«

Can you remember what was set for font *size* in your various
browsers when you first downloaded them or got them on your
original installs?

--
dorayme

dorayme wrote:
> Can you remember what was set for font *size* in your various
> browsers when you first downloaded them or got them on your
> original installs?
>
I don't recall any specific value for text size, but the general settings in
older browsers was "medium" for IE and is unspecified in, for example FF5,
but can be "zoomed" in either direction, so I presume it's equivalent to
"medium" as well.

--
Neil

In article <iv48er$iki$>,
"Neil Gould" <> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > Can you remember what was set for font *size* in your various
> > browsers when you first downloaded them or got them on your
> > original installs?
> >
> I don't recall any specific value for text size, but the general settings in
> older browsers was "medium" for IE and is unspecified in, for example FF5,
> but can be "zoomed" in either direction, so I presume it's equivalent to
> "medium" as well.

You are right about WinIE, the specific pixel or point size can
be worked out but it is not transparently offered as a number as
in other browsers.

<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/diff...pics/textSize_
ie.png>

(from IE

In FF, Safari, iCab, there are specific settings.

I know many of my own browsers are set to 16 for most reading
fonts but I forget if I set them or they came that way and they
suited me! The mozilla url on the page at the url below is a
small clue that maybe they come that way. I guess (just noticed
this).

Just got to wondering about it for a page I am cobbling to
together, a draft of which is at

<http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/diff...textSpill.html
>

--
dorayme

dorayme wrote:
> In article <iv48er$iki$>,
> "Neil Gould" <> wrote:
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>> Can you remember what was set for font *size* in your various
>>> browsers when you first downloaded them or got them on your
>>> original installs?
>>>
>> I don't recall any specific value for text size, but the general
>> settings in older browsers was "medium" for IE and is unspecified
>> in, for example FF5, but can be "zoomed" in either direction, so I
>> presume it's equivalent to "medium" as well.
>
> You are right about WinIE, the specific pixel or point size can
> be worked out but it is not transparently offered as a number as
> in other browsers.
>
> <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/diff...pics/textSize_
> ie.png>
>
> (from IE
>
> In FF, Safari, iCab, there are specific settings.
>
> I know many of my own browsers are set to 16 for most reading
> fonts but I forget if I set them or they came that way and they
> suited me! The mozilla url on the page at the url below is a
> small clue that maybe they come that way. I guess (just noticed
> this).
>
My FF5s are set to 16, and because I didn't bother to change them I presume
they came that way. I wonder what that "16" would mean, anyway? Like an
amplifier that can be turned up to 11, I think it's a relative figure that
will not have an absolute physical size representation due to such things as
the size, pixel resolution and font rendering methods of the users' monitor
and video subsystem.

> Just got to wondering about it for a page I am cobbling to
> together, a draft of which is at
>
> <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/diff...textSpill.html
>
Well, your page taps into one of my beefs with CSS-based styling. No matter
how well-crafted, only the simplest of page layouts can avoid being trashed
by user settings. Perhaps an idea from early web days may still be useful...
have a button that redirects users with special needs to another version of
the site.

--
Neil

In article <iv4dqj$vs2$>,
"Neil Gould" <> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > In article <iv48er$iki$>,
> > "Neil Gould" <> wrote:
> >
> >> dorayme wrote:
....
> > I know many of my own browsers are set to 16 for most reading
> > fonts but I forget if I set them or they came that way and they
> > suited me! The mozilla url on the page at the url below is a
> > small clue that maybe they come that way. I guess (just noticed
> > this).
> >
> My FF5s are set to 16, and because I didn't bother to change them I presume
> they came that way. I wonder what that "16" would mean, anyway? Like an
> amplifier that can be turned up to 11, I think it's a relative figure that
> will not have an absolute physical size representation due to such things as
> the size, pixel resolution and font rendering methods of the users' monitor
> and video subsystem.
>

I think it just means pixels. But maybe you are right and it
happens to be pixels without quite meaning it.

> > Just got to wondering about it for a page I am cobbling to
> > together, a draft of which is at
> >
> > <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/diff...textSpill.html
> >
> Well, your page taps into one of my beefs with CSS-based styling. No matter
> how well-crafted, only the simplest of page layouts can avoid being trashed
> by user settings.

Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by simplest.

> Perhaps an idea from early web days may still be useful...
> have a button that redirects users with special needs to another version of
> the site.

Now and then, this is probably not too bad an idea but we should
aim not to need to do this. However, there is such a bad sticking
point in the practical web world about the size of body text that
I am wondering now if it is not actually a good idea to at least
give a a button for a couple of sizes, one for normal as in user
preferences and one for 20% less to shut people up - like bosses
and clients and stop them winging! <g>

--
dorayme

dorayme wrote:
> In article <iv4dqj$vs2$>,
> "Neil Gould" <> wrote:
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>> In article <iv48er$iki$>,
>>> "Neil Gould" <> wrote:
>>>
>>>> dorayme wrote:
> ...
>>> I know many of my own browsers are set to 16 for most reading
>>> fonts but I forget if I set them or they came that way and they
>>> suited me! The mozilla url on the page at the url below is a
>>> small clue that maybe they come that way. I guess (just noticed
>>> this).
>>>
>> My FF5s are set to 16, and because I didn't bother to change them I
>> presume they came that way. I wonder what that "16" would mean,
>> anyway? Like an amplifier that can be turned up to 11, I think it's
>> a relative figure that will not have an absolute physical size
>> representation due to such things as the size, pixel resolution and
>> font rendering methods of the users' monitor and video subsystem.
>>
>
> I think it just means pixels. But maybe you are right and it
> happens to be pixels without quite meaning it.
>
Or, it's a number that has nothing to do with pixels or anything else; 16
pixels on a monitor with a vertical screen size of 15" and vertical
resolution of 1500 would render medium fonts 0.16" high. But, since I can
read it, I'm pretty sure that's not happening!

>>> Just got to wondering about it for a page I am cobbling to
>>> together, a draft of which is at
>>>
>>> <http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/diff...textSpill.html
>>>
>> Well, your page taps into one of my beefs with CSS-based styling. No
>> matter how well-crafted, only the simplest of page layouts can avoid
>> being trashed by user settings.
>
> Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by simplest.
>
Full width, single-column, simple div parameters, etc.

>> Perhaps an idea from early web days may still be useful...
>> have a button that redirects users with special needs to another
>> version of the site.
>
> Now and then, this is probably not too bad an idea but we should
> aim not to need to do this.
>
Well, it's a down-side to the generalized markup approach that has plagued
presentation since SGML days, but at least then someone had to access a
common DTD to render a document. It might be one reason why people prefer
one browser over another, but IMO all browsers suck at rendering something
or other, and user settings can make things completely unreadable.

--
Neil

On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 16:37:37 +1000, dorayme wrote:
> ... - like bosses and clients and stop them winging! <g>

Do you have much of an issue with them flying about your head?

Ya, I sometimes do, too.

Jonesy

Neil Gould wrote:

> dorayme wrote:

>> I think it just means pixels. But maybe you are right and it
>> > happens to be pixels without quite meaning it.
>> >
> Or, it's a number that has nothing to do with pixels or anything else; 16
> pixels on a monitor with a vertical screen size of 15" and vertical
> resolution of 1500 would render medium fonts 0.16" high. But, since I can
> read it, I'm pretty sure that's not happening!
>

It means pixels. You can confirm it by changing the value and then
checking the "computed style" with DOM Inspector

--
Take care,

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

Hi Johnathan,

Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> Neil Gould wrote:
>
> > dorayme wrote:
>
>>> I think it just means pixels. But maybe you are right and it
>>>> happens to be pixels without quite meaning it.
>>>>
>> Or, it's a number that has nothing to do with pixels or anything
>> else; 16 pixels on a monitor with a vertical screen size of 15" and
>> vertical resolution of 1500 would render medium fonts 0.16" high.
>> But, since I can read it, I'm pretty sure that's not happening!
>>
>
> It means pixels. You can confirm it by changing the value and then
> checking the "computed style" with DOM Inspector
>
I'm not all that familiar with DOM inspector. Where is the "computed style"
option?

--
best regards,

Neil

Neil Gould wrote:
> Hi Johnathan,
>
Sorry about misspelling your name... I know too many people named "John",
and my fingers went into auto-type mode...

--
best regards,

Neil