Verdana font. Why not?

[me]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

"Ståle Sæbøe" <othmaar@tdz.no > wrote in message
news:4240952a$1 @news.broadpark .no...[color=blue]
> C A Upsdell > wrote:[color=green]
> > me wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> >>> Fluid design certainly results in one limitation: it becomes[/color][/color][/color]
impossible[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >>> to delude yourself into thinking that you can make pixel-perfect[/color][/color][/color]
sites.[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >>
> >>
> >> My experience is that my clients expect (demand) pixel perfect, in IE[/color][/color][/color]
on[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> Windows.[/color]
> >
> >
> > One of your jobs is teaching your client that this is unnecessary,
> > impossible, and undesireable. Point out to them that they will lose
> > potential visitors if they insist on pixel-perfect design.
> >
> > (Of course some clients are unteachable. So you make your point, and
> > record it on paper or in an email so that if they come back to you later
> > you can say "I told you so", and justify the cost of fixing their[/color][/color]
mistake.)[color=blue]
>
> I agree. A "I told you so" clause can be very handy to have in writing,
> maybe even add a point about it in the SLA.[/color]

In my contract it states that my sites are designed for IE on Windows.
Signed,
me

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

me wrote:[color=blue]
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@ex ample.invalid> wrote in
> message news:3abhmtF67j 12iU1@individua l.net...
>[color=green]
>> me wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Please get your facts straight. I said the site is still usable
>>> in IE on Win with font sizes overridden in acessibility and the
>>> font size set to smaller or below by the user. I didn't say
>>> anything about who could or could not read it.[/color]
>>
>> We know why you didn't say anything about who could/could not
>> read it. It's because you don't care about the visitor.[/color]
>
> No I did say, if not in this thread then in another, I said I and
> my clients can read it.[/color]

Exactly. You and your clients. No consideration to your visitors. Let
me repeat that: No consideration to your visitors. Who cares if you
and the site owner can read it?
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> I and my clients can read the content of the sites I build.[/color]
>>
>> Ah. You and your clients. But not my mother. She's 85 now, and
>> has vision problems. Obviously, she is not on your accepted
>> visitor list.[/color]
>
> I'm happy to hear your mother has lived to such a ripe old age.
> Perhaps if you set her monitor to 800x600 instead of 1024x768 (or
> who knows what) she wouldn't have a problem.[/color]

She has a 17" already set to 800x600.
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>> I should point out that I build sites to fit a resolution of
>>> 800x600. IMO setting a 17' (22"?) monitor to any resolution
>>> larger than 800x600 is bound to cause readibility problems.
>>> YMMV[/color]
>>
>> <ROF,L> I don't know a single person with a 20+" monitor set at
>> 800x600![/color]
>
> OK, I'll ammend that, IMO I wouldn't set a 19" or smaller monitor
> higher than 800x600.[/color]

Is your monitor in the next room? <g>
[color=blue][color=green]
>> And a large majority of 17's are at 1024x768.[/color]
>
> And I consider that a mistake but YMMV.
>[color=green]
>> Please tell us the size in inches and the resolution of your
>> development machine.[/color]
>
> I did, see above.[/color]

Not in this message. You allude to 22" .. 19" .. but you don't say
what *you* have sitting in front of you at the moment.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Please include some details about your vision.[/color]
>
> Why should I, If I tell you my vision is fine you'll likely refute
> what I say or ridicule me so why should I bother?[/color]

No, I'm wondering if you have perfect vision and because of that think
all of your visitors do as well.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> This may be the answer as to why you think tiny fonts are ok.[/color]
>
> We likely have different definitions for "tiny fonts". How do you
> define tiny fonts?[/color]

10-11px is a common setting for you fixed-font guys.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

[Alan J. Flavell]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Steve Pugh wrote:
[color=blue]
> Damn right. I can't remember the last time I saw 800x600 on any size
> monitor.[/color]

I saw one last week! One of our users came by the office with their
fresh linux/gnome installation, whining that everything on the display
was too damned big and please could we make it better for them. Sure
enough, they'd got the default 800x600 on their display (14inch, I
think it was). We reconfigured it to 1024x768 - the native resolution
of the panel - and they went away happy.
[color=blue]
> And of course let's not forget that window size and desktop size are
> different things...[/color]

Oh, quite. And our users typically have 6 logical desktops, to fit
all their windows on to.

[me]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@ex ample.invalid> wrote in message
news:3abm82F67i lsaU1@individua l.net...
[snip]

Enough. I do what I'm paid to do.

Like it or not many of the most popular sites use fixed fonts and non-fluid
designs. It so happens I and my clients prefer fixed fonts and non-fluid
designs. You are entitled to your own preferences.
Signed,
me

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

me wrote:[color=blue]
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@ex ample.invalid> wrote in
> message news:3abm82F67i lsaU1@individua l.net... [snip]
>
> Enough. I do what I'm paid to do.[/color]

That itself is fine. You do what earns you a living.
[color=blue]
> Like it or not many of the most popular sites use fixed fonts and
> non-fluid designs. It so happens I and my clients prefer fixed
> fonts and non-fluid designs. You are entitled to your own
> preferences.[/color]

We all just wish you wouldn't pop in these groups and spread your
ill-conceived notions to others.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

[me]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

"Jan Roland Eriksson" <jrexon@newsguy .com> wrote in message
news:f3414196n6 e5nqaumh9fs14jk olqcqd5t2@4ax.c om...[color=blue]
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:17:30 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.co m> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >"Jan Roland Eriksson" <jrexon@newsguy .com> wrote in message
> >news:l0ou31tku 2jm58robrnf6n5j dehm706f51@4ax. com...[/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:37:15 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.co m> wrote:[/color][/color]
> [...][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> >Fair enough ... So do you think their stats are wrong?[/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> Probaly not since the w3schools site is IE centric in the first place
> >> and has always been like that since its first day of appearance on the
> >> www.[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
> >Cite proof please.[/color]
>
> I claim that you are one damned big idiot since you seem to lack all
> parts of historical insight of what has passed by in this NG before you
> decided to stick your nose in here.[/color]

I will not dane to answer that insulting remark. You are uncivilized.
[color=blue]
> I was one of those who once voted _for_ the creation of this NG many
> years back. Later I and a very good friend of mine started to post
> pointers to CSS resources on the www, an activity that later lead us to
> create some "officially " recognized FAQ info to be posted here.[/color]

Many have created NG's. So what. If you wanted to control what gets posted
here (as you appear too) you should have made this a moderated NG.
[color=blue]
> At some point in the now lost time span, w3schools pops up out of
> nowhere. Some investigations gave at hand that we had a Norwegian based
> IT oriented company sitting behind that "w3schools" logo.[/color]

So what.
[color=blue]
> I tried my best, and I'm sure that quite a few others tried their best
> too, to make the w3schools publishers get a grip on reality.
> Suffice to say that they never responded, but kept on going MS style.[/color]

Again I say, so what. So they didn't bow down to you, good for them.
[color=blue]
> I do not have to give you any "Cite proof" at all, it is your job to
> examine the available archives; do that and "proof" will be all revealed
> to you.[/color]

No sir, you refuted those stats therefore the onus is on you to cite proof
of your assertion. Look here for more stats that you can refute:

https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj.GurPbhagre.pbz/fgngf/2005/Sroehnel/browser.php

TheCounter.com rates IE at 89%.
Signed,
me

[me]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@ex ample.invalid> wrote in message
news:3aboimF65h dmfU1@individua l.net...[color=blue]
> me wrote:[color=green]
> > "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@ex ample.invalid> wrote in
> > message news:3abm82F67i lsaU1@individua l.net... [snip]
> >
> > Enough. I do what I'm paid to do.[/color]
>
> That itself is fine. You do what earns you a living.
>[color=green]
> > Like it or not many of the most popular sites use fixed fonts and
> > non-fluid designs. It so happens I and my clients prefer fixed
> > fonts and non-fluid designs. You are entitled to your own
> > preferences.[/color]
>
> We all just wish you wouldn't pop in these groups and spread your
> ill-conceived notions to others.[/color]

You may continue to wish. If my ideas are so ill conceived you have nothing
to fear. The reality is that millions of successful sites that enjoy great
popularity use fixed font sizes and non-fluid layouts. Wake up and smell the
coffee.
Signed,
me

[Ståle Sæbøe]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

me wrote:
[color=blue]
> In my contract it states that my sites are designed for IE on Windows.
> Signed,
> me[/color]
Why did you not say so in the first place? Would have saved a lot of
bandwith!! :D

[Jan Roland Eriksson]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 17:44:02 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.co m> wrote:
[color=blue]
>"Jan Roland Eriksson" <jrexon@newsguy .com> wrote in message
>news:f3414196n 6e5nqaumh9fs14j kolqcqd5t2@4ax. com...[color=green]
>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:17:30 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.co m> wrote:[/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:37:15 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.co m> wrote:[/color]
>> [...][color=darkred]
>> >> >Fair enough ... So do you think their stats are wrong?[/color][/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>> >> Probaly not since the w3schools site is IE centric in the first place
>> >> and has always been like that since its first day of appearance on the
>> >> www.[/color][/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>> >Cite proof please.[/color][/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> I claim that you are one damned big idiot since you seem to lack all
>> parts of historical insight of what has passed by in this NG before you
>> decided to stick your nose in here.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>I will not dane to answer that insulting remark. You are uncivilized.[/color]

Nope; you are, since you try to give "expert" advice from an empty
source. That is an uncivilized thing to do.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> I was one of those who once voted _for_ the creation of this NG...[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>Many have created NG's.[/color]

You still don't understand do you?

