Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Type sizs on Mac and PC

Reply
Thread Tools

Type sizs on Mac and PC

 
 
ksdfj
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-02-2004


David Mackenzie wrote:

> On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 04:22:54 -0800, ksdfj <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >2. Specify all sizes and positions in pixels, because everybody knows what
> > a pixel is.

>
> I wouldn't like to print out a page and the text appears 12 pixels
> high. It would be 1/25 of an inch tall and I wouldn't be able to read
> it!


but that's exactly the situation we have right now with a lot of web pages;
they
hard-code their font sizes in pixels, and then there's no way to scale the
font. (unless you're using Netscape 6 or 7 or Mozilla.) pages built this
way are hard to read on high-resolution monitors.

that's why i suggested using the "pixel space" as a sort of logical space in
which to build pages, and then it would be the browser's responsibility to
scale
this "logical space" into your monitor's actual "physical space". sorry if i
didn't explain this well enough before.

it actually doesn't matter what "logical space" we choose, as long as
everybody agrees on what it is and what it means. i chose the "pixel
space" because everybody knows what a pixel is, and a lot of
pages (too many) are already designed in this space.

as display resolutions become increasingly high, somebody's going
to have to take this problem seriously.



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Steve Pugh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-02-2004
ksdfj <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>David Mackenzie wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 04:22:54 -0800, ksdfj <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> >2. Specify all sizes and positions in pixels, because everybody knows what
>> > a pixel is.

>>
>> I wouldn't like to print out a page and the text appears 12 pixels
>> high. It would be 1/25 of an inch tall and I wouldn't be able to read
>> it!

>
>but that's exactly the situation we have right now with a lot of web pages;
>they hard-code their font sizes in pixels, and then there's no way to scale the
>font. (unless you're using Netscape 6 or 7 or Mozilla.)


Or Opera, or Safari, or Mac IE. In fact text sized in pixels can be
resized in almost all browsers excepr NN4 and (sigh) Win IE.

> pages built this way are hard to read on high-resolution monitors.
>
>that's why i suggested using the "pixel space" as a sort of logical space in
>which to build pages, and then it would be the browser's responsibility to
>scale this "logical space" into your monitor's actual "physical space". sorry if i
>didn't explain this well enough before.


This is exactly what the CSS spec says already. It defines the px unit
as being relative to pixel density of the output medium (i.e. screen
resolution). Problem is that every browser treats 1px as 1 screen
pixel.

>it actually doesn't matter what "logical space" we choose, as long as
>everybody agrees on what it is and what it means.


The 'em space' (oh hang on, that means something else already) has the
advantage that it respects the user chosen font size. Two users with
identical screen resolutions might prefer, or even need, very
different font sizes - your scheme doesn't work for them.

>i chose the "pixel space" because everybody knows what a pixel is,


The fact that the CSS spec and the browsers are in complete
disagreement suggests otherwise. And there was a recent thread in
ciwas asking how to make a line that was thinner than 1 pixel.

>and a lot of pages (too many) are already designed in this space.


Yes, they suck, don't they?

>as display resolutions become increasingly high, somebody's going
>to have to take this problem seriously.


The browsers can either implement px units as per the spec (which is
not too different from your proposal).
Or users will have to learn how to configure their browsers properly
for their screen reoslutions, which may mean setting them to ignore
clueless authors who use pixel sized text.

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
 
 
 
 
David Mackenzie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-02-2004
On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 01:35:20 -0800, ksdfj <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>
>David Mackenzie wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 01 Apr 2004 04:22:54 -0800, ksdfj <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> >2. Specify all sizes and positions in pixels, because everybody knows what
>> > a pixel is.

>>
>> I wouldn't like to print out a page and the text appears 12 pixels
>> high. It would be 1/25 of an inch tall and I wouldn't be able to read
>> it!

>
>but that's exactly the situation we have right now with a lot of web pages;
>they
>hard-code their font sizes in pixels, and then there's no way to scale the
>font. (unless you're using Netscape 6 or 7 or Mozilla.)


Or Opera.

>that's why i suggested using the "pixel space" as a sort of logical space in
>which to build pages, and then it would be the browser's responsibility to
>scale
>this "logical space" into your monitor's actual "physical space". sorry if i
>didn't explain this well enough before.


The web is not a visual medium. There is an increasing number of
different devices accessing the web. Some of them have no concept of a
"pixel" at all. When I browse, my browser's canvas area is usually
1024x619. My friend can browse on his phone. It has a screen area of
128x60. In the future, a top of the range BMW may read out pages to
its driver and passengers, who will navigate by voice recognition.

That's why building properly marked-up pages that are viewable and
usable at any (reasonable) size and are accessible to audio browsers,
webbots, printers, neural implants etc is more important than ever.

>as display resolutions become increasingly high, somebody's going
>to have to take this problem seriously.


There is no problem. HTML & CSS allow for all the above scenarios to
be catered for today.

--
David ( @priz.co.uk )
 
Reply With Quote
 
Whitecrest
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-02-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)
says...
> The web is not a visual medium.


The web is BOTH a visual and non visual medium. One size does not fit
all. You can, and will always be able to, do different kinds of things
on the web. Not all web sites need to be accessible by everything that
can read a web site.

> In the future, a top of the range BMW may read out pages to
> its driver and passengers, who will navigate by voice recognition.


I personally can't wait for Holodeck porn myself...

> That's why building properly marked-up pages that are viewable and
> usable at any (reasonable) size and are accessible to audio browsers,
> webbots, printers, neural implants etc is more important than ever.


Yes, IF the content of the site is best presented like this, then by all
means you should do that.
--
Whitecrest Entertainment
www.whitecrestent.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Mackenzie
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-02-2004
On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 09:18:56 -0500, Whitecrest
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)
>says...
>> The web is not a visual medium.

>
>The web is BOTH a visual and non visual medium.


Sorry. Should have read "The web is not purely a visual medium".

>One size does not fit
>all. You can, and will always be able to, do different kinds of things
>on the web. Not all web sites need to be accessible by everything that
>can read a web site.


Agreed. But you can do simple things to help as many devices as
possible, e.g. include alt attributes for images and not relying on
Javascript for navigation.

>> In the future, a top of the range BMW may read out pages to
>> its driver and passengers, who will navigate by voice recognition.

>
>I personally can't wait for Holodeck porn myself...


Wouldn't the pop-up ads get in the way

>> That's why building properly marked-up pages that are viewable and
>> usable at any (reasonable) size and are accessible to audio browsers,
>> webbots, printers, neural implants etc is more important than ever.

>
>Yes, IF the content of the site is best presented like this, then by all
>means you should do that.


Any browser should be able to make a fair effort at rendering a well
marked-up site.

Obviously, if the site is an on-line flash comic then audio and
text-only browsers cannot be expected to render the flash animation.
But that does not excuse the author for allowing the site to be
totally inaccessible to audio and text-only browsers.

I know someone who has a top-of-the-range palmtop. He pays for the
bandwidth he uses so has images disabled. He tried to get football
results from a sporting site but was unable to because the navigation
used images without alt attributes.

The web is unlike any medium that has gone before. I suppose it could
be described as menium-independent information.

Sure, all its content won't be renderable on all devices, but most of
it should be available on most devices and well written pages can help
with this.

--
David ( @priz.co.uk )
 
Reply With Quote
 
ksdfj
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-03-2004
Steve Pugh wrote:

> This is exactly what the CSS spec says already. It defines the px unit
> as being relative to pixel density of the output medium (i.e. screen
> resolution). Problem is that every browser treats 1px as 1 screen
> pixel.


cool. i was unaware of this definition of the px. so it truly is just
a browser problem, which makes it all the more easier to fix.

> >it actually doesn't matter what "logical space" we choose, as long as
> >everybody agrees on what it is and what it means.

>
> The 'em space' (oh hang on, that means something else already) has the
> advantage that it respects the user chosen font size. Two users with
> identical screen resolutions might prefer, or even need, very
> different font sizes - your scheme doesn't work for them.


no, i think the browsers *should* give the user the ability to scale the fonts
independently of everything else, even if the web page has the font sizes
hard-coded. the only thing i would add would be the ability to scale the
entire page, not just the fonts. when browser authors finally start
to implement the CSS standard in regard to pixel scaling, they'd just
need to allow the user to tweak the default pixel scaling ratio.

 
Reply With Quote
 
kchayka
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-04-2004
ksdfj wrote:

> Steve Pugh wrote:
>
>> This is exactly what the CSS spec says already. It defines the px unit
>> as being relative to pixel density of the output medium (i.e. screen
>> resolution). Problem is that every browser treats 1px as 1 screen
>> pixel.

>
> cool. i was unaware of this definition of the px. so it truly is just
> a browser problem, which makes it all the more easier to fix.


IMO it's the opposite - harder to fix. As far as px units go, virtually
all graphical browsers behave the same now, so the results are fairly
predictable regardless of browsing environment. If even one browser
starts rendering px units per the current specs, predictability starts
going out the window. That will be a worse situation than what we have now.

>> >it actually doesn't matter what "logical space" we choose, as long as
>> >everybody agrees on what it is and what it means.


It seems that browser vendors have more or less agreed what px means,
though it isn't what the W3C says it should mean. I'm not sure why they
don't just change the spec to reflect reality, since I don't have high
hopes any vendor will ever implement this particular spec.

--
Reply address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark Parnell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-06-2004
On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 14:59:26 -0800, ksdfj <(E-Mail Removed)> declared
in alt.design.graphics,alt.html:

> the only thing i would add would be the ability to scale the
> entire page, not just the fonts.


Opera already does this.

--
Mark Parnell
http://www.clarkecomputers.com.au
 
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
type(d) != type(d.copy()) when type(d).issubclass(dict) kj Python 5 12-26-2010 06:48 PM
#define ALLOCIT(Type) ((Type*) malloc (sizeof (Type))) Yevgen Muntyan C Programming 10 02-13-2007 02:52 AM
Mac mini and Dell Inspiron 6000 connected to router; Mac can browse, Dell can't Adam Computer Support 3 11-21-2005 10:52 AM
Re: Type casting- a larger type to a smaller type pete C Programming 4 04-02-2004 05:19 PM
Re: Type casting- a larger type to a smaller type heyo C Programming 3 04-01-2004 06:35 PM



Advertisments