 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
in news:web.3dc4735573b097c92a1c8f120@news.povray.org rmorehouse wrote:
> the text on much of the povray.org website appears to be a fixed
> size and quite small.
in IE6
Tools > Internet Options > General > Accsessibility > Ignore Font sizes
after that you can change the fontsize with
View > Text Size
Ingo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 2 Nov 2002 20:36:53 -0500, "Slime" <slm### [at] slimeland com> wrote:
>Mmm, I've always argued that designers should specify font sizes in such a
>way that lets the user resize them.
It's a browser thing, actually. Modern browsers allow you to override
font sizes in the browser.
>Point in case, right here: If some users
>can't read the content on your site, who cares if it looks correct pixel for
>pixel?
Modern OSs supply accessibility features that are supposed to help
users with accessibility problems experience computing at levels close
to those of users without.
>This isn't aimed at anyone in particular, just those web designers who think
>that specifying font sizes in 'px' is a good idea.
It will remain a good idea as long as pixels are the only truly native
measurement for screen. Points are native for printing only. That's
why you'll find only pixels in my @media screen rules and only points
(or inches) in my @media print rules.
>I don't think I ever
>mentioned the povray.org web site in my arguments, but this is a good
>example of why putting the user's needs before yours is important. Font
>sizes should be specified with keywords or ems or percentages.
NO! Not until all browsers conform to the standards, until then it's a
mess. NS ignores cascading rules for em and % sizes, even 6.0 and 7.0,
and then there are the poor last-century souls using 4.x whose case is
even more desperate.
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thanks Ingo!
that did the trick!
Richard
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Peter Popov" <pet### [at] vipbg> wrote in message
news:5g0asu05gdber5n534s742glsss5ajrae3@4ax.com...
> It will remain a good idea as long as pixels are the only truly native
> measurement for screen. Points are native for printing only. That's
> why you'll find only pixels in my @media screen rules and only points
> (or inches) in my @media print rules.
No. We covered this pretty well in *.off-topic...the actual size of pixels
varies widely, measuring things in pixels only ensures it will either be too
large or too small when people use a screen with a different size or
resolution. An actual size unit is always better for measuring size. You
should *never* use pixels to measure size.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It's a browser thing, actually. Modern browsers allow you to override
> font sizes in the browser.
> Modern OSs supply accessibility features that are supposed to help
> users with accessibility problems experience computing at levels close
> to those of users without.
Well, they should. IE/Win doesn't. Until it does, I believe it's the
designer's job to make sure their users are able to read the content, and
that means making sure font sizes are resizeable. It's a flaw in the
browser, and one that us designers are responsible for making up for.
> It will remain a good idea as long as pixels are the only truly native
> measurement for screen. Points are native for printing only. That's
> why you'll find only pixels in my @media screen rules and only points
> (or inches) in my @media print rules.
> NO! Not until all browsers conform to the standards, until then it's a
> mess. NS ignores cascading rules for em and % sizes, even 6.0 and 7.0,
> and then there are the poor last-century souls using 4.x whose case is
> even more desperate.
I fully agree that point's are a bad unit to use for screen. I won't argue
for percentages or em's, since those are really buggy in some browsers, as
you said. However, font size keywords, while offering somewhat less control
for the designer, are fully resizeable to the user. There's only a couple of
bugs involved with them, and those can be worked around with Tantek's box
model hack.
While I understand that pixels are the only unit of measurement that are
truly reliable to look the same on all screens, since they create
accessibility hassles for some users, they should be avoided until browsers
catch up.
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> No. We covered this pretty well in *.off-topic...the actual size of pixels
> varies widely, measuring things in pixels only ensures it will either be
too
> large or too small when people use a screen with a different size or
> resolution. An actual size unit is always better for measuring size. You
> should *never* use pixels to measure size.
Well, the argument for using pixels is that everything *else* on a web page
is measured with them. Images are an exact width and height measured in
pixels. I understand that as monitors get higher and higher resolutions,
this will make things shrink. However, until we get to the point where a
pixel is *significantly* smaller than, say, a point - where pixels are so
tiny that their size is negligable - things will continue to be based around
pixels since the difference really isn't that extreme. If pixels on my
monitor are smaller than pixels on your monitor, nearly everything looks
smaller to me, and I'm used to it.
So, in this pixel based environment, specifying font sizes in pixels does
make sense. (Certainly more sense than specifying them in points, since OS's
can't agree on how many pixels are in a point.) That's the argument for
using pixels. (More at http://www.alistapart.com/stories/fear4/ .) My
argument, however, is that pixels shouldn't be used since they create
accessibility problems. (More at
http://diveintoaccessibility.org/day_26_using_relative_font_sizes.html .)
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 3 Nov 2002 21:39:11 -0500, "Christopher James Huff"
<cja### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
>No. We covered this pretty well in *.off-topic...the actual size of pixels
>varies widely, measuring things in pixels only ensures it will either be too
>large or too small when people use a screen with a different size or
>resolution. An actual size unit is always better for measuring size. You
>should *never* use pixels to measure size.
While this is true, most people settle at a resolution where the pixel
size is comfortable to them. I can run my 15" monitor at home in
1600x1200 but I don't, because then it's impossible to use my computer
anymore (ever tried to click a 3x3 mm PhotoShop palette icon?) Also,
everything else uses pixels, so if you don't want your icon label to
be 6 times the size of your icon, you should also stick to pixel sizes
for fonts, too.
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3dc54c3a@news.povray.org> , "Slime" <slm### [at] slimelandcom> wrote:
> Well, they should. IE/Win doesn't. Until it does, I believe it's the
> designer's job to make sure their users are able to read the content, and
> that means making sure font sizes are resizeable. It's a flaw in the
> browser, and one that us designers are responsible for making up for.
The current font settings work well in IE on Window provided the user did
not manually change the IE or system settings to completely unreasonable
values. Frequently this happens when users attempt to view sites with too
big or too small fonts and then they forget to switch back to a normal
magnification.
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich
e-mail: mac### [at] povrayorg
I am a member of the POV-Ray Team.
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <web.3dc48fc94b452a862a1c8f120@news.povray.org>,
rmo### [at] coxnet says...
> Slime wrote:
> >> couldnt decide if this was best posted in P.general or P.O.T. oops :)
> >This is fine =)
> >> tried mozilla. it crashes on my machine. :(
> >
> >That's strange. Are you sure it wasn't a beta version or something?
> >
> > - Slime
>
> it may have been. I'm not sure. my Wife found it . when she tried it and it
> crashed she took it off the system.
>
> my machine is pretty strange. AMDK6-2 400mhz on an asus MB with 256mb ram.
>
> need a faster one for pov'ing maybe someday. :)
>
> BTW I Like Slime-POV and i think you're website is pretty cool:)
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
>
Try Opera. It gives you an option to zoom in on the entire page by just
about any amount you want. Not sure about just the text though..
One thing I do wish is that someone would implement one of the newer
image sizing algorithms, instead of relying on the common 'lets make this
pixel bigger' ones. From what I have seen, a few of them can resize an
image quickly to much larger sizes and not have it be just a mess of
squares. Sigh...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Try Opera.
Ack! Don't try Opera for *anything* until it comes out with better DOM
support! (expected in version 7, so it shouldn't be too long.)
Of course, by "better DOM support" i mean "any DOM support at all".
- Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
