Because when I asked for comments on my site-design (Remember? My site,
your opinion!) some of you told me never to change anything on
font-sizes!

What do you guys think of that: http://www.clagnut.com/blog/348/

I hope that's going to be a good discussion!

Michael

Quoth the raven Michael Kalina:

> Because when I asked for comments on my site-design (Remember? My site,
> your opinion!) some of you told me never to change anything on font-sizes!

..which was a Good Idea™.

> What do you guys think of that: http://www.clagnut.com/blog/348/

From your CSS:

/* Clagnut.com typefaces - Lucida family */

/* This reduces default size from 16px to 13px.
All font-sizes after here are in ems and made to whole pixel sizes.
*/
BODY {font-size:81.25%;}   <<<------ Bad Idea™.

/* page heading, main body text and side-col subheadings */
BODY, H1, P, BLOCKQUOTE, LI, TD, #footer, UL#bookmarks H2, #features
H2, .blogsupl H2, FORM H2, BODY#photo H2, #notes H2 {
font-family: "Lucida Bright", Lucidabright, Georgia, "Bitstream Vera
Serif", serif;
}

End quote.  My machine seems to perhaps use Georgia (as I don't have
any of those other ones). Georgia is a fairly nice serif font, but at
81.25% it is looking like a bad (worse?) Times New Roman. I can't read it.

Rethink the body font-size, and change it to 100%. I had to resize
your page to about 140% in order to read it, and my eyes are pretty good.

You should also consider using only fonts that the majority of your
visitors will have. This is quite limited.

> I hope that's going to be a good discussion!

Undoubtedly.

Your page does scale correctly when resized or browser window size
changed. Kudos for that.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

Michael Kalina wrote:

> Because when I asked for comments on my site-design (Remember? My
> site, your opinion!) some of you told me never to change anything
> on font-sizes!

No. What we told you was that the most practical thing to do is not
set a font-size for body text, and to use percent for e.g. headings to
make them bigger as a percent of that body text.

> What do you guys think of that: http://www.clagnut.com/blog/348/

I think you obviously ignored our advice.

> I hope that's going to be a good discussion!

Why are you hoping for that? What more is there to tell you? Perhaps
this will be a shock, but I don't really enjoy repeating myself. I'm
not interested in the least in telling you what you should already
know from the previous thread you mention, or from any of the numerous
other threads where the ciwas regulargs gave essentially the same advice.

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

> Quoth the raven Michael Kalina:
> 
>
> ..which was a Good Idea™.
> 
>
>  From your CSS:

[snip site/font-check]

I was under the impression that Michael was asking opinions
about the content of the article, as I don't think it is his
site? It's about font-sizes, and has "Copyright © 1996–2003,
Richard Rutter." at the bottom of the page.

--
Els
http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -

Michael Kalina wrote:
>
> What do you guys think of that: http://www.clagnut.com/blog/348/

Bad advice, all around. First off, my default font size is _not_ 16px. I
changed it to something more suitable to my particular environment.

Setting body text to 62% like the author suggests only makes it
unreadably small. As it stands, I had to zoom to 150% to read that drivel.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

On Thu, 3 Jun 2004, Michael Kalina wrote:

> What do you guys think of that: http://www.clagnut.com/blog/348/
>
> I hope that's going to be a good discussion!

I smell trolls.

The author appears to be trying to create a site which will work best
for those undiscerning souls who bought a big display and left it
configured for some default display setting like 640x480 or 800x600,
while pissing-off anyone who bothered to configure to something which
uses that big display better.

|unless you know (not think) your audience won.t be using IE/Win or
|will never wish to resize their text then pixels are not yet a viable
|solution.

What's this "not yet" crap?  Specifying px units in CSS is a request
to the display to display CSS px units, not to display user-resizable
text.  So the author is telling us he's yearning to use something
which he presumably knows doesn't do what it's specified to do, but he
won't use it "yet" because it hasn't been broken enough "yet" by the
browser designers.  Implying that he wants to make browser conformance
with the CSS specification even *worse* than it is now.

Meantime, as we know here, em units and percentages already do
pretty-much what it says on the tin, and are the closest thing we have
to responding to each and every user's individual need.  But not when
you take their normal text size and reduce it to fly-droppings first.
Bleagh.

Quoth the raven Els:

> I was under the impression that Michael was asking opinions about
> the content of the article, as I don't think it is his site? It's
> about font-sizes, and has "Copyright © 1996–2003, Richard Rutter."
> at the bottom of the page.

You could be right. In that case, change my comments from "your" to
"his" ...  Still applies, though. <g>

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

Michael Kalina wrote:

> What do you guys think of that: http://www.clagnut.com/blog/348/

I quoteth from that blog:

"The default size for 'medium' text in all modern browsers is 16px.
Our first step is to reduce this size for the entire document by
setting body size to 62.5%:

BODY {font-size:62.5%}

"This takes 16px down to 10px, which apart from being less huge is a
nice round number. From now on it's easy to think in pixels but still
set sizes in terms of ems: 1em is 10px, 0.8em is 8px, 1.6em is 16px,
etc."


Never have I seen the message so twisted. This blog says to its
audience: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. A little knowledge is
a dangerous thing."

A rare glimpse inside the mind of microfonter. Controversial.
Confrontational. Destined to become a modern classic. I gave it four
and a half stars.

This atmospheric, gritty blog lays bare the thought processes of the
microfonters in a way that Zeldman or Meyer never could. What did you
think, David?

I didn't like it. I gave it two stars.

On 3 Jun 2004 19:50:37 -0700, Wolfgang Wildeblood wrote:

> ..What did you
> think, David?
>
> I didn't like it. I gave it two stars.

(chuckle) ..And I do not even watch TV,
let alone Australian TV.

--
Andrew Thompson
http://www.PhySci.org/ Open-source software suite
http://www.PhySci.org/codes/ Web & IT Help
http://www.1point1C.org/ Science & Technology

Brian <usenet3@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote: 
> I think you obviously ignored our advice.

Dear Brian!

I do not understand why you are so pessimistic about me: MY Site
(http://michaelsremarks.com) does not ignore your advice! I only
wanted to know what you think of a site that is referred to as a "good
advice in working with em-units"!

Please do not put so much bad things on me, this is NOT my site, it is
a site I found while surfing the web!

Because I wondered what was written there (after we had the discussion
in this group and there were lot of advices how to use em-units), I
posted a link to this newsgroup to see what happens...