SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 174
  1. #76
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,272
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mitică
    At the very least I helped others see that simply putting em on body it's not a magical fix.
    Sure.

  2. #77
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    172
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by itmitică View Post
    I hold a different point of view. And it's technically sound, by my measure. At the very least I helped others see that simply putting em on body it's not a magical fix. There is much more required both on the user's part and on the developer's part. It's also part of a plan that both the developer and the user can abuse it or misuse it. Is that simple.
    So what is the reason you don't change that last line of code? I don't understand. The most important reason some developers use px for font sizes throughout their stylesheets, is because that way they don't have to make calculations in case there's inheritance in play. But since you already use em/% for everything except body in your stylesheet, what reason is there to leave that last line in px?

  3. #78
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    892
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Because of the control that I have.

    I tested it on:

    - Dolphin, Opera Mini, Android Browser, Firefox Mobile, Safari in mobile.
    - Firefox, Chromium, Konqueror on desktop Ubuntu.
    - all big5 (IE8+, FF, Ch, Saf, Op) on netbook and desktop WinXP/7.

    Along with the easier zoom feature, that makes it technically sound for me. You can choose to believe in something else. I won't hold it against you.

    Some other big and small companies choose to do this, since some font faces only look good at particular sizes. Zooming keeps that feel, em doesn't.

  4. #79
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    172
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Sorry, I still don't understand the reason (I'm seriously interested, not trying to pick a fight). What control? What exact technical advantage is there?
    What is the advantage of this:
    HTML Code:
    body { font-size:18px; }
    h2 { font-size: 2em; }
    #sidebar h2 { font-size:1.5em; }
    over this:
    HTML Code:
    body { font-size:1.1em; }
    h2 { font-size: 2em; }
    #sidebar h2 { font-size:1.5em; }
    I only see one disadvantage, the one we already discussed (less accessible).

  5. #80
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    892
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's no technical advantage, mind you. I never said that.

    Your 1.1em is not guaranteed to translate to 18px.

    It's control over the font size for certain font faces. Brands rely on typography as well. In typography, font faces have sizes that complements them and sizes that make them look ugly.

    I can control that with px on body. With em on body I'm no longer able too.


    You talk about an advantage for em alone. It's a theoretical one, it looks good on paper. It's like what I said about font faces: certain designs and settings complements that, other makes it worse. You're actually choosing to only acknowledge those scenarios where it works using em. That's not realistic. It's not all good with em. So it's not "no bad can come of it", actually.

    From the whole number of users you think you cater for, in fact there's only a fraction that benefits from it, there's a lot not even realizing you gave them a kind interest, and another fraction where it just not working well with all the settings and with all your kind intentions, because things go wrong. Again, you can choose to see that, or not. Whatever suits your piece of mind.

    And that's reality, it's not theory. What is different is that I don't have the same expectations you have when relying on em. I choose to rely on accessibility provided by the UA. If needed. And zoom is much easier to handle, it's mature, and it's doing the right job. And it's more likely to be used. But that's me. You can believe something else.

    And we can argue about that ad infinitum. That was not my intention. But I had to argue the best I could against what I believe is a nice ideal that promises more than it delivers. The fact that simply using em on body will fix things and px will ruin them.

  6. #81
    <title class="lol"> bronze trophy TehYoyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Northeast Chicago Suburbs
    Posts
    806
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by itmitică View Post
    2. Being ideal, of course, means it doesn't generally apply. My point exactly.
    So when it does apply, we should override it? Even when it's not that hard to cater to the possibly-small percentage who have changed it?

    There's no difference b/w using pixels than using em/% w/ 16px as default. Except, of course, the added work - but maybe that's too much.

    ~TehYoyo

  7. #82
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    892
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm not sure what you mean, TehYoyo.

    To avoid further confusion on my part, could you please elaborate and possibly give some examples?

    Thank you.

  8. #83
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,272
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Your 1.1em is not guaranteed to translate to 18px.
    Neither is "18px". Even on IE when it can't do text-enlarge.

  9. #84
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by itmitică View Post
    Your 1.1em is not guaranteed to translate to 18px.
    ARGH! Which is the ENTIRE POINT of using it!!!

