Hi all!
It it pretty simple. I have a stylesheet like:
Which means that
jodleren wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> It it pretty simple. I have a stylesheet like:
>
>
> Which means that
Scripsit jodleren:
> It it pretty simple.
There are no simple problems, just simple solutions, most of which are
wrong. But what is the _problem_? We can immediately see that what you
probably see as a solution creates serious problems, but what was the
problem it was supposed to solve?
> I have a stylesheet like:
>
Bad style. Sizes in points cannot be easily be increased on IE, and this
implies that they will be too small to hundreds of millions of potential
readers. (I don't say billions, but that's just because you wouldn't believe
it.)
> Which means that
"jodleren"
news:1193218311.138193.295970@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com.. .
> Hi all!
>
> It it pretty simple. I have a stylesheet like:
>
>
> Which means that Hello world! I get a font size 10.
Which I simply cannot read.
--
Richard.
On Oct 24, 1:30 pm, "rf"
> "jodleren"
>
> news:1193218311.138193.295970@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com.. .
>
> > Hi all!
>
> > It it pretty simple. I have a stylesheet like:
> >
>
> > Which means that Hello world! I get a font size 10.
>
> Which I simply cannot read.
I am aware of the problem.
Just checked pages like http://news.bbc.co.uk/ http://www.politiken.dk
etc. and quite many does not allow the text to be sized.
May I ask, what is your problem (glasses, bad sight...?), and how do
you overcome it?
And may I ask the group, how do you make a design with graphics and
stuff in tables/text so it allows to change the text size properly?
In some way I fan the plain simple HTML sites, but a nice design is
needed these days. As I found on BBC's pages, it leaves some people
out.
I should admit here, that even that I work with PHP and so, I am not
at all an expert in html/design/css, more a software guy. E.g. when
mentioned above, that 10.0pt is for printing, what is the proper way
to do it html? personally I prefer verdana or arial, font size=2
(which is some 10-11 pixels at my computer). Still, I do not use max
resolution, as I have glasses too. Some 1280xwhatever is good for me
still, though 1800x... is not.
WBR
Sonnich
jodleren schreef:
> On Oct 24, 1:30 pm, "rf"
>> "jodleren"
>>> Which means that Hello world! I get a font size 10.
>> Which I simply cannot read.
>
> I am aware of the problem.
>
> Just checked pages like http://news.bbc.co.uk/ http://www.politiken.dk
> etc. and quite many does not allow the text to be sized.
Yeah, and other people keep getting tickets for speeding.
Some people even eat peanut-butter with jelly.
>
> May I ask, what is your problem (glasses, bad sight...?), and how do
> you overcome it?
Some people just can't read small print. You must be crazy to want them
to explain themselves....
> And may I ask the group, how do you make a design with graphics and
> stuff in tables/text so it allows to change the text size properly?
We don't use tables for design. We make proper lay-outs, using CSS.
[]
> I should admit here, that even that I work with PHP and so, I am not
> at all an expert in html/design/css, more a software guy.
That's OK,
but then you should realize that you need to build your knowledge of
html and css. Either read some good books or keep visiting this
newsgroup (and others).
> E.g. when
> mentioned above, that 10.0pt is for printing, what is the proper way
> to do it html? personally I prefer verdana or arial, font size=2
> (which is some 10-11 pixels at my computer). Still, I do not use max
> resolution, as I have glasses too. Some 1280xwhatever is good for me
> still, though 1800x... is not.
Doesn't that depend on the size of your screen?
>
> WBR
> Sonnich
>
--
Rob
jodleren wrote:
> Just checked pages like http://news.bbc.co.uk/
> http://www.politiken.dk etc. and quite many does not allow the text
> to be sized.
They resize just fine for me. You should use a modern browser.
> May I ask, what is your problem (glasses, bad sight...?), and how do
> you overcome it?
Consider that a large percentage of your visitors will not have perfect
vision. Your solution: allow the visitor to set hir own size.
> And may I ask the group, how do you make a design with graphics and
> stuff in tables/text so it allows to change the text size properly?
> In some way I fan the plain simple HTML sites, but a nice design is
> needed these days. As I found on BBC's pages, it leaves some people
> out.
A 'nice' design can still be simple HTML.
> I should admit here, that even that I work with PHP and so, I am not
> at all an expert in html/design/css, more a software guy. E.g. when
> mentioned above, that 10.0pt is for printing, what is the proper way
> to do it html? personally I prefer verdana or arial, font size=2
> (which is some 10-11 pixels at my computer).
Read this: http://k75s.home.att.net/fontsize.html
> Still, I do not use max resolution, as I have glasses too. Some
> 1280xwhatever is good for me still, though 1800x... is not.
What about mobile phones, PDAs, and other small-screen devices?
--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:50:18 GMT
Rob Waaijenberg scribed:
>> Just checked pages like http://news.bbc.co.uk/ http://www.politiken.dk
>> etc. and quite many does not allow the text to be sized.
>
> Yeah, and other people keep getting tickets for speeding.
> Some people even eat peanut-butter with jelly.
Hah, in this newsgroup lots of people even eat haggis.
--
Neredbojias
Just a boogar in the proboscis of life.
In article <471f3f97$0$236$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
Rob Waaijenberg
> jodleren schreef:
> >
> > May I ask, what is your problem (glasses, bad sight...?), and how do
> > you overcome it?
>
> Some people just can't read small print. You must be crazy to want them
> to explain themselves....
