Dreamweaver - font sizes

Author

font sizes

doug777

2005-03-04, 4:20 am

Using Verdana, I need to set the CSS file to x-small to get the size to
look right in DW and in ie6 (using F12).

But I need to set it to small to get the same reproduced size in Firefox
and Netscape.

It looks to me as though it is DW and ie6 that are displaying the font
at one size bigger than I've set.

Can anyone suggest any reason why I should be getting this odd effect.

Doug

Tim Gallant

2005-03-04, 4:20 am

"doug777" <doug777@ms15.hinet.net> wrote in message
news:d08ug7$i99$1@forums.macromedia.com...
> Using Verdana, I need to set the CSS file to x-small to get the size to
> look right in DW and in ie6 (using F12).
>
> But I need to set it to small to get the same reproduced size in Firefox
> and Netscape.
>
> It looks to me as though it is DW and ie6 that are displaying the font at
> one size bigger than I've set.
>
> Can anyone suggest any reason why I should be getting this odd effect.

I don't think CSS standards mandate a particular size using that method
(hence different renderings by different browsers). Personally, I would use
pixels - try something like 9px and see what you get.

tim

discman

2005-03-04, 4:20 am

As Tim Gallant said....'Pixels' Don't use 'Points'. That is for print media.
Use numbers like 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 24,....As a rule don't use numbers like
13, 15, 17. Then after you get the hang of it you can use %, em, so on and so
on. All so don't use mm or inches.

doug777

2005-03-04, 4:22 am

Thanks so much. That's the answer. Now I can get exactly the size I want
and it's exactly the same everywhere.

Doug

Bonnie in Alameda

2005-03-04, 6:31 pm

doug777 wrote:

> Thanks so much. That's the answer. Now I can get exactly the size I want
> and it's exactly the same everywhere.
>
> Doug
Umm, don't count on it. A remember that some folks like to resize the text.

--
Bonnie in Alameda
kroko at
sbcglobal dot net
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/...ts/CTDSites.woa

Michael Fesser

2005-03-04, 6:32 pm

.oO(doug777)

>Thanks so much. That's the answer.

If that's the answer then the question was wrong.

>Now I can get exactly the size I want
>and it's exactly the same everywhere.

Nope. Users can still resize it or use a bigger default size.

Care With Font Size
http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/font-size

Micha

Joe {RoastHorse}

2005-03-04, 6:35 pm

especially x-small!

joe

Bonnie in Alameda wrote:
> doug777 wrote:
>
>
> Umm, don't count on it. A remember that some folks like to resize the
> text.
>

--

=================================

Kanzo Limited
www.kanzostudio.com

=================================

Joe {RoastHorse}

2005-03-04, 6:35 pm

> Use numbers like 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 24,....As a rule don't use
numbers like
> 13, 15, 17.

you mean even numbers..? why do you suggest that?

joe

discman wrote:
> As Tim Gallant said....'Pixels' Don't use 'Points'. That is for print media.
> Use numbers like 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 24,....As a rule don't use numbers like
> 13, 15, 17. Then after you get the hang of it you can use %, em, so on and so
> on. All so don't use mm or inches.
>

--

=================================

Kanzo Limited
www.kanzostudio.com

=================================

darrel

2005-03-04, 6:35 pm

> Can anyone suggest any reason why I should be getting this odd effect.

It's the nature of the web. Trying to get a consistent font size across
browsers is often a futile endeavor.

-Darrel

Tim Gallant

2005-03-04, 6:37 pm

> Nope. Users can still resize it or use a bigger default size.

True enough, but only people who need to do so, presumably. And the small
font will scale along with the other sizes on the page, so it should still
look ok.

tim

Michael Fesser

2005-03-04, 6:37 pm

.oO(Tim Gallant)

>
>True enough, but only people who need to do so, presumably.

I do, because I really hate 9px fonts. I'm able to read them, but I
simply don't want to. I prefer text that's easy to read.

>And the small
>font will scale along with the other sizes on the page, so it should still
>look ok.

In my browsers I use a minimum font size of 13px. It's amazing to see
how many sites obviously don't care about their visitors and completely
break with this setting.

Micha

Tim Gallant

2005-03-04, 6:39 pm

> I do, because I really hate 9px fonts. I'm able to read them, but I
> simply don't want to. I prefer text that's easy to read.

Well, it's up to you if you want to see site credits and such in huge
lettering. I suspect very few people do what you're doing.

tim

darrel

2005-03-04, 6:39 pm

> Well, it's up to you if you want to see site credits and such in huge
> lettering. I suspect very few people do what you're doing.

If you don't expect people to read it, then why put it on the site to begin
with?

The fact is a lot of folks use either very high-res screens, or are over 40
and their eyes ain't what they used to be. I'm only 30 but will still resize
most any site setting their type at only 10px in size.

-Darrel

doug777

2005-03-04, 11:17 pm

In fact it turned out that on my computer DW is displaying small as
something over 16px. I got the size I wanted by changing to 12px.

