Current Mail

Whatever items of interest are going to and fro — and are too good to keep hidden!
There's a Mail Archive for stuff that needs to be kept.

Topics: Text sizes in browsers, using Cascading Style Sheets for formatting

Gary is BLUE and I'm RED.

From: "Gary M. Berg" <gary_berg@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Mike Barkman" <mike@icarus.gen.nz>
Subject: RE: Web site changes
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2002 21:22:34 -0500
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
Importance: Normal

GARY: I notice that right now your site forces text size, too. Not the part at the top, but the daily entries. Which can be hard on the eyes...

MIKE: I've just been comparing a March Kronikle (without CSS) with the current -- I can't detect much difference in the body text size.

The problem is that the size is _fixed_; using the font size command in IE to use larger fonts doesn't have any effect. Display the two pages and use ctrl/scrollwheel (or use View|Text size from the menus) and you'll see what I mean. The old pages show larger fonts (I looked at last week).

Well, you opened up a can of worms on this one....
I've spent a couple of hours researching the problem of CSS text sizing, and got a lot of contradictory answers. The best advice (which I've implemented) is not to specify *any size* for the body tag or text tag. Those text tags that need sizing, are specified by percentage up or down from 100%. Thus, my bold headers on the home page are 120% of 'normal' -- which is whatever your default is set to on your browser. Unfortunately, the mouse wheel won't change the size, BUT you can do so in View > Text Size (which is how you set your default view anyway). That's the very best that CSS can manage.

Btw, I've just quickly flicked through a number of sites from my Favourites at random. It's interesting that about half of them DON'T resize. It's equally interesting that some of the ones that *do* resize by wheel, also are using stylesheets -- but with subtle additions. More research needed.

It looks like it works fine now - even with the mouse wheel. As far as I can tell the mouse wheel (left-click and roll the wheel) does access the View Text Size choices (you can also put the "Size" icon on the toolbar to do this. Sorry, but the text was just a little too small before; now I can make it larger with no trouble. It looks as if the body text is now a bit smaller than it was in the week before, but the header text is about the same size as before. I think they were the same size in last month's pages..

[From Jon Dominik]
Regarding CSS, when I first started farting around (which is literally all it was) with font sizes, I got three e-mails in very short order once I fixed the type size. The first, from JHR, was "what's this with the tiny agate type on the screen?" The second, from that other fellow down-under, Mr. Sturm, was simple - "QUIT SHOUTING AT ME!". The third, from a correspondent, just exactly whom that was, I've forgotten, who took me to task regarding my choice of font as Arial or Helvetica, rather than a proper serif'd font.

My $0.02, unbacked up by any significant testing - the CSS type sizes are still relative to the size the user sets on their own machine. If they choose a larger font than mine for their standard Windows (or Mac, or KDE) setup, and that font selection is inherited by the browser from the OS, well, then, you've got "issues".

Without CSS for exact font sizing, the users can use the mouse wheel to scroll the font size up and down (on a PC, don't remember about the Mac), and pick what they prefer. If the font size is set in the CSS file, the sizing trick won't work, and you'll get hollered at. What fun.

From Dave Markowitz (one of the Daynoters)

He is talking about the downloading of images from his digital camera.

I wondered about the read-only (ro) option and asked why not read-write. Bob replied that he does it this way for safety's sake, and uses the built-in features of the camera to delete the pictures once he's done. Another reader stepped in and mentioned that using a PC to delete the images can shorten the life of the storage media. I haven't run into any problems deleting the pictures using Win2K or XP as yet. Even so, I may take the conservative course and mount the Memory Stick read-only, then use the camera's controls to delete the pictures when I'm finished.

[From Mike] Anything further on this one? I can't see that deleting images off a card would be injurious to the card. After all, you access the card by reader or cable to download the images, so by the same reasoning, every time you download you'd shorten the card life. This would infer that the PC somehow reaches in through the camera circuitry and does something nasty to the card that the camera circuitry doesn't. I can't see the camera manufacturers not coming up against this in testing, and just letting it ride.

Thanks for the feedback. The only thing I ever heard about the supposed danger of using a PC to delete images off a memory card was that one post. For all I know, he may be totally wrong. I figure I'll be a little cautious, though, since it's the kind of thing that bears investigating, at least. But your email is encouraging.
--
Dave Markowitz

I'll post this -- always delighted to have new material. Anyone else like to hop in?? Be my guest...

Cheers ... /Mike

| HOME | Kronikles | Garden | Family | Art | Archives | Genealogy | PhotoGallery | PhotoTalk | TechieStuff | IcarusLinks | Current Mail | Asthma Help | Life in NZ | EMAIL ME!