The op is asking how people cope with such small sizes when so
coded. He is perhaps unaware at this stage about the issue and is
groping for background. If he knew that in some browsers, eg, a
px or pt based font size, was hard to up in size on the screen
but that it is no barrier (just a nuisance) in other browsers, he
might appreciate it. It might not be that he is crazy or asking
rude personal questions or demanding justification.
--
dorayme
jodleren wrote...
>On Oct 24, 1:30 pm, "rf"
>> "jodleren"
>> > Which means that Hello world! I get a font size 10.
>>
>> Which I simply cannot read.
>
>I am aware of the problem.
>
>Just checked pages like http://news.bbc.co.uk/ http://www.politiken.dk
>etc. and quite many does not allow the text to be sized.
>
>May I ask, what is your problem (glasses, bad sight...?),
Bad web designers.
>and how do you overcome it?
I use Firefox, so that I can re-size the text if I wish.
>And may I ask the group, how do you make a design with graphics and
>stuff in tables/text so it allows to change the text size properly?
Express the text size in percentages, with general text being 100%.
Headings, etc. could be, for example, 120%.
--
Martin Clark
"jodleren"
news:1193227695.003405.255520@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 24, 1:30 pm, "rf"
>> "jodleren"
>> > Which means that Hello world! I get a font size 10.
>>
>> Which I simply cannot read.
>
> I am aware of the problem.
>
> Just checked pages like http://news.bbc.co.uk/ http://www.politiken.dk
> etc. and quite many does not allow the text to be sized.
More fool them.
> May I ask, what is your problem (glasses, bad sight...?),
None of your business.
> and how do
> you overcome it?
The easiest way is to Ctrl mouse wheel (after cursing the designer who
forced this upon me). That enlarges my font size.
(Oh, by the way, all modern browsers allow one to change font size even if
the designer has coded in px of pt. Even the out of date Internet Explorer
has an option to ignore font sizes that designers specify.)
The second easiesy way, and the saddest for you, is for me to simply move on
to the next site in my search results.
--
Richard.
dorayme wrote:
> In article <471f3f97$0$236$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
> Rob Waaijenberg
>
>
>>jodleren schreef:
>>
>>>May I ask, what is your problem (glasses, bad sight...?), and how do
>>>you overcome it?
>>
>>Some people just can't read small print. You must be crazy to want them
>>to explain themselves....
>
>
> The op is asking how people cope with such small sizes when so
> coded. He is perhaps unaware at this stage about the issue and is
> groping for background. If he knew that in some browsers, eg, a
> px or pt based font size, was hard to up in size on the screen
> but that it is no barrier (just a nuisance) in other browsers, he
> might appreciate it. It might not be that he is crazy or asking
> rude personal questions or demanding justification.
>
??? Small? Ten point is standard on some typewriters and seems to be
the size one sees of text in NGs...
In article <13i00pvtcpof7fe@corp.supernews.com>,
Robert Baer
> dorayme wrote:
> >
> > The op is asking how people cope with such small sizes when so
> > coded. He is perhaps unaware at this stage about the issue and is
> > groping for background. If he knew that in some browsers, eg, a
> > px or pt based font size, was hard to up in size on the screen
> > but that it is no barrier (just a nuisance) in other browsers, he
> > might appreciate it.
> >
> ??? Small? Ten point is standard on some typewriters and seems to be
> the size one sees of text in NGs...
Gosh... typewriters... now *that* takes me back! I doubt if I
would now be happy with the output from my first typewriter which
was indeed in 10pt. First thing in the morning, under reasonable
light, maybe... as the day wears on... nah...
I don't think anyone has the energy to keep going over this stuff
but I took another casual look at what was on the internet and I
found this on a site that was devoted to advice on css and html:
http://www.basictips.com/which-font-size-px-pt-em.shtml
I mention it because there is a lot of bad advice about. OP
should not be fooled in researches.
Here is some more sensible stuff:
http://k75s.home.att.net/fontsize.html
Here is something on points that starts with a promising "Many
beginning CSS authors use points to size text, in part because
many of them come from a desktop publishing background, where
everything is set in points. However, points are a very bad unit
for screen-based design"
http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=UsingPoints
--
dorayme
"dorayme"
news:doraymeRidThis-C1F732.13522225102007@news-vip.optusnet. com.au...
> In article <13i00pvtcpof7fe@corp.supernews.com>,
> Robert Baer
>
>> ??? Small? Ten point is standard on some typewriters and seems to be
>> the size one sees of text in NGs...
NG? Newsgroups? Even *my* news client allows me to set the size *I* want to
view text at.
If you mean those forum things, well they are just sheep following all the
other sheep.
dorayme, you should mention *before* citing the following URL that the
advice contained therein is bad advice and totally outdated.
> http://www.basictips.com/which-font-size-px-pt-em.shtml
>
> I mention it because there is a lot of bad advice about. OP
> should not be fooled in researches.
>
> Here is some more sensible stuff:
>
> http://k75s.home.att.net/fontsize.html
Agreed.
> http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=UsingPoints
So why does this site specify font-size: small?
--
Richard.
In article <3GVTi.4346$CN4.1572@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"rf"
> dorayme, you should mention *before* citing the following URL that the
> advice contained therein is bad advice and totally outdated.
>
> > http://www.basictips.com/which-font-size-px-pt-em.shtml
> >
> > I mention it because there is a lot of bad advice about. OP
> > should not be fooled in researches.