If people resize to make it bigger, it doesn't matter too much, but it
could make the tables difficult to read as lines will break in odd
places. Nevertheless I personally think that's still better than making
people scroll horizontally.

Doug

discman

2005-03-04, 11:17 pm

I have never understood why people use small characters in web sites. Specially
if it main copy to read. With computer monitors getting bigger and having
higher resolution, wasted space. I have 2-21' Sony monitor set-up, using
1600x1200 screen resolution. 50% of the time I have to make the type bigger.

Michael Fesser

2005-03-04, 11:17 pm

.oO(discman)

>I have never understood why people use small characters in web sites. Specially
>if it main copy to read. With computer monitors getting bigger and having
>higher resolution, wasted space. I have 2-21' Sony monitor set-up, using
>1600x1200 screen resolution. 50% of the time I have to make the type bigger.

The nice thing about the WWW is that you can easily configure your
browser to show websites the way you prefer.

The bad thing about the WWW is that many designers are not aware of that
or even try to prevent users from doing it.

Micha

Bonnie in Alameda

2005-03-04, 11:17 pm

doug777 wrote:

>
> If people resize to make it bigger, it doesn't matter too much, but it
> could make the tables difficult to read as

lines will break in odd places.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nevertheless I personally think that's still better than making
> people scroll horizontally.
>
> Doug

^Why would that happen? Are you inserting manual page-breaks in your text?
--
Bonnie in Alameda
kroko at
sbcglobal dot net
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/...ts/CTDSites.woa

doug777

2005-03-04, 11:17 pm

^Why would that happen? Are you inserting manual page-breaks in your
text?

No, but some of the tables are not for layout purposes, but for
Excel-like displays of data. If people view it at less than about 760px
width or increase the font size, the lines break at random places which
does make it a little difficult to read.

Doug

Donna Casey *TMM*

2005-03-04, 11:17 pm

doug777 wrote:
> No, but some of the tables are not for layout purposes, but for
> Excel-like displays of data. If people view it at less than about 760px
> width or increase the font size, the lines break at random places which
> does make it a little difficult to read.

They shouldn't unless there are <br /> or <br> tags inserted between words.

--
Donna Casey | Web Designer/Developer/Instructor
Team Macromedia Dreamweaver & Fireworks | www.macromedia.com/go/team
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Co-Author | Macromedia Studio MX Bible
Contributor | Dreamweaver MX Magic
Contributor | Fireworks MX Magic

discman

2005-03-05, 4:18 am

Flash designers are the worst at this.

doug777

2005-03-05, 4:18 am

They shouldn't unless there are <br /> or <br> tags inserted between
words.

The cells in any given row in the table display several lines of text
(the number of lines depends on prior input from the client) and are
most easily read by scanning across the data. Each type of data is on
its own line, but if you view it in too small a space, the lines break
between words in some cells and create a jumbled look.

Doug

Joe {RoastHorse}

2005-03-07, 7:23 am

I understand and support your POV but using size and colour is one way
that a designer organises and guides a reader through the text. if
everything was BIG the page would loose it's hierarchy and be a
confusing jumble.

joe

darrel wrote:
>
>
> If you don't expect people to read it, then why put it on the site to begin
> with?
>
> The fact is a lot of folks use either very high-res screens, or are over 40
> and their eyes ain't what they used to be. I'm only 30 but will still resize
> most any site setting their type at only 10px in size.
>
> -Darrel
>
>

--

=================================

Kanzo Limited
www.kanzostudio.com

=================================

darrel

2005-03-07, 6:28 pm

> I understand and support your POV but using size and colour is one way
> that a designer organises and guides a reader through the text. if
> everything was BIG the page would loose it's hierarchy and be a
> confusing jumble.

I agree, but you need to let the end-user decide that.

A piece of paper is a piece of paper. You print a brochure, EVERYONE is
going to see it in the exact same way.

A web page is compltely different. The size of your layout is controlled by
the huge variety of resolutions out there. The aspect ratio is controlled by
the huge variety of viewport sizes. The typefaces, sizes, images, etc, can
all be controlled by end-user preferences. The layout is somewhat at the
mercy of the variety of browser rendering engines. The content is delivered
by the wide variety of content delivery devices (beyond just a visual
browser).

So, in the end, one really doesn't know what their design is going to look
like. You do your best to make a good suggestion, but you need to let the
end-user do what they want to do.

Now, all that said, I agree that there are still a lot of issues with how
default fonts sizes are (or are not) set in people's browsers...and it's a
toss-up...do you accomodate those that *do* set default font sizes, or do
you accomodate those that *do not* set default font sizes.

It would seem like an easy argument, but the issue is that browsers, by
default, do default to an unwieldy large font size. And while I always
advocate erring on the side of too-big rather than too-small, I do receive
complaints when we have a web page with the default font not set and they
end up with 16px type.

-Darrel

doug777

2005-03-08, 7:24 am

Donna Casey *TMM*

2005-03-08, 7:24 am

Joe {RoastHorse}

2005-03-13, 6:25 pm