Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > CSS Question

Reply
Thread Tools

CSS Question

 
 
Brett Baisley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-14-2004
Hey
I am working on a css style for a page. I created something that looks like
this:

..navLink
{
font-family: arial; font-size: 10pt; color: black; text-decoration: none;
}

that is set for a block of text on the page like this:

<span class="navLink">
Home | Pictures | About
</span>

What I want to know, is that some of this text will be links to other pages.
I want to create a style for them so that they look different (ie: different
color, no underline) then the rest of the text, but I don't want to change
the rest of the other links on the page. Therefore I can't change a{...} as
this will change all of the links.

Is there a way, and if so how, can you write this? Something like

..navLink.a
{
font-family: arial; font-size: 12pt; color: red; text-decoration: none;
}

would be nice.

Thanks


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
brucie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-14-2004
in post: <news:nokNb.63778$(E-Mail Removed)>
"Brett Baisley" <(E-Mail Removed)> said:

> What I want to know, is that some of this text will be links to other pages.
> I want to create a style for them so that they look different


http://allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?Links_with_different_colors

>(ie: different color, no underline)


Links Want To Be Links
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www/links.html

--
brucie - i usenet nude
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
rf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-15-2004

"Brett Baisley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:nokNb.63778$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hey
> I am working on a css style for a page. I created something that looks

like
> this:
>
> .navLink
> {
> font-family: arial; font-size: 10pt; color: black; text-decoration: none;
> }
>
> that is set for a block of text on the page like this:
>
> <span class="navLink">
> Home | Pictures | About
> </span>
>
> What I want to know, is that some of this text will be links to other

pages.
> I want to create a style for them so that they look different (ie:

different
> color, no underline) then the rest of the text, but I don't want to change
> the rest of the other links on the page. Therefore I can't change a{...}

as
> this will change all of the links.
>
> Is there a way, and if so how, can you write this? Something like
>
> .navLink.a
> {
> font-family: arial; font-size: 12pt; color: red; text-decoration: none;
> }


..navLink a

BTW don't specify font-size in points or pixels. This will stop the average
IE viewer from resizing the text. I like my text to be 16pt, not 12 or
<shudder> 10 </shudder>

Better yet, don't specify font-size at all, let it default to whatever the
viewer has chosen.

Cheers
Richard.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Barry Pearson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-15-2004
rf wrote:
[snip]
> BTW don't specify font-size in points or pixels. This will stop the
> average IE viewer from resizing the text. I like my text to be 16pt,
> not 12 or <shudder> 10 </shudder>
>
> Better yet, don't specify font-size at all, let it default to
> whatever the viewer has chosen.


Why do people who prefer larger font sizes use IE?

There is a vast amount of "px" and "pt" stuff on the web. Lots more is
published every day. It won't go away just because of what is said here. It
must be hell for such people, when they could surely easily use a free
alternatice. (I would have thought that Opera would be a very good choice for
many people, because of its zoom feature).


I'll point out that I don't set the font size in my body-rules, and when I
change font sizes for special purposes I use "%". But I'm not convinced by the
arguments that caused me to do this.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/


 
Reply With Quote
 
rf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-15-2004

"Barry Pearson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:rOtNb.65$(E-Mail Removed)...
> rf wrote:
> [snip]
> > BTW don't specify font-size in points or pixels. This will stop the
> > average IE viewer from resizing the text. I like my text to be 16pt,
> > not 12 or <shudder> 10 </shudder>
> >
> > Better yet, don't specify font-size at all, let it default to
> > whatever the viewer has chosen.

>
> Why do people who prefer larger font sizes use IE?


Why to people who prefer larger font sizes use a beige computer? Because
that is what the computer shop sold them when they said "I want a computer".
>
> There is a vast amount of "px" and "pt" stuff on the web.


Just because "everybody does it" does not make it right.

> Lots more is
> published every day.


Yeah, sad isn't it.

> It won't go away just because of what is said here.


Sadly not but if what is said here affects just a few people then that makes
the web just that little bit better.

> It
> must be hell for such people,


Nope. They (including me) simply switch on their accessibily options and
ignore *all* of your font size specifications.

> when they could surely easily use a free
> alternatice.


Maybe the don't know how. Anyway, the alternative may not be as free as you
think. Downloading a 20MB "free" browser can be very expensive on a dial up
line.

>
> I'll point out that I don't set the font size in my body-rules, and when I
> change font sizes for special purposes I use "%". But I'm not convinced by

the
> arguments that caused me to do this.


Keep reading here, the reasons will become clear eventually.

Cheers
Richard.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Barry Pearson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-16-2004
rf wrote:
> "Barry Pearson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:rOtNb.65$(E-Mail Removed)...

[snip]
>> Why do people who prefer larger font sizes use IE?

>
> Why to people who prefer larger font sizes use a beige computer?
> Because that is what the computer shop sold them when they said "I
> want a computer".