> >
You program in... ? What letter was it?
T? S? U? F? E? D? E? T? G? F?
--
dorayme
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 25 Oct 2007 06:00:10 GMT
dorayme scribed:
>> dorayme, you should mention *before* citing the following URL that the
>> advice contained therein is bad advice and totally outdated.
>>
>> > http://www.basictips.com/which-font-size-px-pt-em.shtml
>> >
>> > I mention it because there is a lot of bad advice about. OP
>> > should not be fooled in researches.
>> >
>
> You program in... ? What letter was it?
>
> T? S? U? F? E? D? E? T? G? F?
How come you're always picking on rf? He's a fellow Aussie for Pete's
sake.
--
Neredbojias
Just a boogar in the proboscis of life.
In article
Neredbojias
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 25 Oct 2007 06:00:10 GMT
> dorayme scribed:
>
> >> dorayme, you should mention *before* citing the following URL that the
> >> advice contained therein is bad advice and totally outdated.
> >>
> >> > http://www.basictips.com/which-font-size-px-pt-em.shtml
> >> >
> >> > I mention it because there is a lot of bad advice about. OP
> >> > should not be fooled in researches.
> >> >
> >
> > You program in... ? What letter was it?
> >
> > T? S? U? F? E? D? E? T? G? F?
>
> How come you're always picking on rf? He's a fellow Aussie for Pete's
> sake.
How come he is always picking on me? Or don't you notice those
things? Perhaps you are biased towards sexist mates of yours? He
should watch how he talks to folks *before* he talks. There are
simple ways to be nice. He should learn them. But he invariably
puts his big fat ski into it.
He could have been simple and friendly. "... yes that was
certainly poor advice in that url (as you indicate). It is
outdated rubbish and there is no end of this sort of thing on the
internet, you are right! Yes, that other reference, as you say,
is much better..."
This sort of thing, maybe not laid on quite so thick would have
served to emphasise how bad the first URL was and correct any
misunderstandings he *thought* everyone else stupider than
himself might be prone to. But no. That is way too much for him.
Perhaps he has bad role models? Instead of thinking *before* he
*lectures* me, he comes with this crap tone. He does not think
before *or* after. He just spews this lecturing crap. Well, he
can shove his lectures. There are some people I would let get
away with this. But he has been too rude to me too often. He can
get stuffed.
While I am at it, do you think your idiotic remarks about women
and his provocations and snide remarks are such great things? Did
you notice his utterly gratuitous entry into a simple and
friendly enough exchange between Travis and me about movies
recently? I held fire then to see if it was just going to be a
one off (it says to do this in the FAQs on Usenet). That was the
primer. Know what I mean? Or not as usual.
--
dorayme
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 25 Oct 2007 08:03:12
GMT dorayme scribed:
>> >> dorayme, you should mention *before* citing the following URL that
>> >> the advice contained therein is bad advice and totally outdated.
>> >>
>> >> > http://www.basictips.com/which-font-size-px-pt-em.shtml
>> >> >
>> >> > I mention it because there is a lot of bad advice about. OP
>> >> > should not be fooled in researches.
>> >> >
>> >
>> > You program in... ? What letter was it?
>> >
>> > T? S? U? F? E? D? E? T? G? F?
>>
>> How come you're always picking on rf? He's a fellow Aussie for
>> Pete's sake.
>
> How come he is always picking on me? Or don't you notice those
> things? Perhaps you are biased towards sexist mates of yours? He
> should watch how he talks to folks *before* he talks. There are
> simple ways to be nice. He should learn them. But he invariably
> puts his big fat ski into it.
>
> He could have been simple and friendly. "... yes that was
> certainly poor advice in that url (as you indicate). It is
> outdated rubbish and there is no end of this sort of thing on the
> internet, you are right! Yes, that other reference, as you say,
> is much better..."
>
> This sort of thing, maybe not laid on quite so thick would have
> served to emphasise how bad the first URL was and correct any
> misunderstandings he *thought* everyone else stupider than
> himself might be prone to. But no. That is way too much for him.
> Perhaps he has bad role models? Instead of thinking *before* he
> *lectures* me, he comes with this crap tone. He does not think
> before *or* after. He just spews this lecturing crap. Well, he
> can shove his lectures. There are some people I would let get
> away with this. But he has been too rude to me too often. He can
> get stuffed.
>
> While I am at it, do you think your idiotic remarks about women
> and his provocations and snide remarks are such great things? Did
> you notice his utterly gratuitous entry into a simple and
> friendly enough exchange between Travis and me about movies
> recently? I held fire then to see if it was just going to be a
> one off (it says to do this in the FAQs on Usenet). That was the
> primer. Know what I mean? Or not as usual.
Let me ask you a fundamentally pertinent question. Do you think I'm
dumb? You've mentioned before that I should read your messages
_carefully_ and now you ask if I know what you mean. And, ironically,
the last sentence in relation to the content of your post puts you smack
dab in the middle of the "pot - kettle - black" scenario. -Or am I wrong
again?
Anyway, my idiotic remarks about women are meant to be idiotic remarks
about women. They're like the Polish jokes of yore except that the
Pollacks are broads. It's good-natured in a rueful sort of way so don't
let it upset you.
