[thelist] dynamic font size

[Felix Miata]

Jeff Howden wrote:

> > > [...] This generally leads real pain in the arse if
> > > you use font-sizes below the default "normal" size

> > Which you shouldn't be doing to begin with.

> "Shouldn't be doing" works well in a vacuum.  However, many a client and/or
> designer that the client trusts  demand a presentation that requires a
> particular font-size, relative or otherwise.

A competent designer who is also a competent saleman of his own work
will teach that client that a particular size can only apply where he is
in control of the environment; that outside that realm of control there
are unknown variables, not the least of which is no possible way to have
a clue what that size is elsewhere. Displays come in widely disparate
sizes and resolutions, from handhelds to big screens. Specifying in px
is quite simply unacceptable, as there is no way to know its meaning
(upthread message <42D515F0.4322 at ij.net>).

OTOH, % or em functionally can have the same problem. Since you don't
know the environment outside your own control, you have no knowledge of
the meaning of eg. 'body {font-size: 76%;}' either, only that whatever
the actual settings, be it 11px or 32 actual default or anything between
or beyond, you're making the body text rendering occupy 58% of the space
it otherwise would. <http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/area76.html>

> > > and most of the time we -as designers- do use 'cuz the
> > > default size is, imho, too big to be pleasent to our
> > > eyes.

> > Then make the default size smaller in your browser.
> > Problem solved.
 
> Again, in a vacuum the problem is solved.  However, applying changes to the
> designers system that most users will not apply to their own won't result in
> an outcome a client and/or designer will approve.

It should if your job as salesman is properly done.

> Further, asking them to
> change the default size on their browser will only strengthen their point
> that the default should be scaled down.

Down? Down to what? Some people need it scaled up. That's why browsers
have defaults, and why they should be respected. Teach them it's their
job to maintain their own affairs, like it is the job of others to
maintain their own. You can't know changing for someone unknown whose
settings are unknown whether your change is better or worse or neither.
But, you can be certain that you will antagonize those who do act
responsibly and maintain settings that do meet their own requirements.

> > > i. either may not have the knowlegde that their
> > >    browser has a adjust font size or page zoom
> > >    property.

> > Then they need to learn this.
 
> Most users are scared to death of making changes to their computer for fear
> it will render it completely unusable and irrepairable.

Actually they don't need to have so much knowledge. It's just nice when
users do discover they have ultimate control, something that's happening
more and more as Firefox and others continue to displace the ubiquitous
junk browser.

You're assuming that because the default defaults are too big for you,
that they're too big for everyone else. That's a mighty huge assumption.
Browser makers are not morons. There are good reasons why the defaults
are as they are. Too big is more usable than too small, and for many,
the defaults are neither, but rather just right. No one has a clue how
many there are of any of the above. To think you are improving the web
experience for anyone by imposing a deviation from the user defaults is
rude if not purely arrogant.

The defaults are usable as they come. Most users who truly need them
changed will find a way to do it.
-- 
"If you love your children, you will be prompt to discipline them."
                                                Proverbs 13:24

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata  ***  http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/