  10. #85
    Mouse catcher silver trophy Stevie D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Yorkshire, UK
    Posts
    5,881
    Mentioned
    122 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by itmitică View Post
    No, Jason, one point that I'm trying to make is that no group is excluded using zoom, from any scenario: using em the wrong way, using em the right way, or using px the right way or the wrong way. Zoom feature is well improved and some browsers have even more accessibility options, which are the right way to do it: by UA.
    No-one is "excluded", but a number of people will find the website harder/more effort to use if you insist on setting a global font size in px. Making your website harder for people to use – for no benefit to you or anyone else – is nothing but pig-headed obstreperous arrogance.

    Quote Originally Posted by itmitică View Post
    I put on body font-size: 15px. From there on, in the rest of my CSS file, I refer to this as 1em: 1em = 15px.
    So you're (indirectly) defining every font size in px. Once you've set a global size on <body> in px, every font size that is set as a scale factor (whether by em or %) of this is calculably set in px. You're hiding behind a smokescreen in pretending that it's only one declaration in px and all the ones that matter are in em. That's irrelevant. Once you've set one in px you might as well set the whole damn lot in px, you've already nobbled the whole accessibility/usability benefits of using relative font sizing, and it will reduce the risk of rounding errors in your fatuous quest for pixel-perfection.

    Let's say you put on body font-size: 1em. Either you inherit the default values, affected by dpi or not, or the value you assume most users know how to change in an UA. By default, 16px. From there on you refer to this as 1em: 1em = 16px.
    No, I refer to 1em as 1em. Whatever size the user has chosen as his or her default text size, that is 1em. In many setups that will equate to 16px, but different OSs and device types will have different defaults, and a significant minority of people will have made a conscious decision to change their default text size – whether through the OS or browser settings – to one that best suits their needs. So no, 1em 16px, other than by coincidence. I've certainly not got that in mind when I'm designing.

    Your argument is that you respect user wishes by using 1em, that the user knows how to accommodate that, and that I don't give a breadcrumb on the user needs.
    That sounds like a fair summary to me.

    Finally, using em is more likely to give the user a bad experience and make him bounce, since his limited knowledge can grant him a 32px default. That's exaggerated, but it serves the purpose of making my point: the blame will be put on you, the developer, for using 1em.
    What are you wittering about? It is fair to assume that if users have changed their default settings then it was a deliberate decision done to improve their computing experience. The notion that the majority of people who have changed their default settings have done so accidentally and that they are too stupid to realise there is anything wrong or figure out how to get it back is just plain laughable. Even brownian motion shows more intelligence than you're imputing to your readers, and that is not a tenable argument. We're talking about people here, not arbitrary decision machines that have no power of thought at all.

    Zoom being crap, that's one thing you'd have to prove. And don't pick lame sites to prove your point either. I can pick good sites to disprove it. Stick in your judgment to the actual Zoom option. Legacy browsers don't make for a good point either.
    Legacy browsers that are in common use do make for a good point, because there are real people out there using them for their everyday browsing. Zoom has varying rates of success, depending on the level of zoom needed, the browser being used and the individual site design. Some are better than others. The corollary of that is that they are not all equally good, so some are less good. For sites that have lots of content images, zoom can make an unholy mess of things, if the images are scaled badly.

    Sure, zoom is an option, but in many cases it is less successful than text resize. Your plan means that zoom is the only option for enlarging text, so users for whom text resize would work better have a sub-optimal experience. We (ie everyone else) want to give users the option to use either zoom or text resize (whether by default or in browser), as this gives more people an optimal experience. It's a situation where everyone wins and there's no real-world cost (excluding your fictitious and fantastic idea of an army of people who've accidentally changed their browser's default text size and are unable to figure out how to change it back).

    Quote Originally Posted by TechnoBear View Post
    In my experience, most users who don't know how to set their preferences don't know how to zoom, either. That's no reason to over-ride the preferences of all those who do know how to set them and have done so.
    Exactly. It's fair to assume that the vast majority of people who have non-standard setups have deliberately chosen those setups for their own benefit, because they've taken the trouble to change the default settings, which is not something that is easy to do accidentally and unwittingly. Overriding their deliberately chosen preference just in case they are halfwits who have accidentally pressed the red nuclear button is insulting and insufferably arrogant.

    Quote Originally Posted by itmitică View Post
    You assume. That's what's wrong. You don't assume about anything else, but you choose to assume about this one. As I said, a default 32px accidentally made through half knowledge, would mean a bad UX for that user visiting your site. And he won't know anything else but to blame you for that.
    And do you actually know anyone who has been dumb enough to double their default text size by mistake and been totally unaware that everything suddenly looks too big except on one particular website where he suddenly goes into paroxysms of rage against the designer who he thinks has used too big a font?

    Quote Originally Posted by itmitică View Post
    Except it's not realistic at all: they don't know how to use the mouse wheel or "CTRL" and "+" but they know how to change dpi and default font settings for UA?
    I work with experience computer users who use the internet regularly and have been doing for years. Earlier this week, I introduced two of them to "Control & Scroll" – while we might like to think it's widely known and understood, there are significant numbers of people out there who will be totally oblivious to it. People with the most severe visual needs but without the technology skills to set their computers up to best meet those needs will usually get someone else to do that – a grandson or neighbour or the sales rep or whoever, someone who has the skills to change the default sizes to ones they know Granny/Mr Jones/etc needs, and then leaves them to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by TechnoBear View Post
    Well, obviously I've misunderstood it. If I use zoom, my browser remembers the zoom settings for the site I zoomed, but doesn't apply them to other sites. So, if I need font size enlarged overall, I have to zoom for each site I visit. You're saying I don't need to do that. I'd be interested to know how.
    I don't even get that. My browser (Opera) doesn't remember the zoom on one site when I go back to it next time. Now maybe there's a setting in there somewhere that I haven't found that will enable that, but I'm a pretty smart cookie and I have spent a lot of time tinkering with the settings and looking through the menus to see what options are available, and I've never come across it.

    Quote Originally Posted by itmitică View Post
    Your 1.1em is not guaranteed to translate to 18px.
    That's precisely the point! Web design is not print design. It doesn't need to, and shouldn't, be about fixed sizes. I don't care if 1.1em ≠ 18px. What I care about is that 1.1em = 10% larger than normal. That's what matters, that I can control the relative font sizes within the page/site, that I can say how much bigger or smaller than the body text I want each element to be. Exactly what pixel size that equates to is irrelevant.

    It's control over the font size for certain font faces. Brands rely on typography as well. In typography, font faces have sizes that complements them and sizes that make them look ugly.
    Then don't use those fonts. Barring the point where the fonts are too small to render clearly and cleanly, there are few fonts that have ugly intermediate sizes. Tahoma is one that springs to mind, but that's a crappy font to use for a number of reasons, the lack of italic face being one of the most glaring. Other common modern fonts like Verdana, Calibri, Georgia and Trebuchet render well at pretty much any size, especially with newer displays giving sub-pixel hinting to improve the output, so you don't have to worry about ugly typography.

    I can control that with px on body. With em on body I'm no longer able too.
    I would rather choose a better font in the first place and then give readers the freedom to change the font size than to lock them in to one size just because the designer has made a bad choice of font face.

    From the whole number of users you think you cater for, in fact there's only a fraction that benefits from it, there's a lot not even realizing you gave them a kind interest, and another fraction where it just not working well with all the settings and with all your kind intentions, because things go wrong. Again, you can choose to see that, or not. Whatever suits your piece of mind.
    The benefits you've cited of using px are either products of a diseased imagination or spuriously undoing bad decisions the designer has made elsewhere. The benefits we've cited of not using px are real, tangible benefits to real people who are out there in the world, sat at their computers, and wishing they came across more sites like ours and fewer like yours.

    You don't have to accept that, but SPF has always been a champion of good design practice, and we aren't going to allow that good advice to be polluted by the nonsense you're peddling here.

    The fact that simply using em on body will fix things and px will ruin them.
    Oh, how I wish that I hadn't taken that quote out of context and that you really had seen the light

  11. #86
    <title class="lol"> bronze trophy TehYoyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Northeast Chicago Suburbs
    Posts
    806
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by itmitică View Post
    I'm not sure what you mean, TehYoyo.

    To avoid further confusion on my part, could you please elaborate and possibly give some examples?

    Thank you.
    What I'm saying is that even if it doesn't "generally apply", we should still use it anyways - for when it does apply.

    If you really want an example, we'll compare DS and me.

    I don't have my default font size changed, either in Windows or in my browser (Chrome, but that's trivial). So I don't notice it when developers use "1em" for their base font size. It doesn't give me any different experience than if the developer used 16px instead of 1em.

    DS (or Jason), on the other hand, does have his default font size changed. He does notice it when developers use "1em" for their base font size. And it does give him a different experience - a more convenient one so that he doesn't have to use zoom all the time.

    If we browse the same site (one that uses em/%), we'll both be looked-out for. DS/Jason will have his large font size that he needs/prefers, and I'll have my "normal" font size that I prefer (or maybe, as you pointed out, don't have the technical know-how to change it). We'll both be happy with the site.

    But if we browse the same site where the developer has used pixels and such, DS/Jason will be very inconvenienced. He'll have to zoom (which he hates and might even bounce) and will be annoyed and angry - all because the developer didn't want to use em/%. My experience will stay the same, but that doesn't matter (as much)! DS/Jason doesn't have the same user experience as I do and that's bad. I, on the other hand, will have the same user experience as I did with em/%. So why not cater and help both groups by using em/%?

    ~TehYoyo

  12. #87
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    892
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi Stevie,

    I'm going to address but this in your post, from all that is directed at me:

    For Opera permanent changes in Zoom: go to Settings->Preferences (or just press CTRL+F12), go to the Webpages tab and change the zoom using the Page zoom entry there.

    If you didn't know about this one, even though you proud your self being an Opera user and even though you are a "pretty smart cookie" and all, then I believe then that you fall in the same category with those "experience computer users who use the internet regularly and have been doing for years" that can't grasp other concepts unless someone else shows them how it works, wasting their time looking for things that were always under their nose. So I'll take anything else you ranted about with a bit of salt, please.

    And I'm a FF person my self, Opera I've tried but it fails on me for several reasons. But the zoom feature is one thing I admire about Opera.

  13. #88
    Mouse catcher silver trophy Stevie D's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Yorkshire, UK
    Posts
    5,881
    Mentioned
    122 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by itmitică View Post
    For Opera permanent changes in Zoom: go to Settings->Preferences (or just press CTRL+F12), go to the Webpages tab and change the zoom using the Page zoom entry there.
    No, that wasn't quite what I meant. For the vast majority of sites, I'm happy to browse at 100%, but for a handful of sites (eg Wikipedia) the setup they've gone for combined with the settings I've got mean that the text renders just a little bit too small. What I would like is a way for Opera to remember that I want those particular sites to zoom to 110% without having to change the font size through a user.css, but as far as I can tell, despite the fairly extensive "site preferences" options there is no facility to do that.
    Last edited by Stevie D; Mar 30, 2012 at 03:32.

  14. #89
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,272
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    You'd think Opera could have a whitelist somewhere for something like that.

    Like they do for Javascript (it's cumbersome enough that I prefer what NoScript offers me on other browsers, but plenty of users find a whitelist fine for their needs).

    Quote Originally Posted by mitică
    And I'm a FF person my self, Opera I've tried but it fails on me for several reasons. But the zoom feature is one thing I admire about Opera.
    Same here. I hate zoom most of the time, but I can see Opera does it really well.
    I notice Chrome, when a page is calling body text with @ font-face, will at various zoom levels cut off lines of text or have text cover other text. It's not a regular occurance, but there are some pages I can always get it to happen and it's another reason Chrome remains only my slut-browser for sites who simply don't work at all without allowing every script, plugin and ad tracker running. I have no idea if this is restricted to Linux though, and I can't say 100% that it's related to zoom (more that, when I am using Chrome, zoom is always more than 100% for me).

  15. #90
    Non-Member bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Keene, NH
    Posts
    3,760
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by itmitică View Post
    For Opera permanent changes in Zoom: go to Settings->Preferences (or just press CTRL+F12), go to the Webpages tab and change the zoom using the Page zoom entry there.
    You do know that's like the third time you've pointed at that and it has NOTHING to do with what's being talked about, right?