MS has spammed Usenet with newgroup control msgs to an extent that they
have been looked on as just plain childish.

OTOH, creating a new group within the Usenet Big-8 hierarchy is
something very different, but who would you be to know that?

Side note: I'm not to be blamed for the initiative of ciwas, I only
voted for its creation when the suggestion came around.
[color=blue]
>So what. If you wanted to control what gets posted here
>(as you appear too) you should have made this a moderated NG.[/color]

As I said, you just don't understand where you are, right?
[color=blue][color=green]
>> At some point in the now lost time span, w3schools pops up...[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>...So they didn't bow down to you, good for them.[/color]

Which concludes my line of reasoning; w3schools advocates MS centric
things in front of whatever other reasonable "standards" we have
available to work from.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> I do not have to give you any "Cite proof" at all, it is your job to
>> examine the available archives...[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
>No sir, you refuted those stats...
>Look here for more stats that you can refute:
>https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj....el/browser.php
>TheCounter.c om rates IE at 89%.[/color]

I have an even better one; I would like to see you refute this.

"Life is a sexually inherited sickness with 100% mortality".

Now, how about that for proof of concept?

Crawl back under that rock, or read up on history if you want to be
taken serious in the future.

--
Rex

[Ståle Sæbøe]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

me wrote:[color=blue]
> The reality is that millions of successful sites that enjoy great
> popularity use fixed font sizes and non-fluid layouts. Wake up and smell the
> coffee.
> Signed,
> me
>
>[/color]
Mmmm coffee!

me has a point, but millions of flies like shit. I think what the guys
are trying to say to you, eh me eh whatever, :p is that even if
trillions of successful enterprises deliver crap, it does not mean one
should recommend, teach it, communicate it as good practice etc.

If you read the FAQ I think it has something to say about what kind of
advice you are expected to give her. If you want to cater to microsoft's
policy of domination and propriety you are politely asked to do it
somewhere else :)

[me]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

"Jan Roland Eriksson" <jrexon@newsguy .com> wrote in message
news:usf141l8o8 5fgr2skd5v33euv 7g0nueuo1@4ax.c om...[color=blue]
> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 17:44:02 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.co m> wrote:
>[color=green]
> >"Jan Roland Eriksson" <jrexon@newsguy .com> wrote in message
> >news:f3414196n 6e5nqaumh9fs14j kolqcqd5t2@4ax. com...[color=darkred]
> >> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 20:17:30 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.co m> wrote:[/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> >> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 15:37:15 -0600, "me" <anonymous@_.co m> wrote:
> >> [...]
> >> >> >Fair enough ... So do you think their stats are wrong?[/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> >> Probaly not since the w3schools site is IE centric in the first[/color][/color][/color]
place[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> >> and has always been like that since its first day of appearance on[/color][/color][/color]
the[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
> >> >> www.[/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> >Cite proof please.[/color][/color]
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> I claim that you are one damned big idiot since you seem to lack all
> >> parts of historical insight of what has passed by in this NG before you
> >> decided to stick your nose in here.[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
> >I will not dane to answer that insulting remark. You are uncivilized.[/color]
>
> Nope; you are, since you try to give "expert" advice from an empty
> source. That is an uncivilized thing to do.
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> I was one of those who once voted _for_ the creation of this NG...[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
> >Many have created NG's.[/color]
>
> You still don't understand do you?
>
> MS has spammed Usenet with newgroup control msgs to an extent that they
> have been looked on as just plain childish.
>
> OTOH, creating a new group within the Usenet Big-8 hierarchy is
> something very different, but who would you be to know that?
>
> Side note: I'm not to be blamed for the initiative of ciwas, I only
> voted for its creation when the suggestion came around.
>[color=green]
> >So what. If you wanted to control what gets posted here
> >(as you appear too) you should have made this a moderated NG.[/color]
>
> As I said, you just don't understand where you are, right?
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> At some point in the now lost time span, w3schools pops up...[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
> >...So they didn't bow down to you, good for them.[/color]
>
> Which concludes my line of reasoning; w3schools advocates MS centric
> things in front of whatever other reasonable "standards" we have
> available to work from.
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> I do not have to give you any "Cite proof" at all, it is your job to
> >> examine the available archives...[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
> >No sir, you refuted those stats...
> >Look here for more stats that you can refute:[/color]
>
>https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj..../Sroehnel/brow[/color]
ser.php[color=blue][color=green]
> >TheCounter.c om rates IE at 89%.[/color]
>
> I have an even better one; I would like to see you refute this.
>
> "Life is a sexually inherited sickness with 100% mortality".
>
> Now, how about that for proof of concept?
>
> Crawl back under that rock, or read up on history if you want to be
> taken serious in the future.[/color]

