Site Ratings & Reviews - Font size issues. Opinions please.

Author

Font size issues. Opinions please.

Andrew D

2004-08-14, 4:17 am

I have been juggling font sizes and styles on my new website but am coming
up against the problem of different browsers displaying the text
differently, depending on the default fonst size set in the browser prefs.

Obviously there's no way I can control other people's browser prefs but is
there an accepted default font and size for paragraph text?

My site can be viewed at:
http://members.westnet.com.au./andydolphin

Pages which include paragraph text are:
index.htm, bio.htm, wherelive.htm, ebook.htm

Andy D.
http://members.westnet.com.au/andydolphin
Fine art gallery - online, Western Australia
Landscapes, seascapes and still life paintings in oils.

Dave Patton

2004-08-14, 4:17 am

andyd@elsewhere.com (Andrew D) wrote in
news:andyd-1408041337380001@dip-220-235-61-173.wa.westnet.com.au:

> I have been juggling font sizes and styles on my new website but am
> coming up against the problem of different browsers displaying the
> text differently, depending on the default fonst size set in the
> browser prefs.
>
> Obviously there's no way I can control other people's browser prefs
> but is there an accepted default font and size for paragraph text?

Yes, 100%, which means 100% of what the browser's owner
has specified, which is best accomplished by not specifying
font sizes.

> My site can be viewed at:
> http://members.westnet.com.au./andydolphin

No, it can't. However, if you remove the period
after the "au" the URL will work, but would have
better been specified as:
http://members.westnet.com.au/andydolphin/

> Pages which include paragraph text are:
> index.htm

Which has 22 validation erros. It's always
best to first fix any validation errors before
asking for help, or worrying about other things.

> Andy D.
> http://members.westnet.com.au/andydolphin
> Fine art gallery - online, Western Australia
> Landscapes, seascapes and still life paintings in oils.

Your signature is "broken". It should start with
"-- "(two dashes followed by a space) alone on
the first line.

--
Dave Patton
Canadian Coordinator, Degree Confluence Project
http://www.confluence.org/
My website: http://members.shaw.ca/davepatton/

jake

2004-08-14, 7:14 am

In message
<andyd-1408041337380001@dip-220-235-61-173.wa.westnet.com.au>, Andrew D
<andyd@elsewhere.com> writes
>I have been juggling font sizes and styles on my new website but am coming
>up against the problem of different browsers displaying the text
>differently, depending on the default fonst size set in the browser prefs.
>
>Obviously there's no way I can control other people's browser prefs but is
>there an accepted default font and size for paragraph text?
>
>My site can be viewed at:
>http://members.westnet.com.au./andydolphin

http://members.westnet.com.au/andydolphin/

>
>Pages which include paragraph text are:
>index.htm, bio.htm, wherelive.htm, ebook.htm
>
>Andy D.
>http://members.westnet.com.au/andydolphin
>Fine art gallery - online, Western Australia
>Landscapes, seascapes and still life paintings in oils.

Dave seems to have answered your question.

Just a note to say that the site is well put together and looks really
good in Internet Explorer, Netscape 7 and Opera.

The font choices look good to me. Many studies will tell you that a
sans-serif font for body text is easier to read, but the use of Times
seems fine here (although Georgia -- which is designed for the screen --
might be a better choice to put in the suggested font list as #1).

Just one suggestion:
*All* images should have alternative text specified. So, go through your
site and ensure that every spacer.gif (and similar) has ALT="" set in
each <img> tag.

regards.

--
Jake

Andrew D

2004-08-14, 7:16 pm

In article <P3EFRbDiCdHBFwUW@gododdin.demon.co.uk>, jake
<jake@gododdin.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In message
> <andyd-1408041337380001@dip-220-235-61-173.wa.westnet.com.au>, Andrew D
> <andyd@elsewhere.com> writes
[color=darkred]
> http://members.westnet.com.au/andydolphin/

My old sig used to read "I'm a great speller but a hopless tpyist" - seems
I should have stuck with it.

[color=darkred]
> Dave seems to have answered your question.

> Just a note to say that the site is well put together and looks really
> good in Internet Explorer, Netscape 7 and Opera.

