[thelist] [Site Review] Gemsnjewelry.com

[Shawn K. Quinn]

On Thursday June 26 2003 18:24, Jeff Howden wrote:
  [I wrote:]
    [Jeff's original message]
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> >
> > > the rest of the text isn't going to be 6px, even on a
> > > handheld unit. why? well, because it takes a minimum
> > > of 7 pixels
> >
> > 7 pixels doesn't have to be 7px. It could be 6px or even
> > 5px.
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>
> not without aliasing it can't.  letters can't be formed in a legible
> manner under 7 pixels without using aliasing.

You *completely* missed the point. I never mentioned exactly how many 
pixels would be used. A px unit is not necessarily one pixel, see 
<URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS1#length-units>.

> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> >
> > > to render characters of the alphabet so they're
> > > legible.  besides, if it's on a unit that scales the
> > > fonts down that much, it's likely that a) the unit
> > > doesn't understand css making this moot
> >
> > How do you know?
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>
> Perhaps because I've done a fair amount of testing with handhelds?

All of them? (I highly doubt it.)

> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> >
> > > possible, but simply not true, unless it's an
> > > absolutely enormous resolution.  i'm running 1600x1280
> > > on a 15" flat screen and it's plenty legible for me.
> >
> > And all your users have vision at least as good as
> > yours, right?
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>
> you know nothing about my vision, so let's not even bring that into
> question here.  let's just say it's not 20/20, or anywhere even close
> actually.

Then shame on you, you shoul dknow better.

> it's lunacy to think that users would change their screen resolution
> to something so large if they have poor vision. more than likely
> they'll be changing their resolution to something like 640x480 or
> 800x600 in which case 10px is actually quite readable.

No, it's lunacy to expect them to run 800x600 and read jagged letters. 
Why would someone buy a large monitor and a high end graphics card just 
to run it at 800x600?

> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> >
> > > that faq contains arguments* that are reasonable for
> > > body text, but hardly relevant to legalese type stuff
> > > that you find in a footer. something that needs to be
> > > understood is that arguments for relative vs absolute
> > > font sizes is not a blanket statement.  relative sizes
> > > are good in most cases, but not in all.
> >
> > There are two cases I know of in which absolute font
> > sizes make some sense.
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>
> there are actually many.
>
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > One is in a user (not author) style sheet.
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> >
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > The other is in a stylesheet for print (not screen
> > display).
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>
> there are some that would say that absolute font sizes in a print
> stylesheet don't make sense either.

I can agree that maybe they don't.

> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > Some browsers actually let you change the font size to
> > more than just one of "smaller", "small", "medium",
> > "large", and "larger". With my usual browser, for
> > example, I can have 72 point default text if I want
> > it.
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>
> and my guess is that same browser will also let you resize my 10px
> font-size to something you deem more appropriate, once again making
> your argument against absolute sizes moot.

It might, it might not. Again, you have no idea what size 10px is in 
relation to the body text. You do know that 75%, 80%, or 85% will be 
that percentage of the body text size.

> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > If 75% might be too small, maybe try 80% or 85%?
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>
> Then it's bigger than I want compared to the body text at default
> system font sizes.

You sure it's bigger than 10px? Have you tried both side by side?

Given a body text size of 12px, 83% should be an exact match for 10px. I 
find it hard to believe that 80% is somehow too big.

> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> >
> > > * (no supporting evidence is included with the
> > > arguments, some of which are quite outdated)
> >
> > Which arguments would these be?
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>
> The faq in the link you posted.
>
> http://css.nu/faq/ciwas-aFAQ.html#QA02

Yes, but which ones? (As in, name them.)

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn