This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Stylesheets > February 2004 > font size in table
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
font size in table
|
|
|
| Hi,
I have table text set to 85%, I may change that to em's but for now haven't
If I have a table nested within the table I get font size of 85% of 85% =
72% - too small.
Without specifiying font size in px what should I do here? Basically I want
all fonts a bit smaller that standard but to allow for enlarging them if the
visitor has upped their font size in their browser options.
Thanks
(sent to .authoring.html and .authoring.stylesheets)
Jon
| |
|
|
Jon wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have table text set to 85%, I may change that to em's but for now haven't
>
> If I have a table nested within the table I get font size of 85% of 85% =
> 72% - too small.
>
> Without specifiying font size in px what should I do here?
Have a class name for the outer table, and specify 85% for
that table only. If a nested table gets font size 85% of
85%, I'd say the font size is inherited, so you only need to
specify it once.
But make sure you have set the font 100% for the body, or
else, IE will display the font in the inner table bigger
than the 85% you set for the outer table.
> Basically I want
> all fonts a bit smaller that standard but to allow for enlarging them if the
> visitor has upped their font size in their browser options.
--
Els
Mente humana é como pára-quedas; funciona melhor aberta.
| |
| kchayka 2004-02-21, 10:29 pm |
| Jon wrote:
>
> I have table text set to 85%, I may change that to em's but for now haven't
Don't change. Leave font-size at %, it's generally better supported
than em and avoids a weird resizing bug in WinIE. If you have a mind to
change anything, let it be leaving default sizes at 100% (or not
specifying any size at all).
> If I have a table nested within the table I get font size of 85% of 85% =
> 72% - too small.
I'm glad you realize this.
> Without specifiying font size in px what should I do here? Basically I want
> all fonts a bit smaller that standard but to allow for enlarging them if the
> visitor has upped their font size in their browser options.
Twould be better not to set any font size (85% is too small for my
tastes), and probably better yet not to use nested tables, especially if
they are for layout purposes. However, to prevent you from resorting to
something perhaps worse...
td {font-size:85%;}
table table td {font-size:100%;}
Nested tables should then be 100% of the parent table, but beware of
browsers that don't inherit into tables correctly.
> (sent to .authoring.html and .authoring.stylesheets)
followup to c.i.a.w.s
--
Reply address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
| |
| Stan Brown 2004-02-21, 10:29 pm |
| It seems "Jon" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
>I have table text set to 85%, I may change that to em's but for now haven't
>
>If I have a table nested within the table I get font size of 85% of 85% =
>72% - too small.
>
>Without specifiying font size in px what should I do here?
Don't specify the font size at all, that's what you should do. I
know that sounds snappish, but why would you think you know better
than your visitors what font size is best?
If the table is really logically "fine print", meaning material
intended to be read by only a few aficionados, why not spin it off
into a separate linked document? Or at worst give it a class or ID
and style that class or ID. But it sounds like you have done
something generic like
table { font-size: 85% }
and I cannot imagine any justification for doing that.
> Basically I want
>all fonts a bit smaller that standard but to allow for enlarging them if the
>visitor has upped their font size in their browser options.
"Primum non nocere." Don't create a problem, and you won't have to
worry about ways to compensate for the problem.
Followups set to ciwas.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
| |
| Stephen Poley 2004-02-22, 6:28 am |
| On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 21:03:07 -0500, Stan Brown
<the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>It seems "Jon" wrote in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:
>
>Don't specify the font size at all, that's what you should do. I
>know that sounds snappish, but why would you think you know better
>than your visitors what font size is best?
>
>If the table is really logically "fine print", meaning material
>intended to be read by only a few aficionados, why not spin it off
>into a separate linked document? Or at worst give it a class or ID
>and style that class or ID. But it sounds like you have done
>something generic like
> table { font-size: 85% }
>and I cannot imagine any justification for doing that.
I beg to disagree. With text at 100% appropriate for the main body text
of a page, it's reasonable that a table containing small fragments of
text (names, dates, places, telephone numbers, whatever ...) would be
readable at about 85%. If the table contains several columns, a size of
85% might well be more helpful to the reader.
So *if* the OP is using the table for tabular data, what he's doing
might well be sensible. However I admit the fact that he's using nested
tables makes that rather unlikely.
--
Stephen Poley
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
| |
| Stan Brown 2004-02-22, 9:28 am |
| It seems "Stephen Poley" wrote in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:
>I beg to disagree. With text at 100% appropriate for the main body text
>of a page, it's reasonable that a table containing small fragments of
>text (names, dates, places, telephone numbers, whatever ...) would be
>readable at about 85%. If the table contains several columns, a size of
>85% might well be more helpful to the reader.
A particular table, possibly. I objected to just routinely styling
_every_ table at 85%. For someone who has set their browser for a
comfortable font size, 85% risks being uncomfortably small.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
| |
|
| >>I have table text set to 85%, I may change that to em's but for now
haven't
[color=darkred]
=72% - too small.
<snip>
As ever a nice range of replies - thanks.
As a thought I wonder how many viewers to your / our / my sights actually
know how to change their browser deault font size - most people, in my
experience, that are just web users, don't change ANY of their settings.
But for those that have we need to be able to accomodate them, of course.
Jon
| |
| PeterMcC 2004-02-22, 12:29 pm |
| Jon <jon@SPAM_OFFtheexperts.co.uk> wrote in
<c1aj35$efa$1@titan.btinternet.com>
>
>
> <snip>
>
> As ever a nice range of replies - thanks.
>
> As a thought I wonder how many viewers to your / our / my sights
> actually know how to change their browser deault font size - most
> people, in my experience, that are just web users, don't change ANY
> of their settings. But for those that have we need to be able to
> accomodate them, of course.
That's my experience too but I am told - and it seems to make sense - that
those who need to be able to change them learn how to do so. I guess that,
in return, we ought to make sites that allow for that possibility.
--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.
| |
|
| <snip>
[color=darkred]
>That's my experience too but I am told - and it seems to make sense - that
>those who need to be able to change them learn how to do so. I guess that,
>in return, we ought to make sites that allow for that possibility.
Agreed, so % it is then !!!
Jon
| |
|
|
| Lauri Raittila 2004-02-22, 7:28 pm |
| In article Stan Brown wrote:[color=darkred]
> It seems "Stephen Poley" wrote in
> comp.infosystems.[url]www.authoring.stylesheets:[/url]
>
> A particular table, possibly. I objected to just routinely styling
> _every_ table at 85%. For someone who has set their browser for a
> comfortable font size, 85% risks being uncomfortably small.[/color]
That is especially true on low resolution displays, where limiting factor
is often clearnes of font, not the size. Especially if you have good
vision. I use same pixelfontsize on 72dpi and 100dpi monitors. On 100dpi
monitor font is about 25% smaller in millimeters, but just as readable.
--
Lauri Raittila <[url]http://www.iki.fi/lr[/url]> <[url]http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts[/url]>
Saapi lähettää meiliä, jos aihe ei liity ryhmään, tai on yksityinen
tjsp., mutta älä lähetä samaa viestiä meilitse ja ryhmään.
| |
| Stephen Poley 2004-02-23, 5:28 am |
| On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 18:24:17 +0000 (UTC), "Jon"
<jon@SPAM_OFFtheexperts.co.uk> wrote:
><snip>
>
>
>
>
>Agreed, so % it is then !!!
Right. With your main text at 100%.
And should you be concerned that some of your visitors will find their
default size inconvenient and not know how to change it, you could
always consider the approach I use on my site (see sig).
--
Stephen Poley
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|