Thanks for that.

> The font choices look good to me. Many studies will tell you that a
> sans-serif font for body text is easier to read, but the use of Times
> seems fine here (although Georgia -- which is designed for the screen --
> might be a better choice to put in the suggested font list as #1).

I juggled between sans and serif and settled on serif. My background is
more in print design where serif was generally regarded as more readable.
I might revisit the sans options and take a fresh look.

> Just one suggestion:
> *All* images should have alternative text specified. So, go through your
> site and ensure that every spacer.gif (and similar) has ALT="" set in
> each <img> tag.

Actually, I saw that advice come up when I ran it through the assessor on
"web pages that suck". Is the alt text recommended in this case for
formatting purposes or is there some other reason for it?

Andy D.
--
http://members.westnet.com.au/andydolphin
Fine art gallery - online, Western Australia
Landscapes, seascapes and still life paintings in oils.

Andrew D

2004-08-14, 7:16 pm

In article <Xns9544EF692DBDBmrzaphoddirectcaold@24.71.223.159>, Dave
Patton <spam@trap.invalid> wrote:

> andyd@elsewhere.com (Andrew D) wrote in
> news:andyd-1408041337380001@dip-220-235-61-173.wa.westnet.com.au:
>
>
> Yes, 100%, which means 100% of what the browser's owner
> has specified, which is best accomplished by not specifying
> font sizes.

>
> No, it can't. However, if you remove the period
> after the "au" the URL will work, but would have
> better been specified as:
> http://members.westnet.com.au/andydolphin/

Sorry, I have dyslexic fingers. :)
[color=darkred]
> Which has 22 validation erros. It's always
> best to first fix any validation errors before
> asking for help, or worrying about other things.

I did see some validation errors related, it seems, to the lack of a
Doctype declaration. I have been trying to determine what doctype I need
to use to match the html - created in Macromedia Dreamweaver 3.0. Any
hints here would also be appreciated.

[color=darkred]
> Your signature is "broken". It should start with
> "-- "(two dashes followed by a space) alone on
> the first line.

Fixed (hopefully).

Thanks for your time.
--
http://members.westnet.com.au/andydolphin
Fine art gallery - online, Western Australia
Landscapes, seascapes and still life paintings in oils.

Andrew D

2004-08-14, 7:16 pm

In article <Xns9544EF692DBDBmrzaphoddirectcaold@24.71.223.159>, Dave
Patton <spam@trap.invalid> wrote:

> andyd@elsewhere.com (Andrew D) wrote in
> news:andyd-1408041337380001@dip-220-235-61-173.wa.westnet.com.au:
>
>
> Yes, 100%, which means 100% of what the browser's owner
> has specified, which is best accomplished by not specifying
> font sizes.

I'm using Dreamweaver 3.0 which offers either "none" or a range of sizes
from 1-7 and (+/-)1-7. I've reset some text to "none" which I assume
leaves text at the default size set by the browser. I've used "Heading"
settings for larger text. I've put up a test page at:

http://members.westnet.com.au/andydolphin/texttest.htm

If you feel inclined, could you offer an opinion on this page. (Note, I
haven't altered the link and copyright text below the main screen but will
do so when I'm comfy with a final decision)
--
Andy D.
http://members.westnet.com.au/andydolphin
Fine art gallery - online, Western Australia
Landscapes, seascapes and still life paintings in oils.

Dave Patton

2004-08-14, 11:16 pm

andyd@elsewhere.com (Andrew D) wrote in news:andyd-1408042242030001@dip-
220-235-63-45.wa.westnet.com.au:

[color=darkred]
>
> I did see some validation errors related, it seems, to the lack of a
> Doctype declaration. I have been trying to determine what doctype I need
> to use to match the html - created in Macromedia Dreamweaver 3.0. Any
> hints here would also be appreciated.

You have it backwards. Select a doctype, and use it for all
your pages. Use either HTML 4.01 Transitional, or better yet,
HTML 4.01 Strict. You then author pages that validate to that
doctype. If Dreamweaver is 'getting in the way' then use a
different authoring tool, or ask in a dreamweaver-related
newsgroup/forum for tips/techniques of how to use it to
author valid HTML.