In regard to rf's manner of speaking, -yes, he probably could have been a
little more polite. But guys are guys. Nowadays it seems women want
them all to be pansies (except when they get the hots for The Hulk or
some fantasy which satisfies their inner lust.) If we have to accept
them (-and we do; it's either one form of abuse or the other,) they
should accept us with similar magnanimosity. I'm not saying rf wasn't a
trifle brusque or even egoey, but women should learn to expect that and
handle it with graceful aplomb so as not to start a needless fuss over
basically nothing. Containment is something which makes them desirable
(-besides the usual equipment, of course.)
Anyway, is it Kangaroo Day yet?
--
Neredbojias
Just a boogar in the proboscis of life.
In article
Neredbojias
> Let me ask you a fundamentally pertinent question. Do you think I'm
> dumb? You've mentioned before that I should read your messages
> _carefully_ and now you ask if I know what you mean.
Then why do you *pretend* to know nothing about this arrogant
man's attitude and remarks to me? Now that I explain some things
to you, you suddenly show some knowledge. Funny that? You never
gave a bloody clue before. You asked as if all innocent why *I*
am picking on *him*? Do you see anything of bad faith in this? Do
you know what I am saying? How smart are you? Are you very smart?
But pretending an innocence?
>
> Anyway, my idiotic remarks about women are meant to be idiotic remarks
> about women. They're like the Polish jokes of yore except that the
> Pollacks are broads. It's good-natured in a rueful sort of way so don't
> let it upset you.
>
Why the hell do you think Officer Bud White has not actually done
you in completely? Because I know you have just taken some wrong
turns, got into a bit of bad company obviously, you have kow
towed to some awful role models and like that but you will be
most relieved to hear that you are not essentially bad.
Look I *am* in a very bad mood, it *is* true. I don't appreciate
anyone *asterisking* his way in put-downs of or lecturing of me
or making snide remarks about men another thread. It is really
simple. If he was polite, he would get it back in the same
coinage.
I am sorry, but that is how I feel. I have generally kept away
from all this crap but when I am called out, I come out. Gary
Cooper, Charles Bronson, John Wayne, Annie (of Annie Get your
Gun) and Kirk Douglas all did the same before me. Why should a
Martian be left out of a line up like this?
> In regard to rf's manner of speaking, -yes, he probably could have been a
> little more polite. But guys are guys. Nowadays it seems women want
> them all to be pansies
This is just more pure crap in your mind. No woman on God's earth
wants men to be pansies. Where you get these silly ideas I do not
know. I lie! I do know, they make you feel better about yourself.
You schmuck!
>(except when they get the hots for The Hulk or
> some fantasy which satisfies their inner lust.) If we have to accept
> them (-and we do; it's either one form of abuse or the other,) they
> should accept us with similar magnanimosity. I'm not saying rf wasn't a
> trifle brusque or even egoey, but women should learn to expect that and
> handle it with graceful aplomb so as not to start a needless fuss over
> basically nothing. Containment is something which makes them desirable
> (-besides the usual equipment, of course.)
>
Look, this crap seems to me to be as offensive to any decent
fellers as to any women. You are simply not getting it are you?
You are ignorant about your own manly history, mate. Go and see
some American westerns. You will see plenty of examples of good
American male role models there. In fact, mostly, the male heroes
are touchingly impressive in their respect for females. You are
following the wrong models.
Boji, I have always had this faith in your improvement. Please do
not disappoint me.
--
dorayme
rf wrote:
> dorayme, you should mention *before* citing the following URL that the
> advice contained therein is bad advice and totally outdated.
>
>> hXXp://www.basictips.com/which-font-size-px-pt-em.shtml
I was thinking the same thing.
It says, "Using a pt or em font-size property instead of px allows for
your site text to be resized according to the viewer's system settings."
Whoohoo. Great for all the folks with perfect vision.
It goes on, "If their system is set to view very large text, your web
site's layout will become distorted and your web site may be illegible
to them."
Not if you use ems or percentages, and layout your page correctly...
>> I mention it because there is a lot of bad advice about. OP
>> should not be fooled in researches.
Oh, she did say so, but 'after the fact.'
>> Here is some more sensible stuff:
>>
>> http://k75s.home.att.net/fontsize.html
>
> Agreed.
Thenk yew.
--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
"Neredbojias"
news:Xns99D413BED8569nanopandaneredbojias@85.214.62.108...
> Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 25 Oct 2007 08:03:12
> GMT dorayme scribed:
>
>>> >> dorayme, you should mention *before* citing the following URL that
>>> >> the advice contained therein is bad advice and totally outdated.
>>> >>
>>> >> > http://www.basictips.com/which-font-size-px-pt-em.shtml
>>> >> >
>>> >> > OP
>>> >> > should not be fooled in researches.
> In regard to rf's manner of speaking, -yes, he probably could have been a
> little more polite.
Where was I impolite? (I leave the relevant quote above).
When I read doraymes post there was no explicit indication to me that she
was offering up that URL as a place giving out bad advice. The OP or any
other newbie reading that post might quite well take the URL as being
offered up as a good example, which it is not. And I am not talking about
anybody who might be "stupider" than I. I am talking about people who may be
considerably less informed. Less informed so as to read doryames post as
endorsing the subject URL.
In fact, her prose: "I mention it because there is a lot of bad advice
about" leads me to believe, on the face of it, that she *is* quoting that
URL as a good one, and all the others offer bad advice. Once again, and as
usual for doraymes posts, ambiguous.
