W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > site-comments@w3.org > January 2010

Re: In-place quick fix for px [Was: Summarizing the "font-size" issue to make an informed choice]

From: Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 02:14:25 -0500
Message-ID: <4B56AD51.70305@earthlink.net>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 18 April 2022 20:33:48 UTC