing.

Bring on CSS3. And the browsers which support it, of course. :)

]]> By: sniffles http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/07/10/site/#comment-430392 sniffles Mon, 16 Jul 2001 09:33:00 +0000 http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/07/10/site/#comment-430392 <p>My past experience with relative font sizes haven't been particularly <br>good.<br> Using x-small|small|large presents problems across platforms - fonts tend <br>to look too small on a Macs and unpredictable on Unix - and they may not <br>give you the granularity in different font sizes that you might need. <br> I've stuck to using pt's for now, because it seems a lesser sin than <br>using px's</p> My past experience with relative font sizes haven't been particularly
good.
Using x-small|small|large presents problems across platforms - fonts tend
to look too small on a Macs and unpredictable on Unix - and they may not
give you the granularity in different font sizes that you might need.
I've stuck to using pt's for now, because it seems a lesser sin than
using px's

]]> By: Tara http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/07/10/site/#comment-430391 Tara Sat, 14 Jul 2001 08:31:00 +0000 http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/07/10/site/#comment-430391 <p>Karl, I'm not sure I get you, in fact. The text was unreadably small for <br>you when I specified it as 0.75 em (which I now understand, is a <br>ridiculous thing to do), but what about when I specified it as 13px? That <br>shouldn't be affected by the font size you have chosen as default in your <br>browser, should it?</p> Karl, I'm not sure I get you, in fact. The text was unreadably small for
you when I specified it as 0.75 em (which I now understand, is a
ridiculous thing to do), but what about when I specified it as 13px? That
shouldn't be affected by the font size you have chosen as default in your
browser, should it?

]]> By: darren http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/07/10/site/#comment-430390 darren Sat, 14 Jul 2001 06:19:00 +0000 http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/07/10/site/#comment-430390 <p>Do what I've done, and simply use relative font sizes.. ie: font-size: <br>small|x-small|xx-small; That way, it'll still be scalable, but you can <br>have things smaller as well.</p> Do what I've done, and simply use relative font sizes.. ie: font-size:
small|x-small|xx-small; That way, it'll still be scalable, but you can
have things smaller as well.

]]> By: Stephanie http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/07/10/site/#comment-430389 Stephanie Thu, 12 Jul 2001 11:55:00 +0000 http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/07/10/site/#comment-430389 <p>gah. what do I do now then?<br> <em>choke</em></p> gah. what do I do now then?
choke

]]> By: Tara http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/07/10/site/#comment-430388 Tara Thu, 12 Jul 2001 06:55:00 +0000 http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/07/10/site/#comment-430388 <p>gah. what do I do now then?<br> <em>choke</em></p> gah. what do I do now then?
choke

]]> By: Karl Dubost http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/07/10/site/#comment-430387 Karl Dubost Wed, 11 Jul 2001 21:16:00 +0000 http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/07/10/site/#comment-430387 <p>this one is better... because before it was unreadable....<br> So we're faced to a problem. The problem is in fact people have different <br>font-size preferences in their own browser.<br> I decided myself, that defaut font-size in my browser is 10pt. So when <br>I'm designing style sheets, I recommend to use 100% for the smallest font <br>in your page.<br> and gives in your stylesheet for others biggest size.<br> 100% 150% or 200%<br> but the minimum is 100%. For me if you give 80% or 95%, the font will <br>become unreadable on screen.<br> In the future (CSS3) there will be a possibility to specify, something <br>like<br> 80%, but with a lower limit of 10pt for example.</p> this one is better… because before it was unreadable….
So we're faced to a problem. The problem is in fact people have different
font-size preferences in their own browser.
I decided myself, that defaut font-size in my browser is 10pt. So when
I'm designing style sheets, I recommend to use 100% for the smallest font
in your page.
and gives in your stylesheet for others biggest size.
100% 150% or 200%
but the minimum is 100%. For me if you give 80% or 95%, the font will
become unreadable on screen.
In the future (CSS3) there will be a possibility to specify, something
like
80%, but with a lower limit of 10pt for example.

]]> By: Lars http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/07/10/site/#comment-430386 Lars Wed, 11 Jul 2001 17:26:00 +0000 http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/07/10/site/#comment-430386 <p>Hi Tara,<br> I prefer the pixel size you used to this one. This one's big - too big!<br> Lars!</p> Hi Tara,
I prefer the pixel size you used to this one. This one's big - too big!
Lars!

]]> By: Baud http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/07/10/site/#comment-430385 Baud Wed, 11 Jul 2001 04:33:00 +0000 http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/07/10/site/#comment-430385 <p>C'est un peu grand pour mon 1024*768 (PC) <br> Le genre de taille de texte que je réserverais à  un titre ou à  un <br>intertitre pas au corps du texte. A vue de nez on dirait du corps 16 ou du <br>18. Je me trompe?</p> C'est un peu grand pour mon 1024*768 (PC)
Le genre de taille de texte que je réserverais à  un titre ou à  un
intertitre pas au corps du texte. A vue de nez on dirait du corps 16 ou du
18. Je me trompe?

]]> By: Baud http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/07/10/site/#comment-228 Baud Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/07/10/site/#comment-228 <p>C'est un peu grand pour mon 1024*768 (PC) Le genre de taille de texte que je réserverais à  un titre ou à  un intertitre pas au corps du texte. A vue de nez on dirait du corps 16 ou du 18. Je me trompe?</p> C’est un peu grand pour mon 1024*768 (PC)
Le genre de taille de texte que je réserverais à  un titre ou à  un
intertitre pas au corps du texte. A vue de nez on dirait du corps 16 ou du
18. Je me trompe?

]]> By: Lars http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/07/10/site/#comment-229 Lars Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/07/10/site/#comment-229 <p>Hi Tara, I prefer the pixel size you used to this one. This one's big - too big! Lars!</p> Hi Tara,
I prefer the pixel size you used to this one. This one’s big - too big!
Lars!

]]> By: Karl Dubost http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/07/10/site/#comment-230 Karl Dubost Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/07/10/site/#comment-230 <p>this one is better... because before it was unreadable.... So we're faced to a problem. The problem is in fact people have different font-size preferences in their own browser. I decided myself, that defaut font-size in my browser is 10pt. So when I'm designing style sheets, I recommend to use 100% for the smallest font in your page. and gives in your stylesheet for others biggest size. 100% 150% or 200% but the minimum is 100%. For me if you give 80% or 95%, the font will become unreadable on screen. In the future (CSS3) there will be a possibility to specify, something like 80%, but with a lower limit of 10pt for example.</p> this one is better… because before it was unreadable….
So we’re faced to a problem. The problem is in fact people have different
font-size preferences in their own browser.
I decided myself, that defaut font-size in my browser is 10pt. So when
I’m designing style sheets, I recommend to use 100% for the smallest font
in your page.
and gives in your stylesheet for others biggest size.
100% 150% or 200%
but the minimum is 100%. For me if you give 80% or 95%, the font will
become unreadable on screen.
In the future (CSS3) there will be a possibility to specify, something
like
80%, but with a lower limit of 10pt for example.

]]> By: Tara http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/07/10/site/#comment-231 Tara Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 http://climbtothestars.org/archives/2001/07/10/site/#comment-231 <p>gah. what do I do now then? <em>choke</em></p> gah. what do I do now then?
choke

]]>