And if the woman cannot accept a little correction of the above ambiguity
then she has more problems than simply living in Bondi.
At least my posts are to the point, not brain dumps of meaningless ramblings
that I see an increasing number of people answering with "WTF are you
talking about?"
--
Richard.
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
news:WA%Ti.272807$ax1.57630@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.n et...
> rf wrote:
>
>> dorayme, you should mention *before* citing the following URL that the
>> advice contained therein is bad advice and totally outdated.
>>
>>> hXXp://www.basictips.com/which-font-size-px-pt-em.shtml
>
> I was thinking the same thing.
I'll add another quote from the site in here, which IMHO turns around
entirely the bits you have quoted. This quote immediately precedes yours on
the page:
"Our advice is the same as the majority of long-time designers. When you
specify a font size, specify it in pixels (px) not points (pt) or em."
They are saying "use px and the viewer be damned" and the following quotes
justify that stance:
> It says, "Using a pt or em font-size property instead of px allows for
> your site text to be resized according to the viewer's system settings."
So use px so the viewer cannot resize her font and stuff up your pixel
perfect design.
> Whoohoo. Great for all the folks with perfect vision.
>
> It goes on, "If their system is set to view very large text, your web
> site's layout will become distorted and your web site may be illegible
> to them."
>
> Not if you use ems or percentages, and layout your page correctly...
But they have already stated we should be using px. And they are saying that
the possible distortion or illegibility is a reason *to* use px.
>>> I mention it because there is a lot of bad advice about. OP
>>> should not be fooled in researches.
>
> Oh, she did say so, but 'after the fact.'
I didn't read it that way. I read it as possibly endorsing the site because
there is a lot of *other* bad advice about. And what exactly does "OP should
not be fooled in researches" mean? Not a lot to me I'm afraid.
As I have said elsewhere, another WTF moment from doryame.
--
Richard.
jodleren wrote:
>
> I am aware of the problem.
>
> May I ask, what is your problem (glasses, bad sight...?), and how do
> you overcome it?
I hesitate to even venture into this discussion, but hopefully I can
lend some minor insight. First off, I will give the OP the benefit of
the doubt (as some here have and some have not) with regard to what
motivates such a question . Any person with a disability (sorry I don't
subscribe to the PC terminology) already endures some limitation as well
as suffering a significant amount or indignity. The latter is
frequently the product of "good intention" or people who "understand."
Quite frankly, they don't, and with the grace of God, they never truly
will. OP, you state you are aware of the problem. Maybe you are. For
example many of us, as we get older, have our eyesight diminish. Others
may never have been blessed with good eyesight, or even any eyesight to
begin with. Some may have perfect eyesight, but just have poor
equipment. Still others may even have state of the art equipment, but
like to view their monitor as they walk around with a phone attached to
their head. What does it matter? If you know the problem is one size
does not fit all, seek the solution by learning how to allow custom
sizing, not in trying to identify the reason. Is the problem with the
page (inflexible font sizing), or is it the visitor? How offensive is
it to ask "Why are you not just like me, since I am the barometer by
which "normal" is determined?"
There are many disabilities not as universally "understood" as ocular
deficiency. Unless you are involved in developing a cure, please don't
offend by asking.
So, if the problem is the page, and not the visitor, read the
references, both good and bad. See which you think allows the visitor
the most flexibility. My guess is it will impact more than the
selection of font sizing, it will influence your entire approach to
design. Strive to improve the page, not the visitor. Unless of course,
your intention is to exclude "inferior" visitors.
On 2007-10-25, Robert Baer wrote:
....
> ??? Small? Ten point is standard on some typewriters
Typewriters are irrelevant; they produce immutable paper output
(which may not be legible to everyone).
> and seems to be the size one sees of text in NGs...
You have no idea what size of text anyone sees in the newsgroups.
It depends solely on the font size in the user's terminal or
newsreader and could be anything.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster
============================================================ =======
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 25 Oct 2007 10:17:38
GMT dorayme scribed:
>> Let me ask you a fundamentally pertinent question. Do you think I'm
>> dumb? You've mentioned before that I should read your messages
>> _carefully_ and now you ask if I know what you mean.
>
> Then why do you *pretend* to know nothing about this arrogant
> man's attitude and remarks to me? Now that I explain some things
> to you, you suddenly show some knowledge. Funny that? You never
> gave a bloody clue before. You asked as if all innocent why *I*
> am picking on *him*? Do you see anything of bad faith in this? Do
> you know what I am saying? How smart are you? Are you very smart?
> But pretending an innocence?
If I was smart I'd be rich. If I were rich I'd be on a tropical island
somewhere right now sipping margueritas, not on a newsgroup.
Your questions indicate that you seem to find rf offensive, or at least
the "tone" of his posts. Okay, so be it. But who is to referee this
falling-out between country-mates or even determine the relevant
"rightness" of one over the other? Certainly not me, the innocent
ingenue in matters of personal textual discord. In fact, the thought has
occured to me that perhaps a romantic attachment is sprouting and you
both are not-so-unplainly displaying your consternation in regard to the
ironic dilemma. In the past I've learned not to come between 2
lovebirds, feuding or otherwise. That just makes one a worm to both.
>> Anyway, my idiotic remarks about women are meant to be idiotic
>> remarks about women. They're like the Polish jokes of yore except
>> that the Pollacks are broads. It's good-natured in a rueful sort of
>> way so don't let it upset you.