You are a troll. PLONK
Signed,
me

[me]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

"Ståle Sæbøe" <othmaar@tdz.no > wrote in message
news:4240ce97$1 @news.broadpark .no...[color=blue]
> me wrote:[color=green]
> > The reality is that millions of successful sites that enjoy great
> > popularity use fixed font sizes and non-fluid layouts. Wake up and smell[/color][/color]
the[color=blue][color=green]
> > coffee.
> > Signed,
> > me
> >[/color]
> Mmmm coffee!
>
> me has a point, but millions of flies like shit. I think what the guys
> are trying to say to you, eh me eh whatever, :p is that even if
> trillions of successful enterprises deliver crap, it does not mean one
> should recommend, teach it, communicate it as good practice etc.[/color]

I have already addressed this point multiple times.
[color=blue]
> If you read the FAQ I think it has something to say about what kind of
> advice you are expected to give her.[/color]

I will give whatever advice I see fit.
[color=blue]
> If you want to cater to microsoft's
> policy of domination and propriety you are politely asked to do it
> somewhere else :)[/color]

I cater to nothing but my own muse. I will leave when I'm good and ready,
not before.
Signed,
me

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

me wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Ståle Sæbøe" <othmaar@tdz.no > wrote in message
> news:4240ce97$1 @news.broadpark .no...
>[color=green]
>> me wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> The reality is that millions of successful sites that enjoy
>>> great popularity use fixed font sizes and non-fluid layouts.
>>> Wake up and smell the coffee.[/color]
>>
>> Mmmm coffee!
>>
>> me has a point, but millions of flies like shit. I think what the
>> guys are trying to say to you, eh me eh whatever, :p is that even
>> if trillions of successful enterprises deliver crap, it does not
>> mean one should recommend, teach it, communicate it as good
>> practice etc.[/color][/color]

me's only point is that millions of corporate webmasters have the same
amount of clue as he has. Well, that may be unfair. Those millions
haven't wandered in here to learn better ways.

What is lacking in that world is training. Awareness.
[color=blue]
> I have already addressed this point multiple times.
>[color=green]
>> If you read the FAQ I think it has something to say about what
>> kind of advice you are expected to give her.[/color]
>
> I will give whatever advice I see fit.[/color]

Even if everyone else disagrees with your advice? Logic would indicate
there is something wrong here.
[color=blue][color=green]
>> If you want to cater to microsoft's policy of domination and
>> propriety you are politely asked to do it somewhere else :)[/color]
>
> I cater to nothing but my own muse. I will leave when I'm good and
> ready, not before.[/color]

Aha! Gauntlet hits floor!

So be prepared for someone to step in every time and tell those you
advise that you are wrong.

--
-bts
-This space intentionally left blank.

[Ståle Sæbøe]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

me wrote:
[color=blue]
> I will give whatever advice I see fit.[/color]
[color=blue]
> I cater to nothing but my own muse. I will leave when I'm good and ready,
> not before.
> Signed,
> me[/color]
And your muse is yourself?

You have chosen a fitting signature then.

S.

[Michael Rozdoba]

Re: Verdana font. Why not?

me wrote:[color=blue]
> "kaeli" <tiny_one@NOSPA M.comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1caa0c 8375f31f0098a3b 0@nntp.lucent.c om...[/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>>This one is totally FUBAR for the navigation.
>>http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/[/color]
>
>
> By FUBAR I suppose you mean it isn't as pretty, but it still works doesn't
> it? Interesting a site as popular as ZDNet uses fixed font sizes, they must
> not be too worried about it hurting their popularity.[/color]

FUBAR: Fouled/Fucked up beyond all recognition/reason/repair, like some
posters' understanding of web design or their language skills.

HTH HAND

--
Michael
m r o z a t u k g a t e w a y d o t n e t