- From: Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 02:14:25 -0500
- To: site-comments@w3.org
- CC: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
On 2010/01/19 22:38 (GMT-0600) Ian Jacobs composed: > Obviously this does not resolve the user preference issue. Tomorrow I > may set up a version that uses font-size: 100% to do some comparisons. You might wish to compare to http://web.archive.org/web/20080822125321/http://www.w3.org/ and share with us how many complaints were received about "too big" fonts the at least 9 years when body had 1em or no font-size specified, and consider the implications of the W3 policy difference implied by the current incarnation. You may wish also to test against use of: 1-larger than default default user settings 2-text-only zoom 3-minimum font-size application Right now at my normal default size (with no minimum size or zoom applied), using desktop view, only the upper portion (about 2/3) of each .main_nav link is visible. The print view in Gecko 1.9 looks like it is probably a print view, while in Gecko 1.8 it appears the print view is the same as the desktop view. Currently desktop view is a poor demonstration of best practices. It has unhealthy cases of divitis, classitis and iditis, besides a rude base font-size (except for IE, .82em nominal, 67% actual; smaller for IE; http://fm.no-ip.com/auth/area80.html ). On the bright side, mobile view on a desktop display works quite well. -- "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams, 2nd US President Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
Received on Wednesday, 20 January 2010 07:14:53 UTC