Other things to look at are that you shouldn't be using
tables for layout - use CSS instead.

--
Dave Patton
Canadian Coordinator, Degree Confluence Project
http://www.confluence.org/
My website: http://members.shaw.ca/davepatton/

Dave Patton

2004-08-14, 11:16 pm

andyd@elsewhere.com (Andrew D) wrote in
news:andyd-1408042331520001@dip-220-235-63-45.wa.westnet.com.au:

> In article <Xns9544EF692DBDBmrzaphoddirectcaold@24.71.223.159>, Dave
> Patton <spam@trap.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> I'm using Dreamweaver 3.0 which offers either "none" or a range of
> sizes from 1-7 and (+/-)1-7. I've reset some text to "none" which I
> assume leaves text at the default size set by the browser. I've used
> "Heading" settings for larger text. I've put up a test page at:
>
> http://members.westnet.com.au/andydolphin/texttest.htm

A)
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/fontsize.html
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/verdana.html
B)
When you use the W3C validator:
http://validator.w3.org/detailed.html
select the Outline checkbox. The look at the outline.
Does it make sense? If not, you haven't used your
heading tags properly. For example, it sounds like
you are trying to control text size by marking up things
as headings. That is wrong - if something is a heading,
use a heading tag. HTML is a markup language - markup headings
as headings, lists as lists, paragraphs as paragraphs, etc.
Then if desired, adjust the presentation(e.g. text size)
by using CSS. Of course, you should start with valid HTML,
that is also "correct". Your example page, even if it
validated, isn't "correct", as it is missing a first-level
header(<h1> ).
C)
If you aren't already, get the Mozilla Firefox browser,
and the Web Developer, DOM inspector, and Live HTTPHeaders
extensions. It makes life much easier. In any case, you
should always do your initial web development testing
in one of the better browsers, such as Mozilla, and only
then bother with Internet Explorer, which is broken
in a number of ways.

--
Dave Patton
Canadian Coordinator, Degree Confluence Project
http://www.confluence.org/
My website: http://members.shaw.ca/davepatton/

Toby Inkster

2004-08-14, 11:16 pm

Andrew D wrote:

> Is the alt text recommended in this case for
> formatting purposes or is there some other reason for it?

According to the HTML specs, all <img> elements ***MUST*** have an alt
attribute. There are many uses for it, but it all comes down to providing
an alternative to display when the image cannot be displayed for some
reason.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact
Now Playing ~ ./scorpions_-_winds_of_change.ogg

jake

2004-08-14, 11:16 pm

In message <andyd-1408042235450001@dip-220-235-63-45.wa.westnet.com.au>,
Andrew D <andyd@elsewhere.com> writes
>In article <P3EFRbDiCdHBFwUW@gododdin.demon.co.uk>, jake
><jake@gododdin.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
[snip]

>
>
[snip]

>
>
>Actually, I saw that advice come up when I ran it through the assessor on
>"web pages that suck". Is the alt text recommended in this case for
>formatting purposes or is there some other reason for it?
>
>
>Andy D.

Well, there's a couple of reasons.

(1) Some screen-readers will announce the fact there's an image there if
there's no alt text . If the alt text is set to null, then they tend to
ignore them.

(2) ditto Text-only browsers, or browsers with images switched off.

(3) It's an accessibility requirement -- both for the US Section 508,
and W3C Web Accessibility Guidelines.

(4) The HTML validators will complain.

regards
--
Jake

Neal

2004-08-14, 11:16 pm

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 22:35:45 +0800, Andrew D <andyd@elsewhere.com> wrote:

> In article <P3EFRbDiCdHBFwUW@gododdin.demon.co.uk>, jake
> <jake@gododdin.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Actually, I saw that advice come up when I ran it through the assessor on
> "web pages that suck". Is the alt text recommended in this case for
> formatting purposes or is there some other reason for it?

Not sure what their assessor is, but it clearly didn't tell you enough...
never worry, a.h.c is here.

http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct...s.html#adef-alt - alt is
required on img. The attribute's value is basically what text you'd want
presented as a replacement if the user cannot see the image. If the image
should have no replacement text, then alt="" is allowed.

In IE this creates a popup tooltip box with the alt value, while other
browsers do not use alt in this way, which isn't specified in the specs.
However, to actually set a tooltip in supporting browsers we use the title
attribute. (In IE title value is used if available as the tooltip, other
wise reverts to alt, then nothing. Other browsers use title, then either a
file description or no tooltip.)

Toby Inkster

2004-08-15, 7:16 am

Andrew D wrote:

> I always avoided CSS in the past because Netscape 4.7 (Mac) never seemed
> to deal with it too well,

That's like saying you should avoid Javascript because Internet Explorer
2.0 doesn't deal with it too well. Netscape 7.2 is due out this month!

Use CSS if you want. Use Javascript if you want. Just be aware that not
all browsers support them and that some people have disabled them. Ensure
that your pages can be read and navigated when these optional extras are
turned off.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

Andrew D

2004-08-15, 7:16 am

In article <Xns95455B25E3A07mrzaphoddirectcaold@24.71.223.159>, Dave
Patton <spam@trap.invalid> wrote:

> andyd@elsewhere.com (Andrew D) wrote in news:andyd-1408042242030001@dip-
> 220-235-63-45.wa.westnet.com.au:
>
>
>
> You have it backwards. Select a doctype, and use it for all
> your pages. Use either HTML 4.01 Transitional, or better yet,
> HTML 4.01 Strict. You then author pages that validate to that
> doctype. If Dreamweaver is 'getting in the way' then use a
> different authoring tool, or ask in a dreamweaver-related
> newsgroup/forum for tips/techniques of how to use it to
> author valid HTML.
>
> Other things to look at are that you shouldn't be using
> tables for layout - use CSS instead.

Okay, I've had a bit of a play with the html and tried validating using
4.01 transitional DTD. I've narrowed errors down to 2 and both relate to
the use of a background image in a table cell - which I gather is not
strictly valid html - but which I also gather is widely supported
regardless?

Obviously, if/when I shift over to css rather than tables for layout, I
guess this problem will go away (and no doubt a host of other problems
will arise).

It does appear a number of the errors were created by
Dreamweaver/Fireworks, the most frustrating being a looong comment
declaration beginning with "<!---------------". Fixing this took some
figuring out. Other errors occured as a result of Dreamweaver allowing
non-compliant code.

Thanks to everyone who's offered opinion/advice.
--
Andy D.
http://members.westnet.com.au/andydolphin
Fine art gallery - online, Western Australia
Landscapes, seascapes and still life paintings in oils.

Andrew D

2004-08-15, 12:17 pm

In article <pan.2004.08.15.08.58.14.483585@tobyinkster.co.uk>, Toby
Inkster <usenet200408@tobyinkster.co.uk> wrote:

> Andrew D wrote:
>
>
> That's like saying you should avoid Javascript because Internet Explorer
> 2.0 doesn't deal with it too well.

Yeah, I know. I was just admitting my shortcomings. It's been a while
since I've sat and created a web page and until a short while ago (weeks,
not years) I still used NS4.7 as my browser of choice. As such I created
it for me.

> Netscape 7.2 is due out this month!

After the advice given here (and now being the proud owner of a
brand-spanking new version of Mozilla Firefox) I will certianly be looking
at CSS.

Dreamweaver 3.0 (the tool I'm using) actually has CSS features and my
initial investigations suggest that I seriously need my head read for not
investigating them years ago.

> Use CSS if you want. Use Javascript if you want. Just be aware that not
> all browsers support them and that some people have disabled them. Ensure
> that your pages can be read and navigated when these optional extras are
> turned off.

I'll avoid Javascript unless it is the only way to achieve something
important. I am one of those who often turns it off to get rid of annoying
stuff. If anyone has any stats, I'd be interested to know how many people
disable their style sheets, and why?
--
Andy D.
http://members.westnet.com.au/andydolphin
Fine art gallery - online, Western Australia
Landscapes, seascapes and still life paintings in oils.