I would expect those people to know better than that. These are not
mentally-defuddled people. These are mentally-normal people who know far
better than you or I all the aspects of their disability. If they don't know
about accessibility aids, and don't bother to ask, frankly they deserve all
they get.

>> There is a vast amount of "px" and "pt" stuff on the web.

>
> Just because "everybody does it" does not make it right.


If those people are expected to continue to access published stuff, "right"
and "wrong" are irelevant. The web is highly "px" oriented, and probably will
be for a decade. The best thing to do is deal with such a web. Or fume for the
next decade!

>> Lots more is published every day.

>
> Yeah, sad isn't it.
>
>> It won't go away just because of what is said here.

>
> Sadly not but if what is said here affects just a few people then
> that makes the web just that little bit better.


Or perhaps it just gives a few people the illusion that if they wait long
enough the tide will turn. When the tide won't turn, and the web continues to
be as it is, those people should stop waiting and take matters into their own
hands and equip themselves to handle the world as it really is.

>> It must be hell for such people,

>
> Nope. They (including me) simply switch on their accessibily options
> and ignore *all* of your font size specifications.


Then that is what all visually-disabled people should do! Good! That is surely
the way forward - for visually-disabled people to take control of their own
destiny. So people can publish "px", and visually disabled people can
disregard that and sort things out for themselves.

That makes my point - visually-disabled people should be helped to take
control, and not rely on authors implementing particular standards. Authors
should "enable", not "spoon-feed".

>> when they could surely easily use a free alternative.

>
> Maybe the don't know how. Anyway, the alternative may not be as free
> as you think. Downloading a 20MB "free" browser can be very expensive
> on a dial up line.


Gosh! More expensive than my reading glasses? I think not.

My experience with people with physical disabilities is that they tend to be
pretty aware both of their problems and the potential solutions. They may need
some clues, but not a total service. They tend to be highly motivated to solve
their problems without having to be spoon-fed. In fact, they typically hate to
be patronised! (I would be interested in feedback on that).

There are lots of ways that people can obtain an alternative. We should not
inhibit those ways from developing.

>> I'll point out that I don't set the font size in my body-rules, and
>> when I change font sizes for special purposes I use "%". But I'm not
>> convinced by the arguments that caused me to do this.

>
> Keep reading here, the reasons will become clear eventually.


No. On the contrary! I made my decisions on inadequate analysis. The more I
read, the more I suspect that it wasn't a good decision.

I'm no longer convinced that any seriously visually-disabled people still use
IE. And therefore that there any need to avoid "px" or "pt".

I would be interested to see alternative analysis.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/


 
Reply With Quote
 
rf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-16-2004

"Barry Pearson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:r0_Nb.373$(E-Mail Removed)...
> rf wrote:
> > "Barry Pearson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:rOtNb.65$(E-Mail Removed)...

> [snip]



> > Nope. They (including me) simply switch on their accessibily options
> > and ignore *all* of your font size specifications.


> Then that is what all visually-disabled people should do! Good! That is

surely
> the way forward - for visually-disabled people to take control of their

own
> destiny. So people can publish "px", and visually disabled people can
> disregard that and sort things out for themselves.


So, if you know that people are going to ignore your font size suggestions
then why make such suggestions in the first place?

> I'm no longer convinced that any seriously visually-disabled people still

use
> IE. And therefore that there any need to avoid "px" or "pt".


The *real* problem is not IE or visually disabled people. The problem is
authors.

Authors think they are painting on a peice of paper rather than a web page.
Everything must fit just so, the image should be here, the text should be
there and it *must* be a certain font size otherwise it won't fit. All of
this must fit into a box that is exactly 800 by 600 pixels. These authors
invariably use IE for testing so pixels is the obvious choice.

Then they submint their site for review either here or over at
alt.html.critique or even aww. The first thing that happens is that somebody
changes the font size (using Mozilla or Opera or even IE with the
accessibility box checked). Said authors cry out in either dismay or anger
that their pride and joy is now broken. Often they verbally attack the
reviewer for "stuffing up their page".

If IE did not have that bug where font-size in pixels rendered the font size
unchangable (in an out of the box system) then IMHO nobody would be using
pixels. We would all be using % or em or some such.

Cheers
Richard.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Barry Pearson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-17-2004
rf wrote:
> "Barry Pearson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:r0_Nb.373$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> rf wrote:
>> > "Barry Pearson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> > news:rOtNb.65$(E-Mail Removed)...

>> [snip]

>
>> > Nope. They (including me) simply switch on their accessibily
>> > options and ignore *all* of your font size specifications.

>
>> Then that is what all visually-disabled people should do! Good! That
>> is surely the way forward - for visually-disabled people to take
>> control of their own destiny. So people can publish "px", and
>> visually disabled people can disregard that and sort things out for
>> themselves.

>
> So, if you know that people are going to ignore your font size
> suggestions then why make such suggestions in the first place?


Read what I said - "... visually disabled people can disregard ...". I didn't
say everyone!

That is the point here - I produce web pages that look as I want them to look
in my test set of browsers with their default settings. So people using those
browsers and don't change the settings are probably seeing something like what
I want them to see. Good.

People who use other browsers, or change the default settings, may see
something different. Also good. This may mean we are all happy!

>> I'm no longer convinced that any seriously visually-disabled people
>> still use IE. And therefore that there any need to avoid "px" or
>> "pt".

>
> The *real* problem is not IE or visually disabled people. The problem
> is authors.


You didn't respond to my point, though. Do seriously visually-disabled people
still use IE? If not, then we don't need to worry about "px" or "pt". And if
they *do* still use IE - how do they manage? The web is dominated by pages
using "px" especially, and people are not going to stop tomorrow or next year.
No one is going to change all those historical but still valuable pages. So
the answer is for people to use suitable technology. Eg. Opera.

[snip]
> If IE did not have that bug where font-size in pixels rendered the
> font size unchangable (in an out of the box system) then IMHO nobody
> would be using pixels. We would all be using % or em or some such.


If IE didn't have that bug, there would less reason to avoid "px"! People want
to control how their pages look. They always will. By giving authors control
of what happens by default, while having technology that allows people who
want otherwise to override the defaults, we have a system where both sides
win. (When I switched from using "px" to using "%", I used the "%" value that
made the text look the same size as the original "px" version in my target set
of browsers).

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/


 
Reply With Quote
 
Steve Pugh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-17-2004
"Barry Pearson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Do seriously visually-disabled people still use IE?


Maybe, maybe not. Even IE can be made accessible by setting it to
ignore all font sizes.

But the issue is not with _seriously_ visually-disabled people (your
words, my emphasis).

People with moderate visual problems might have a larger than normal
default font size. Em or % based text size will be derived from this.
If a user has a default text size of 20px rather than the standard
16px then text sized at 75% is now 16px which may still be legible,
but text sized at 12px (75% of 16px but only 60% of 20px) is less
likely to be so.

People who can normally read all text at size X might come a cross a
web page with text in a partcular font that they can't read at size X
and so they want to increase the text size for that one page.

The quality of people's eyesite is not always static; some people with
certain medical conditions (e.g. some diabetics) have days when their
eyesite is worse than normal; and sometimes people are just tired.

Expecting all those people, none of whom would regard themselves as
"seriously visually-disabled" to use a different browser or to disable
all font sizing in IE is not realistic. Avoiding pixel sized text and
thus allowing them to adjust the text size as and when they need to
is.

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <(E-Mail Removed)> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
 
Reply With Quote
 
Barry Pearson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-17-2004
Steve Pugh wrote:
> "Barry Pearson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Do seriously visually-disabled people still use IE?

>
> Maybe, maybe not. Even IE can be made accessible by setting it to
> ignore all font sizes.
>
> But the issue is not with _seriously_ visually-disabled people (your
> words, my emphasis).


Fair comment.

[snip]
> Expecting all those people, none of whom would regard themselves as
> "seriously visually-disabled" to use a different browser or to disable
> all font sizing in IE is not realistic. Avoiding pixel sized text and
> thus allowing them to adjust the text size as and when they need to
> is.


But this *still* doesn't resolve the problem I see. The web is awash with
millions of pages that are "px" oriented. Perhaps another 100,000 or more are
published each day. This will continue for years.

It is irrelevant what I do. (Which is not even to set a default size in the
body rule, and then only modify using "%" for special purposes, such as
headers & admin text, etc. I'm probably one of the good guys!)

I am questioning whether it is simply too late (nearly a decade too late!) to
tackle this by giving advice on NGs, and perhaps some other places. Those
people *still* need a different browser, before Longhorn, and nothing will
change that fact! The fact that you and I am some others here avoid "px" is
far too little, far too late.

I keep wondering whether we are simply thinking about this all wrong. Because
we author HTML & CSS, it is tempting for us to think that is where the
solution lies. But perhaps the solution is for all opticians to hand out CDs
with accessibility software & better browsers, or at least hand out leaflets.
Or some other non-authoring solution. How else will all affected people be
able to read the vast amounts of stuff already committed to "px"?

And ensure that all organisations allowing/requiring people to use browsers on
their computers (companies, libraries, etc) all supply such browsers as
standard. This would also have the effect of sending a useful message to Mr
Gates.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: correction: A question about css (was: A question about css) richard HTML 12 03-09-2010 08:52 PM
Is this the newsgroup for CSS help? CSS Question Included AF HTML 17 08-09-2006 06:57 PM
CSS question - can I make CSS Cascade sideways? Bill_W_Stephens@yahoo.com HTML 6 03-18-2006 06:02 PM
CSS Layout question - how to duplicate a table layout with CSS Eric ASP .Net 4 12-24-2004 04:54 PM
print.css and screen.css tom watson HTML 1 09-09-2003 02:48 PM



Advertisments