  16. #91
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    892
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevie D View Post
    What I would like is a way for Opera to remember that I want those particular sites to zoom to 110% without having to change the font size through a user.css, but as far as I can tell, despite the fairly extensive "site preferences" options there is no facility to do that.
    Try this: http://my.opera.com/alex-shpak/blog/site-zoom.

  17. #92
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    892
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    [...]I prefer what NoScript offers me on other browsers[...]
    Same here. And I'd point out that NoScript works on the whitelist principle as well.

    I like what Opera does as far as accessible-for-accessibility goes, with its zoom feature on-page visibility and its options, but I also find FF ideas to be quite good: FF won't go above or beyond certain zoom values and it remembers your zoom preferences.

    Even more, there are a few add-ons around:
    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/fir...ullzoom-level/
    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/fir...ddon/nosquint/
    that prove that zoom is a used and desired solution for a lot of its users.


    Chrome is fast, that's true. But I suspect part of its success in this area is due to less than optimal feature implementations. Which leads to bugs like the one for @font-face. I don't know if anymore, but it used to have bugs with the rounded corners as well.

    I've setup Chrome for my parents. It's simple and fast and as such it has its appeal. And the zoom feature it has can also be easily and permanently set to a value that suits them better.

  18. #93
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    892
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stevie D View Post
    No, that wasn't quite what I meant. For the vast majority of sites, I'm happy to browse at 100%, but for a handful of sites (eg Wikipedia) the setup they've gone for combined with the settings I've got mean that the text renders just a little bit too small. What I would like is a way for Opera to remember that I want those particular sites to zoom to 110% without having to change the font size through a user.css, but as far as I can tell, despite the fairly extensive "site preferences" options there is no facility to do that.
    I've found a few more.

    But as I've said, I'm not what you call an Opera user. I won't be able to test the usefulness of the solutions I've found in less then a half hour of searching the internet.

    Solutions for Opera are harder to find, mainly because of the difference in the fan base in other browsers. While FF fans get off their behinds and actually do something to enlarge the fan base, Opera fan base sits, talks dirty towards the other browsers and their fans, but expects someone else to make Opera better known. This is one huge flaw, and it's not Opera's.

    Anyway, here are a few hints:

    1. Interesting enough: http://my.opera.com/Tamil/blog/open-...-zoom-in-opera

    2. I don't know how I could've forgotten about this one since is one I've actually used (a long time ago): you can set the minimum font size in Opera by clicking Tools > Preferences > Advanced, choosing Fonts in the left pane, and changing the value of "Minimum font size (pixels)."

    I believe this one fits you like a glove?

    3. Manipulate text only by downloading the "zoom-text.js" script. Once you download the script, visit Opera's browser menu and select "Tools," "Preferences," "Advanced," "Content" and "Javascript Options." Point the "User Javascript Files" field to the location of the "zoom-text.js" script. Restart your browser, visit a website and find text zooming options on the bottom right corner of your window.

    The last one it's not quite what you've asked for, but hey, you and those other smart cookies on SPF that advocate good practice in a mob-like attitude, should take a pause and practice coding to make something worthy for your beloved browser you have in common. Prove your self you care enough for Opera.


    I hope you can find something in there that you can use.

  19. #94
    om nom nom nom Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,272
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by mitică
    And I'd point out that NoScript works on the whitelist principle as well.
    It has that option, but I don't use it much. Almost every site, starts with all scripts blocked and I yes/no particular domains (or subdomains) which can be either temporary or permanent. The permanent ones do go into a whitelist. In Opera I had to type them in, and I'm much too lazy to do that. But almost every site is just, Temporarily enable this domain(s). Really easy to use (click click).

    Quote Originally Posted by mitică
    1. Interesting enough: http://my.opera.com/Tamil/blog/open-...
    I've used Tamil's myOpera page to look up sooooo many things.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitică
    Chrome is fast, that's true. But I suspect part of its success in this area is due to less than optimal feature implementations. Which leads to bugs like the one for @font-face. I don't know if anymore, but it used to have bugs with the rounded corners as well.
    I don't use Chrome for speed. I notice it's almost as slow as FF to start up the first time, then something must remain in memory because until shutdown, every new startup of Chrome is instant.
    The rounded corners thing has been fixed. There were a few of them: images inside a box with rounded corners would pop out, and Chrome specifically had a bug with box-shadow: inset on something with rounded corners would pop out as well (other webkits didn't have this bug, only Chrome)... but both have been fixed versions ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitică
    While FF fans get off their behinds and actually do something to enlarge the fan base...
    I'm sure the ability for Joe User to write his/her own plugins for FF makes a big difference. Until recently that wasn't the case for Opera.

