Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship

Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: www-redesign
Lists: www-redesign: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
To: www-redesign@g.o
From: Stefan Huszics <sauron@...>
Subject: Re: Re: Status on Gentoo redesign
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 10:18:25 +0100
Sven Vermeulen wrote:

>On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 09:36:47PM -0800, Aaron Shi wrote:
>>Another thing was using
>>a span and a CSS rule to make text italic, but(X)HTML already has such a tag
>>for the exact purpose: <em>.
I'm sure you know this, but just to expand on that explanation for 
people on this list that might not know, <em> is for /emphasising/ 
something, making sure people see that this is extra important. In a 
graphical browser the recomended way to show this by writing it in 
italics, but in other browsers it might be something else, eg a 
different color in a cli browser or a different tone of voice in a 
speach syntesizer.

OTOH for things that are /not/ of extra high importance, just written in 
italics becuse it happens to look good, the construct with CSS + span is 
the apropriate method since span is a neutral container that won't get 
flagged as "IMPORTANT" in non graphical browsers. This btw was the 
reason the old <i> tag was deprecated/removed from the (x)html specs, it 
was ambigulent in if something was in italics becuse it was
a) Important
b) Prettier that way

>>justify for the text (which has quirks when you try to print,
>>but very negligible).
We could always use non justified text in a CSS for media="print". Or 
does that still cause problem due to browserbugs?

>>To address the issue of font sizes, I've implemented a font size changer on
>>the content pages.  The user could increase/decrease the content font size
>>and the changes are saved into a cookie so that it will apply site wide.  I
>>think this give users flexibility without compromising the layout of the
>>pages.  Without this system, the user would use his browser to increase font
>>size. The browser would increase all the fonts...making the navigation bar
>>(and other) fonts extremely out of proporation
That sort of works in most cases.
But what happens if a user don't have eg JS or cookies turn on (for 
security/preference/whatever reasons)? The browser default setting is 
already applied site wide without any extra magic that may or may not work.

And "making the navigation bar (and other) fonts extremely out of 
proporation" in regard to what? The graphics? What if forcing a fontsize 
on the navbar makes it compleatly unreadable on a users screen? I would 
prefer "slightly weird looking" above "compleatly unreadable navigation" 
on a site.

In the days of a CRT doinated world it was pretty safe to make 
assumtions about users fontsizes, you couldn't go too wrong if it was 
readable to yourself. But nowdays there are really tiny LCDs with HUGE 
resolutions of 1280 or more. In a world where a user on a 14" monitor 
might be using anything from 640 to 1600 res, all bets are off. That is 
why I belive it's a better design principle to simply let go of textsize 
control and concentrate on making a design highly resilient to whatever 
fontsize is thrown at it.

>>making the navigation bar
>>(and other) fonts extremely out of proporation, causing it to wrap in the
>>lower bound "designed for" resolution of 800x600.
IMO that problem should preferably be solved by making the design adapt 
nicely when forced to wrap instead of trying to fixate the fontsize. 
Such a design would additionally be beneficial for when visitors don't 
have 800px res available, eg on PDA/Handhelds. Reading pages 3-4 
screensizes wide is a PITA. Looking at your design I don't see any major 
reasons why we couldn't adapt it to behave well on as little as a 400px 
vert res or even smaller.

/ Stefan :)

www-redesign@g.o mailing list

Comments on Gentoo redesign
-- Xavier Neys
Re: Status on Gentoo redesign
-- Sven Vermeulen
Lists: www-redesign: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Re: Status on Gentoo redesign
Next by thread:
Comments on Gentoo redesign
Previous by date:
Re: Re: Status on Gentoo redesign
Next by date:
Re: Re: Status on Gentoo redesign

Updated Jun 17, 2009

Summary: Archive of the www-redesign mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.