>>
>
> Why the hell do you think Officer Bud White has not actually done
> you in completely? Because I know you have just taken some wrong
> turns, got into a bit of bad company obviously, you have kow
> towed to some awful role models and like that but you will be
> most relieved to hear that you are not essentially bad.
I know I'm not bad. Sometimes I'm a badass, but that just makes me more
loveable in my goodass moods.
> Look I *am* in a very bad mood, it *is* true. I don't appreciate
> anyone *asterisking* his way in put-downs of or lecturing of me
> or making snide remarks about men another thread. It is really
> simple. If he was polite, he would get it back in the same
> coinage.
I understand and sympathize, but does your mood dictate the very nature
and character of your responses to the point where they could be
diametrically opposed to one another? If this is true, then you are
wrong. Such a tenet underlies my predilection for logical discourse,
too. -Logical, not perfect.
> I am sorry, but that is how I feel. I have generally kept away
> from all this crap but when I am called out, I come out. Gary
> Cooper, Charles Bronson, John Wayne, Annie (of Annie Get your
> Gun) and Kirk Douglas all did the same before me. Why should a
> Martian be left out of a line up like this?
Notice that all those people are dead. Remember, "The Meek Shall Inherit
the Earth". Of all religious dogmas, that is probably my favorite and
also probably most-true.
>> In regard to rf's manner of speaking, -yes, he probably could have
>> been a little more polite. But guys are guys. Nowadays it seems
>> women want them all to be pansies
>
> This is just more pure crap in your mind. No woman on God's earth
> wants men to be pansies. Where you get these silly ideas I do not
> know. I lie! I do know, they make you feel better about yourself.
Well, "guys are guys" is (and was meant to be) crap, but I really believe
women wish to effeminate men except when they're horny. They want to
control them outside of the times they want them uncontrolled like
Amazons with Pygmy slaves or something. But I'll tell ya, babe, that
ain't gonna happen with me nor, I think, with most men. (However, the
attitude does not preclude a bit of pretense for personally productive
purposes, of course.)
> You schmuck!
Now there. I've validated your epithet most succinctly.
>>(except when they get the hots for The Hulk or
>> some fantasy which satisfies their inner lust.) If we have to accept
>> them (-and we do; it's either one form of abuse or the other,) they
>> should accept us with similar magnanimosity. I'm not saying rf
>> wasn't a trifle brusque or even egoey, but women should learn to
>> expect that and handle it with graceful aplomb so as not to start a
>> needless fuss over basically nothing. Containment is something which
>> makes them desirable (-besides the usual equipment, of course.)
>>
>
> Look, this crap seems to me to be as offensive to any decent
> fellers as to any women. You are simply not getting it are you?
> You are ignorant about your own manly history, mate. Go and see
> some American westerns. You will see plenty of examples of good
> American male role models there. In fact, mostly, the male heroes
> are touchingly impressive in their respect for females. You are
> following the wrong models.
Movie star roles and role-models are hardly reality. Better to ask what
the _real_ star is like behind the curtain of fame, and from my
experience, most rich people are blatant pricks. Even the nice ones
often maintain an inner belief of superiority, so as role-models, they
actually suck.
If you are suggesting that the "character" in the films be the role-
model, that's almost as bad because they're static and trite and, since
they are unreal, totally unable to deal with real-life situations in the
act of occurence. It's like modelling yourself after a puppet.
> Boji, I have always had this faith in your improvement. Please do
> not disappoint me.
On my upper left arm I have a tattoo which says "Born to Disappoint". To
make matters worse, the one of my right arm says "See Left Arm".
--
Neredbojias
Just a boogar in the proboscis of life.
William Gill wrote:
> I hesitate to even venture into this discussion, ...
Glad you did. Well said.
--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:35:40
GMT rf scribed:
>>>> >> dorayme, you should mention *before* citing the following URL
>>>> >> that the advice contained therein is bad advice and totally
>>>> >> outdated.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> > http://www.basictips.com/which-font-size-px-pt-em.shtml
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > OP
>>>> >> > should not be fooled in researches.
>
>> In regard to rf's manner of speaking, -yes, he probably could have
>> been a little more polite.
>
> Where was I impolite? (I leave the relevant quote above).
Actually, the relevant quote is this:
>>
NG? Newsgroups? Even *my* news client allows me to set the size *I* want
to view text at.
>>
It contains the Neredbojiasism which I call "stroking the dog", -in this
case calling attention to "NG" when it was perfectly obvious what it
meant in the original context. I believe that is what really got
dorayme's dander up in the first place, not the subsequent line about
posting before. "Stroking the dog" is an affectation designed to, -well
frankly, get the opponent's dander up. There is also the asterick-
emphasis which is surely not an ameliorating influence.
> When I read doraymes post there was no explicit indication to me that
> she was offering up that URL as a place giving out bad advice. The OP
> or any other newbie reading that post might quite well take the URL as
> being offered up as a good example, which it is not. And I am not
> talking about anybody who might be "stupider" than I. I am talking
> about people who may be considerably less informed. Less informed so
> as to read doryames post as endorsing the subject URL.
>
> In fact, her prose: "I mention it because there is a lot of bad advice
> about" leads me to believe, on the face of it, that she *is* quoting
> that URL as a good one, and all the others offer bad advice. Once
> again, and as usual for doraymes posts, ambiguous.
I agree the message was hard to follow and not well-constructed; I didn't
quite understand it, either. But dorayme's last comment was about
politeness, not accuracy.
> And if the woman cannot accept a little correction of the above
> ambiguity then she has more problems than simply living in Bondi.
I have no disagreement with that. Btw, what does "living in Bondi" mean?
> At least my posts are to the point, not brain dumps of meaningless
> ramblings that I see an increasing number of people answering with
> "WTF are you talking about?"
And you're so subtle, too.
Yes, I've seen you honestly help many people in great detail, expending
great effort to do so. Myself, I get rather exasperated when the
question or "client" is too inane to understand me even when I may not be
perfectly clear myself. But that's being human and we all suffer from
the biological imperfection with our every breath.
--
Neredbojias
Just a boogar in the proboscis of life.
In article
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
> rf wrote:
>
> > dorayme, you should mention *before* citing the following URL that the
> > advice contained therein is bad advice and totally outdated.
> >
> >> hXXp://www.basictips.com/which-font-size-px-pt-em.shtml
>
> I was thinking the same thing.
>
So was I when I read it online! I thought, yeah, maybe that is
what some people do, they see a url and click on it without
taking in the field of view. Martian peripheral vision is
different you know. And, of course this is the essential
drawback, I was thinking: ... and they might not come back to the
post and simply go away *getting the wrong impression*! That is,
I take it, the objection. And indeed, who can know what a Googler
Woogler might do.
But one more thing I was thinking: it is a particularly salutary
and shocking thing to read with an impression that something is
right and to be suddenly pulled up to find it is in fact all
wrong. It is something not so easily forgotten. It is very hard
for people who know this stuff to see such a thing. It is assumed
on the basis of not a lot of experimental educational theory that
such a technique is counter productive. I call this "Naive
Regular Flow". There are arguments and stats showing the human
brain can sometimes be more impressed by disconfirmation than
confirmation.
--
dorayme
In article
"rf"
> Where was I impolite?
1. In your jarring gratuitously nasty intervention in a harmless
and polite exchange between Travis and me in another thread very
recently.
2. In asterisking me in this thread. Asterisking me is like
waving a wooden cross at a vampire. You simply have no
interplanetary social skills have you?
> > When I read doraymes post there was no explicit indication to me that she
> was offering up that URL as a place giving out bad advice. The OP or any
> other newbie reading that post might quite well take the URL as being
> offered up as a good example,
I would love to have a bet with you on this. Submit a plan for a
statistically significant trial. Loser pays the considerable
costs involved.
Having difficulty understanding what I am saying. You want it
less ambiguously? OK. You said something that implies a
prediction.
Having difficulty understanding what I am saying? You want it
less ambiguously? Ok. You are implying that if a statistically
significant number of people read my post, a number of them would
go away with the wrong impression.
And you would, if you knew the slightest thing about these
matters of public education, be meaning that the misled would be
statistically significantly more than the misled over a better
worded post. (No matter what is written there are always people
who misunderstand).
> At least my posts are to the point, not brain dumps of meaningless ramblings
> that I see an increasing number of people answering with "WTF are you
> talking about?"
I have two comments on this:
1. Evidence of the increasing perplexity please?
2. Use the other hand mate, that one must be getting awfully
tired.
Still having difficulty understanding what I am saying. You want
it less ambiguously? OK. get stuffed! Is that simple enough for
you?
--
dorayme
"Neredbojias"
news:Xns99D474048317nanopandaneredbojias@85.214.62.108...
> Actually, the relevant quote is this:
>
>>>
> NG? Newsgroups? Even *my* news client allows me to set the size *I* want
> to view text at.
Which was addressed to Robert Baer and, so, had nothing at all to do with
dorayme.
And the emphasis on *my* was intended to mean my peice of shit, outlook
express. Sorry if that was unclear.
And I am still in the dark about what Robert meant by NG.
> I have no disagreement with that. Btw, what does "living in Bondi" mean?
Bondi. A seaside suburb in Eastern Sydney. Known to be pouplated by most of
New Zealand. Largely flat. No trees. The most famous beach in Australia, so
totally covered by people one cannot see the sand.
Or maybe she lives in Coogee. I don't remember.
--
Richard.
In article
Neredbojias:
> GMT dorayme scribed:
>
> > Look I *am* in a very bad mood, it *is* true. I don't appreciate
> > anyone *asterisking* his way in put-downs of or lecturing of me
> > or making snide remarks about me in another thread. It is really
> > simple. If he was polite, he would get it back in the same
> > coinage.
>
> I understand and sympathize, but does your mood dictate the very nature
> and character of your responses
Unfortunately, yes! We martians have feelings, we are not like
you robot earthlings. We are live throbbing dreamers.
>
> > I am sorry, but that is how I feel. I have generally kept away
> > from all this crap but when I am called out, I come out. Gary
> > Cooper, Charles Bronson, John Wayne, Annie (of Annie Get your
> > Gun) and Kirk Douglas all did the same before me. Why should a
> > Martian be left out of a line up like this?
>
> Notice that all those people are dead.
Not such bad company then. A friend had a theory about me the
other day that *does* explain rather a lot of things. My blood
pressure has dropped and I have been unusually tired and it was
suggested that maybe I had died.
> > Look, this crap seems to me to be as offensive to any decent
> > fellers as to any women. You are simply not getting it are you?
> > You are ignorant about your own manly history, mate. Go and see
> > some American westerns. You will see plenty of examples of good
> > American male role models there. In fact, mostly, the male heroes
> > are touchingly impressive in their respect for females. You are
> > following the wrong models.