  20. #95
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    892
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Since Jason keeps pushing...

    As far as Jason also walking the walk, not just talking the talk, I believe a picture is worth a thousand words.

    Here is how my site (itmitica.com/en) looks like on iPhone (480px on 320px) and Jason's (deathshadow.com) looks like on the same device, at the same resolution, both sites without any other zoom or special settings in the browser:

    http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/...a-vs-jason.png

    Who's design and media queries do you see it providing for accessibility? Not Jason's, clearly. That's what I'm talking about exposing one sided narrow view that others are mislead by.

    I think it's pretty safe to say that Jason's fails/fails/FAILS!!!, accessibility and all, with all the em proud work he did on it. That proves that aceing the theoretical part but failing at extensive testing does not make "a champion of good design practice". Pay attention Stevie, because you're advocating bad practice.

    Also, I've tried Jason's site on my tablet, with Firefox Mobile, Dolphin, Android Browser. All have experienced a noticeable lag in scrolling, another fail from using and testing his design only for desktop (you know Jason , I just remembered, playing like a child grabbing the browser window by the corners or testing with the web developer toolbar in FF like you do is fail/fail/FAIL!!! also because in mobile you don't have scrollbars like in desktop).

    All of the above can be verified by third parties, if there is a malice suspicion on those showed and said.

  21. #96
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    892
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    @deathshadow60
    @Stevie D
    @matthijsA
    @TehYoyo
    @TechnoBear

    http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/...a-vs-jason.png

    Food for thought. Accessibility wise. And usability wise. I use px. Jason uses em. No zoom, no changed settings for the Safari browser on iPhone. No tricks. My design is the same as it was on Mar 21st, when I announced in the review thread that I've added responsive design.

    Which is better? Honestly. I would expect those few bad words and mob-like attitude gone now.

  22. #97
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy Jeff Mott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    1,246
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Off Topic:


    itmitică's snapshot inspired me to put a few websites through a mobile performance tester.

    http://www.blaze.io/mobile/result/?t...1530b62a5a1c2c
    itmitică's site, 171.22kb and loaded in 4.35s

    http://www.blaze.io/mobile/result/?t...9ff8f2fc4a1919
    deathshadow's site, 44.75kb and loaded in 9.99s

    http://www.blaze.io/mobile/result/?t...4be35036487837
    An agency site I used to work for, 1265.54kb and loaded in 5.62s

    I find it more than a little ironic that deathshadow will rant about page weight and performance until he foams at the mouth, yet his site is by far the slowest.

  23. #98
    SitePoint Mentor bronze trophy
    John_Betong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    City of Angels
    Posts
    1,806
    Mentioned
    73 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)
    @Jeff Mott

    More Off Topic:

    Just ran one of my test sites through the Blaze.io Tester and delighted with the results

    http://www.blaze.io/mobile/result/?testid=120331_D8_401
    John_Betong's landing page, 35.51kb and loaded in 3.4s

    http://www.blaze.io/mobile/result/?testid=120331_TK_403
    John_Betong's Calendar 2012/March, 49.89kb and loaded in 3.45s

    http://www.blaze.io/mobile/result/?testid=120331_FK_404
    John_Betong's "All-the-Jokes", 79.21kb and loaded in 3.39s

    http://www.blaze.io/mobile/result/?testid=120331_QR_405
    John_Betong's "37 Thumbnails", 205.2kb and loaded in 6.25s


    Hosting: Godaddy's cheapest option - I must be doing something right
    Last edited by John_Betong; Mar 30, 2012 at 21:44. Reason: displayed results in same format as previous post

  24. #99
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    172
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    @itmitică: first, I want to make sure you understand I am participating in this thread to learn things. So I don't care who is "right" (you, me, someone else). What's important is to fully understand all the arguments pro and con for each situation. If you can present valid arguments for or against something, I really appreciate that. Only when I or anyone else reading this thread understands all the pros and cons for each situation, can they make informed decisions.

