[thelist] [Site Review] Gemsnjewelry.com

Jeff Howden jeff at jeffhowden.com
Thu Jun 26 22:53:18 CDT 2003


shawn,

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> From: Shawn K. Quinn
>
> > 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.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

actually, you did:

  "What if the rest of the text is 6px (very possible
   on hand-held units)? [...]"

http://lists.evolt.org/archive/Week-of-Mon-20030623/143598.html

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> [...] A px unit is not necessarily one pixel, see
> <URL:http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS1#length-units>.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

um, if a pixel isn't a pixel, then what exactly is it?

a horse is a horse, of course, of course...

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > > How do you know?
> >
> > Perhaps because I've done a fair amount of testing
> > with handhelds?
>
> All of them? (I highly doubt it.)
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

i doubt *anyone* has tested *all* of them.  seriously now.

do you test your work in all the browsers?  i'm sure you haven't.  but, just
in case you wanna drive yourself crazy trying, we've got the browser archive
for ya:

http://browsers.evolt.org/

knock yourself out.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > 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.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

there's some constructive criticism.  a healthy dose of shame'll get most
anybody to do what want.  not!

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > 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?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

um, perhaps because they have impaired vision?  why do you think that
800x600 correlates to jagged letters?  if anything, things will be crisper,
sharper, and more perfectly aliased.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > 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.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

i know that the typical size for *most* of my users will result in the size
body text i'm expecting.  i know it's bigger than the 10px i've chosen for
the footer text.  i also know that most people use internet explorer.  i
also happen to know that the browser text size is far more likely to get
messed with than the text sizes for the os.  so, taking that into
consideration, i know i *don't* like what i see when i use a percentage for
the text size of the footer.  so, i picked px.  it's two lines of
inconsequential text.  it's *so* not worth even your initial post about it.


><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > > 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?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

i did try 80% and 85%.  neither of them were enough different than 75% to
warrant using them.  in order to get it so it's legible at small/smaller
settings, i have to go all the way up to 90% and it's bigger than i want at
medium (where *most* people have it set cause they don't even know they can
change it).

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > The faq in the link you posted.
> >
> > http://css.nu/faq/ciwas-aFAQ.html#QA02
>
> Yes, but which ones? (As in, name them.)
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

uh, well, the specific q/a you linked to.

i didn't bother reading any of the other ones because it's formatted poorly,
the document doesn't have a background color specified, and both the markup
and the css don't validate.

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://css.nu/faq/ciwas-aFAQ.html
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http://css.nu/faq/ciwas-aFA
Q.html

;p

.jeff

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Jeff Howden - Web Application Specialist
Résumé - http://jeffhowden.com/about/resume/
Code Library - http://evolt.jeffhowden.com/jeff/code/




More information about the thelist mailing list