Jan Walzer <jan### [at] lzernet> wrote:
> looks more clean now ... but wouldn't it be an idea to incorporate
> it in the new official POV-homepage? ... maybe in the community-section?

  Actually we have talked about putting the pages at povray.org, mainly
because my current account at tut.fi will not last forever.

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Pandora <pan### [at] pandora-softwarecom> wrote:
>     The text size is a bit big, imo.

  I wish all browser would implement CSS in the same way... but they don't.
  In Mozilla text-size medium is the default text size (when nothing has
been specified). Apparently in IE text-size medium is a rather big size,
much bigger than the default.
  *sigh*

  I'll try to convert everything to relative sizes if I can figure out how
it is done.

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   In Mozilla text-size medium is the default text size (when nothing has
> been specified). Apparently in IE text-size medium is a rather big size,
> much bigger than the default.

  Actually it seems that specifying font-family: sans-serif makes the font
rather big. serif is a lot smaller... Odd thing.

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Actually IE seems to have a pretty peculiar way of interpreting CSS.

  For example, I have defined the pre-blocks to have a font-size: small.
IE (at least my IE 6) interprets this in such a way that the font is
actually larger than in other parts, where the font-size is 'medium' (which
should be larger than 'small'). Mozilla makes the <pre> text smaller than
the medium text, as it should.
  If I define <h3> to have normal text (ie. not bolded) with medium
font-size, Mozilla makes it normal text with medium font-size, as
anywhere else, but IE makes the text bolded and larger than other medium-sized
text. Ugh? If I make the text italic, IE does not bold it anymore (???) but
it still has a larger font than other medium-sized text.

  From what I can see, Mozilla works in a much more logical and consistent
way when interpreting CSS, so I'll stick with that and let IE do whatever
it pleases. It's not my headache.

  (On the other hand, both browsers make the sans-serif font-family larger
than the serif font-family, for some reason. *shrug*)

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
>   I decided (at last!) to completely renovate the layout of the povQ&T pages
> so that they would be more serious and professional-looking (but being still
> nice to look).
> 
>   I believe that the pages are now much nicer to read.
>   Any opinions?
> 
>   (http://iki.fi/warp/povQandT/)

Looks fine to me in both Netscape and IE.

-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

Odd effect seems to be happening here for me, using IE 6 (or 6.00.2600.000).
A whole group of links change to the visited link color just by going to
one. Several the blue ones on the left changed too only by going to one of
those red links. I didn't jot down which did what, if that would have helped
to know.

Are you going to rely on the browser navigation buttons instead of having
jumps within the pages?

I actually liked the color scheme. Blue and orange is my favorite color
combination. Not especially thrilled about red but for links it makes sense
anyway. The rest of the layout looked right, in this short time to see it.

Post a reply to this message

hughes b wrote:
>Odd effect seems to be happening here for me, using IE 6 (or 6.00.2600.000).
>A whole group of links change to the visited link color just by going to
>one. Several the blue ones on the left changed too only by going to one of
>those red links. I didn't jot down which did what, if that would have helped
>to know.

I think this is an IE issue, I've noticed it on many occasions, in all
(windows) versions. IE appears to just remember which pages you've been to,
and since many of the links just jump to named anchors on the a single
page, they are all marked as visited.

It works as expected in Mozilla.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 29 Aug 2002 23:08:09 +0200, "Jan Walzer" <jan### [at] lzernet> wrote:
> looks more clean now ... but wouldn't it be an idea to incorporate
> it in the new official POV-homepage? ... maybe in the community-section?

meybe not the latest one but http://www.povray.org/documentation/view/305/

BTW: to website admins, when you click on "current version" on that page it
returns "Sorry, we cannot find a match for your request" for the page
http://www.povray.org/cgi-bin/redirect?vfaq

ABX

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
>   What? One of the nice features of CSS is that you can, for example,
> make different types of links with different colors, and now you want
> to take this joy from me? ;)

Just because we CAN use CSS does not mean that we MUST use CSS. ;)

In all honesty, though, badly-used gimmick CSS is the new annoying 
feature for "rilly kewl web sights!!!!11", joining the ranks of things 
like BLINK and MARQUEE, embedded MIDIs, Javascripts that demand that you 
tell them your name, and so on. You would do well to consider using CSS 
to do the same work with less effort.

(This is general advice, BTW, not specific to your site.. which I 
haven't actually seen as I type this!)

I agree with the need for link appearance consistency, too. Remember, 
your web page is also a user interface. ;)

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
 >
>   Actually IE seems to have a pretty peculiar way of interpreting CSS.

IE has a pretty peculiar way of interpreting everything. ;)  Mozilla is 
probably your best bet as far as rendering a given page correctly.. 
assuming that the HTML, CSS, and so forth are correct and valid (which 
they should be anyway).

On setting an appropriate text size:

Using absolute size keywords will have different effects in different 
browsers, as there is no standard text size for a given keyword. 
Likewise, using points will foul up modern browsers, as they tend to try 
to compensate for the viewer's physical screen resolution so as to draw 
the text at a real-world correct size.. obviously not only is this not a 
predictable effect, but since the rest of the page won't scale to match, 
it becomes impossible to "fit" text to a certain layout or to graphics.

I personally prefer using pixels, as *in theory* every browser should 
interpret a pixel value identically. Unfortunately, the CSS people 
decided it would be a clever idea to redefine a "pixel" as a tiny 
fraction of the viewing arc, or some such nonsense.. this provides 
forward compatibility with printers, super hi-res monitors, and so 
forth.. but I don't see that it does so any better than points or ems, 
and meanwhile it completely breaks the one advantage that pixels had, 
which was to be able to draw text at a certain size relative to every 
other graphic, piece of text, widget, or anything else on the screen. 
Anyway, Opera follows the notion that these fake CSS pixels are better 
than real ones, and I have seen Mozilla's people argue over it, so even 
pixel-based layouts may break someday.

Ultimately, it boils down to this: you're screwed. The best you can do 
is pick something that you like that will hopefully work for everybody 
and wish for the best. People will bitch; endeavor to ignore them.

On the apparent size difference between serif and sans-serif fonts: my 
first guess would be that this is due to differing x-heights (the 
x-height being more or less how high the "middle" part of the font is 
relative to how tall the letters are; for instance, a lowercase letter 
with no ascender, such as "c" or "m", will usually be as tall as the 
x-height). Serif fonts tend to have an x-height somewhere near the 
middle, while many sans-serif fonts have larger x-heights (Verdana, for 
instance, has a really big one). Using a large x-height can enhance 
readability by allowing more resolution for lowercase letters (which, 
after all, make up the majority of text) but it will also cause the font 
to appear larger.. and, conversely, using a smaller one will make the 
text look smaller. In other words, it's mostly just an optical illusion 
and you shouldn't worry about it more than you have to.

Of course, there are other possibilities; the two fonts may have a real 
size difference (for instance, if one of them has some extra space added 
to the top and/or bottom of the glyphs, thereby requiring that the 
characters be small to make room) which would cause them to appear as 
different sizes at the same point size, or your browser may be 
displaying them at different sizes for some reason, or whatever. But I 
would suspect the x-height first.

That was probably more than you wanted to know ;)

-Xplo

Post a reply to this message