    Now to the point. What I understand so far is that the argument you use for using px as the base font-size is:
    Using px on body gives me, the developer, more control.

    I still don't understand what control you mean. What exactly do you want to control? Do you want to prevent people from setting a different base font size on their system?

    To go back to my previous example. Let's say we build a website. We can do it with a px base font-size:
    HTML Code:
    body { font-size:18px; }
    h2 { font-size: 2em; }
    #sidebar h2 { font-size:1.5em; }
    Or with an em base font-size
    HTML Code:
    body { font-size:1.1em; }
    h2 { font-size: 2em; }
    #sidebar h2 { font-size:1.5em; }
    - Now, on any regular system/browser with default settings, these two sites look exactly the same. To the pixel.

    - When people using modern browsers resize the text (using ctrl+/- for example) these two sites respond the same.

    - When people use the zoom function of their browser, these two sites respond the same.

    - However, when people using a system/Internet Explorer browser with changed base font settings visits these sites, the website with px disrespects that changed setting. The website with em base font size does respect that changed setting. Maybe it's my neighbor with bad eyesight for which I increased the font size on his computer. Visiting the website with px he cannot read the text. Visiting the site with em, he can read the text.

    So, so far we can establish this:

    Using px:
    - Pro: can be easier for the developer
    - Con: accessibility problems in some situations

    Using em:
    - Pro: more accessible
    - Con: can be more difficult for the developer (when using ems everywhere dealing with inheritance etc)

    Now, which to choose? Make it easier for me as the developer or make it better for some people visiting my website? In this case, the choice is easy. The effort/cost for me as the developer of using em is very small.

    Again, if you or anyone else have any new pro/con arguments I have not mentioned here, please let me know.

    ---

    p.s. I don't want to look at or talk about specific examples of websites you give. On any website, there are so many other things/variables different, it's not possible to use them as arguments in this px/em discussion. That would be the same as saying "smoking is not bad, look at my 90 yr old uncle who smokes". Of course I agree that there are more things needed to make a website accessible and usable then only px/em. Color, design, markup, etc etc etc. But that's not the main question of this thread.

  25. #100
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    892
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by matthijsA View Post
    - However, when people using a system/Internet Explorer browser with changed base font settings visits these sites, the website with px disrespects that changed setting. The website with em base font size does respect that changed setting. Maybe it's my neighbor with bad eyesight for which I increased the font size on his computer. Visiting the website with px he cannot read the text. Visiting the site with em, he can read the text.
    I'm sorry, but are you for real?

    You reject my full site example and you expect me to take your three line theoretical example seriously? The hard evidence is right in front of your face yet you choose to ignore it. That makes you a follower, not a developer.

    The example I give you point exactly at that. I may be disrespecting whatever in your mind, with px, and em may respecting whatever in others mind, but that's just a smoke screen, misguided belief. Visiting the site with px, your mobile neighbor can actually read the text very well, while visiting the site with em gives him the worse accessibility and usability experience ever. And that won't change when he goes to desktop. Meaning px won't break on him.

    I don't know what other proofs to give you if you reject real proof. I'm not in the business of selling illusions. I guess that with this you're in one of those cases of believing in something without respecting the real proof. In which case, I can't help you. You seem to want to believe in something no matter what, and that's just wrong. It works fine in other areas. Not so well here.

    The thing you can't seem to wrap your head around is that the theory is good and fine, except that in practice all that changes. Extensive testing is what you need to do, not imaginary couch talk. And I gave you proof. What else can I give? Nothing. From now on you can only help your self.

    No one else can. I believe it's because I won't go about swearing, looking down on you or pure and simple insult you to prove my point, that you take my example lightly. Or because I don't hide behind a mob like group. I'm sorry, that won't change. Hard evidence is just better than any rant or attack in my book.

    You don't want to look at specific sites or at any site. Then, what represents as arguments in this px/em discussion? I am puzzled. If we take the sites out of the discussion, we're left with nothing to talk about.

    I took a site from a "a champion of good design practice" (Stevie doesn't have one, as far as I'm aware, he'd be include as well, good or bad) and one from a developer with different methods, and face them. It gave me proof that a strong opinionated mind and just theory is not enough. Extensive testing is what a real developer does.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •