«

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 09:02:49 -0500, Bergamot <>
wrote:

>Mike Barnard wrote:
>>
>> ctrl + one time in Firefox on windows is 120%.
>> ctrl + two times in Firefox on windows is 140%.
>> ctrl + three times in Firefox on windows is 200%.
>>
>> Approximately. Interesting to note that Firefox looks worst at higher
>> text sizes because IE provided a scroll bar
>
>That's because CTRL+ in IE7 is page zoom, not text zoom. If you change
>IE's text size from the View menu, you get text zoom instead. IE6 has no
>page zoom, only text zoom.

I do this a lot....

DOH!

>> FF tires to cram it all in to the window,

>You make it sound like that's a bad thing. I loathe horizontal
>scrolling, so prefer text zoom to page zoom, as do a lot of other people.

Not a bad thing or good. Just one of a range of options to make a
page viewable by thos who have problems.

It's interesting to talk about making pages look better for the
visually impaired (VI), but is there anyone reading this group who IS
VI themselves? It would be interesting to hear thier take.

>> When will they come up with ONE good, working set of rules we can all
>> use? Sob.
>
>Why should such a thing be universal? You should be cheering that users
>have a choice in such things.

If I drive a car I know I steer with my hands, control speed with my
feet and the radio is usually somewhere in the middle. If I pressed
the radio controls and the car went faster it would confuse me. (Not
difficult). Why can't all browser controls be generally similar? Maybe
another standard. It doesn't mean they have to be boring, just that
one can change from a Firefox Ferrari to an IE Yugo and still make it
do what is expected when certain keys are pressed.

I'll get my coat. It's the British Standard grey one somewhere in
among the other British Standard grey ones.

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 07:51:36 +1100, dorayme
<> wrote:

>In article <>,
> Mike Barnard <> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 11:05:40 +1100, dorayme
>> <> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <>,
>> > Mike Barnard <> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi.
>> >>
>> >> Simple question really. When I press ctrl + in FF or IE the text
>> >> increases in size. But there is no indicator to tell me how much by.
>>
>> >Easy, you open Opera (don't you read what I say to Ed? I
>> >indicated this yesterday in a post in reply to him... <g>) and
>> >you get the text to be the same size by eye as in FF. In Opera,
>> >it tells you the % zoom. It is a different mechanism but I think
>> >it is a reasonably accurate comparison re font-size.
>>
>> ctrl + one time in Firefox on windows is 120%.
>> ctrl + two times in Firefox on windows is 140%.
>> ctrl + three times in Firefox on windows is 200%.
>>
>> Approximately. Interesting to note that Firefox looks worst at higher
>> text sizes because IE provided a scroll bar and let the browser expand
>> beyond the visible window. FF tires to cram it all in to the window,
>> no matter how small.
>>
>> When will they come up with ONE good, working set of rules we can all
>> use? Sob.
>
>I think it would be dreadful if they did because we would then lose
>choices to suit ourselves at different times. Variety is the fruit of
>experimentation and innovation. It would be a dull world that would
>satisfy only some dreary people. Trust me, Mike, you would not like it.

I like most things, except brussels sprouts and politicians.

Mike Barnard wrote:

> It's interesting to talk about making pages look better for the
> visually impaired (VI), but is there anyone reading this group who IS
> VI themselves? It would be interesting to hear thier take.

Chaddy from AU is VI, and pops in occasionally. He's a student at a Uni
somewhere Down Under.

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Vista

Mike Barnard wrote:
>
> Why can't all browser controls be generally similar? Maybe
> another standard.

Bad idea. The average user only has 1 browser, so it matters not to them
what other browsers do.

> It doesn't mean they have to be boring, just that
> one can change from a Firefox Ferrari to an IE Yugo and still make it
> do what is expected when certain keys are pressed.

I certainly wouldn't want to be stuck with the inferior IE controls, and
that's what we'd end up with because it's the lowest common denominator,
and very slow to change.

If you're going to test in multiple browsers, you'll just have to get
used to it.

--
Berg

On 23 Mar 2008, Travis Newbury <> wrote:

> On Mar 21, 6:12 pm, Neredbojias <exam...@example.com> wrote:
>> >> Are you saying that you already knew it or that you're just generally
>> >> beyond help of any kind?
>> > WAY beyond help
>> Gee, that's a shame. But I guess it does explain your Flash fetishism.
>
> I have a Flash Fetish too?????

Don't play the innocent with me. I did a search of alt.html archives for
the world "Flash" and your name came up 43,267 times...

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.com/
Great sights and sounds

On Mar 23, 2:08 pm, Neredbojias <exam...@example.com> wrote:
> > I have a Flash Fetish too?????
> Don't play the innocent with me. I did a search of alt.html archives for
> the world "Flash" and your name came up 43,267 times...

Yea but 43263 of those times it was referenced from
alt.exhibition......

On 23 Mar 2008, Travis Newbury <> wrote:

> On Mar 23, 2:08 pm, Neredbojias <exam...@example.com> wrote:
>> > I have a Flash Fetish too?????
>> Don't play the innocent with me. I did a search of alt.html archives
>> for the world "Flash" and your name came up 43,267 times...
>
> Yea but 43263 of those times it was referenced from
> alt.exhibition......

Well I thought I was being discreet in not mentioning that because you
have, uh, little to be proud of.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.com/
Great sights and sounds

On Mar 23, 4:10 pm, Neredbojias <exam...@example.com> wrote:
> Well I thought I was being discreet in not mentioning that because you
> have, uh, little to be proud of.

Are you making penis size jokes...

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 03:07:48 -0700 (PDT), Travis Newbury
<> wrote:

>On Mar 23, 4:10 pm, Neredbojias <exam...@example.com> wrote:
>> Well I thought I was being discreet in not mentioning that because you
>> have, uh, little to be proud of.
>
>Are you making penis size jokes...

<opens popcorn, waits 'n watches for the next act to start!>

Mike Barnard wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 03:07:48 -0700 (PDT), Travis Newbury
> <> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 23, 4:10 pm, Neredbojias <exam...@example.com> wrote:
>>> Well I thought I was being discreet in not mentioning that because you
>>> have, uh, little to be proud of.
>> Are you making penis size jokes...
>
> <opens popcorn, waits 'n watches for the next act to start!>

Don't find "reality" TV that amusing...

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com