>
> If you are suggesting that the "character" in the films be the role-
> model, that's almost as bad because they're static and trite
Static and trite! It saddens me to hear you say this. There was
nothing trite about
* James McKay (Gregory Peck) in Big Country
* Wyatt Earp (Henry Fonda) in My Darling Clementine
and the list is very long, perhaps ending in
* Will Penny (Charlton Heston) in Will Penny
The last is perhaps a touch trite (but then Charlton Heston
always has been a bit wooden). The thing you miss is that a basic
decency was seared into the American film makers imaginations by
the best that was in their nation. Whereas you and that other
sexist pig seem to take your cue from the lowest in the culture.
Having difficulty understanding any of this? Do say, I am always
happy to expand on anything.
--
dorayme
In article
William Gill
> Strive to improve the page, not the visitor. Unless of course,
> your intention is to exclude "inferior" visitors.
Perhaps that is what some of these designers are up to, the
beginning of a Hitlerite eradication process.
There, this will test Godwin's Law once more.
--
dorayme
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:12:39
GMT dorayme scribed:
>> I understand and sympathize, but does your mood dictate the very
>> nature and character of your responses
>
> Unfortunately, yes! We martians have feelings, we are not like
> you robot earthlings. We are live throbbing dreamers.
Terrans have feelings, too, but the more erudite of us try to avoid
upsetting other Terrans simply because our own emotions aren't as steady
as we'd like them at the moment.
>> > I am sorry, but that is how I feel. I have generally kept away
>> > from all this crap but when I am called out, I come out. Gary
>> > Cooper, Charles Bronson, John Wayne, Annie (of Annie Get your
>> > Gun) and Kirk Douglas all did the same before me. Why should a
>> > Martian be left out of a line up like this?
>>
>> Notice that all those people are dead.
>
> Not such bad company then. A friend had a theory about me the
> other day that *does* explain rather a lot of things. My blood
> pressure has dropped and I have been unusually tired and it was
> suggested that maybe I had died.
I get that from transfusions and sex (-afterward, not during). So maybe
you've been psychosematically pricked or something.
>> If you are suggesting that the "character" in the films be the role-
>> model, that's almost as bad because they're static and trite
>
> Static and trite! It saddens me to hear you say this. There was
> nothing trite about
>
> * James McKay (Gregory Peck) in Big Country
> * Wyatt Earp (Henry Fonda) in My Darling Clementine
>
> and the list is very long, perhaps ending in
>
> * Will Penny (Charlton Heston) in Will Penny
Gawd, I never even heard of "Will Penny" and saw the other 2 like once
ages and ages ago. How 'bout some more recent examples (-excepting
"L.A. Confidential".) Regardless, though, patterning your behavior
after a movie character doesn't seem very healthy to me in any
circumstances.
> The last is perhaps a touch trite (but then Charlton Heston
> always has been a bit wooden). The thing you miss is that a basic
> decency was seared into the American film makers imaginations by
> the best that was in their nation. Whereas you and that other
> sexist pig seem to take your cue from the lowest in the culture.
Yes, there was a "basic decency" theme predominant in many films of the
past. There were also a lot of gangster movies. See my point?
> Having difficulty understanding any of this? Do say, I am always
> happy to expand on anything.
Actually, I forgot what we were arguing about. Or were we arguing? I
doubt we were agreeing; that seems just too fantastic to believe.
--
Neredbojias
Just a boogar in the proboscis of life.
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 25 Oct 2007 22:43:47
GMT rf scribed:
>> Actually, the relevant quote is this:
>>
>>>>
>> NG? Newsgroups? Even *my* news client allows me to set the size *I*
>> want to view text at.
>
> Which was addressed to Robert Baer and, so, had nothing at all to do
> with dorayme.
Yes, I see that now on re-reading part of the thread. But your reply-
post was made to dorayme and so those words could be misconstrued.
> And the emphasis on *my* was intended to mean my peice of shit,
> outlook express. Sorry if that was unclear.
_You_ are using OE? I don't believe it. For heaven's sake, why?
> And I am still in the dark about what Robert meant by NG.
He probably meant newsgroup posts, but, of course, it was an awkward
statement.
>> I have no disagreement with that. Btw, what does "living in Bondi"
>> mean?
>
> Bondi. A seaside suburb in Eastern Sydney. Known to be pouplated by
> most of New Zealand. Largely flat. No trees. The most famous beach in
> Australia, so totally covered by people one cannot see the sand.
Ah, a "sea of people". I've seen film clips of similar here on US
beaches in summer (-no idea which ones, though.)
> Or maybe she lives in Coogee. I don't remember.
I used to live _for_..., er, never mind.
--
Neredbojias
Just a boogar in the proboscis of life.
In article
Neredbojias
> Terrans have feelings, too, but the more erudite of us try to avoid
> upsetting other Terrans simply because our own emotions aren't as steady
> as we'd like them at the moment.
>
You mean that some of you earthlings like upsetting others in a
cold and deliberate and calculating way? Charming! I am glad we
are now in complete agreement.
>
> Yes, there was a "basic decency" theme predominant in many films of the
> past. There were also a lot of gangster movies. See my point?
No I don't see it at all. Unless you are making the false claim
that I am seeing the mere fact of a film character as evidence of
it being a god. But never mind, Boji ...
--
dorayme