<td> and font sizes...

[jodleren]

Hi all!

It it pretty simple. I have a stylesheet like:
<STYLE TYPE="text/css">
TABLE { font-family : "Arial", "Helvetica", "Monaco"; font-size :
10.0pt; text-decoration : none;}
</STYLE>

Which means that <td>Hello world!</td> I get a font size 10.

But I get 3 pixels above the letters, which I'd like to reduce by one
or two. Is there a way to do that?

WBR
Sonnich

 

[Els]

Hi all!

It it pretty simple. I have a stylesheet like:
<STYLE TYPE="text/css">
TABLE { font-family : "Arial", "Helvetica", "Monaco"; font-size :
10.0pt; text-decoration : none;}
</STYLE>

Which means that <td>Hello world!</td> I get a font size 10.

Don't use pt - those are for printing.

But I get 3 pixels above the letters, which I'd like to reduce by one
or two. Is there a way to do that?

I think you are seeing either the line-height on the text, or the
padding on the cells. Or both.

 

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Scripsit jodleren:

It it pretty simple.

There are no simple problems, just simple solutions, most of which are
wrong. But what is the _problem_? We can immediately see that what you
probably see as a solution creates serious problems, but what was the
problem it was supposed to solve?

I have a stylesheet like:
<STYLE TYPE="text/css">
TABLE { font-family : "Arial", "Helvetica", "Monaco"; font-size :
10.0pt; text-decoration : none;}
</STYLE>

Bad style. Sizes in points cannot be easily be increased on IE, and this
implies that they will be too small to hundreds of millions of potential
readers. (I don't say billions, but that's just because you wouldn't believe
it.)

Which means that <td>Hello world!</td> I get a font size 10.

Maybe, maybe not. That depends on other style sheets, and even markup. But
most of the time, you do. And that's part of a problem.

But I get 3 pixels above the letters, which I'd like to reduce by one
or two. Is there a way to do that?

There is varying spacing above and below the letters - surely more above "e"
than above "H". Again, what is the problem you are trying to solve?

You could add

table { line-height: 1; }

to set the line height the same as the font size, which typically means that
there is very little (or no) spacing above capital letters.

But what would happen later? When you write "Foobar" or "Hello world",
everything may look OK to what. Yet, some day the text will be edited to
contain text like École, Å, etc., maybe even letters with multiple
diacritics.

As a rule of thumb, set line-height to a reasonable value in the document as
a whole, e.g.

* { line-height: 1.25; }

(By the way, this helps against some browser bugs that have nothing to do
with line height, really.)

Then adjust it for specific elements _if_ problems arise, and make sure the
problem you create is less serious than the one you are trying to solve.

 

[rf]

Hi all!

It it pretty simple. I have a stylesheet like:
<STYLE TYPE="text/css">
TABLE { font-family : "Arial", "Helvetica", "Monaco"; font-size :
10.0pt; text-decoration : none;}
</STYLE>

Which means that <td>Hello world!</td> I get a font size 10.

Which I simply cannot read.

 

[jodleren]

Which I simply cannot read.

I am aware of the problem.

Just checked pages like http://news.bbc.co.uk/ http://www.politiken.dk
etc. and quite many does not allow the text to be sized.

May I ask, what is your problem (glasses, bad sight...?), and how do
you overcome it?

And may I ask the group, how do you make a design with graphics and
stuff in tables/text so it allows to change the text size properly?
In some way I fan the plain simple HTML sites, but a nice design is
needed these days. As I found on BBC's pages, it leaves some people
out.

I should admit here, that even that I work with PHP and so, I am not
at all an expert in html/design/css, more a software guy. E.g. when
mentioned above, that 10.0pt is for printing, what is the proper way
to do it html? personally I prefer verdana or arial, font size=2
(which is some 10-11 pixels at my computer). Still, I do not use max
resolution, as I have glasses too. Some 1280xwhatever is good for me
still, though 1800x... is not.

WBR
Sonnich

 

[Rob Waaijenberg]

jodleren schreef:

I am aware of the problem.

Just checked pages like http://news.bbc.co.uk/ http://www.politiken.dk
etc. and quite many does not allow the text to be sized.

Yeah, and other people keep getting tickets for speeding.
Some people even eat peanut-butter with jelly.

May I ask, what is your problem (glasses, bad sight...?), and how do
you overcome it?

Some people just can't read small print. You must be crazy to want them
to explain themselves....

And may I ask the group, how do you make a design with graphics and
stuff in tables/text so it allows to change the text size properly?

We don't use tables for design. We make proper lay-outs, using CSS.

[]

I should admit here, that even that I work with PHP and so, I am not
at all an expert in html/design/css, more a software guy.

That's OK,
but then you should realize that you need to build your knowledge of
html and css. Either read some good books or keep visiting this
newsgroup (and others).

E.g. when
mentioned above, that 10.0pt is for printing, what is the proper way
to do it html? personally I prefer verdana or arial, font size=2
(which is some 10-11 pixels at my computer). Still, I do not use max
resolution, as I have glasses too. Some 1280xwhatever is good for me
still, though 1800x... is not.

Doesn't that depend on the size of your screen?

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Just checked pages like http://news.bbc.co.uk/
http://www.politiken.dk etc. and quite many does not allow the text
to be sized.

They resize just fine for me. You should use a modern browser.

May I ask, what is your problem (glasses, bad sight...?), and how do
you overcome it?

Consider that a large percentage of your visitors will not have perfect
vision. Your solution: allow the visitor to set hir own size.

And may I ask the group, how do you make a design with graphics and
stuff in tables/text so it allows to change the text size properly?
In some way I fan the plain simple HTML sites, but a nice design is
needed these days. As I found on BBC's pages, it leaves some people
out.

A 'nice' design can still be simple HTML.

I should admit here, that even that I work with PHP and so, I am not
at all an expert in html/design/css, more a software guy. E.g. when
mentioned above, that 10.0pt is for printing, what is the proper way
to do it html? personally I prefer verdana or arial, font size=2
(which is some 10-11 pixels at my computer).

Read this: http://k75s.home.att.net/fontsize.html

Still, I do not use max resolution, as I have glasses too. Some
1280xwhatever is good for me still, though 1800x... is not.

What about mobile phones, PDAs, and other small-screen devices?

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Wed, 24 Oct 2007 12:50:18 GMT
Rob Waaijenberg scribed:

Yeah, and other people keep getting tickets for speeding.
Some people even eat peanut-butter with jelly.

Hah, in this newsgroup lots of people even eat haggis.

 

[dorayme]

jodleren schreef:

Some people just can't read small print. You must be crazy to want them
to explain themselves....

The op is asking how people cope with such small sizes when so
coded. He is perhaps unaware at this stage about the issue and is
groping for background. If he knew that in some browsers, eg, a
px or pt based font size, was hard to up in size on the screen
but that it is no barrier (just a nuisance) in other browsers, he
might appreciate it. It might not be that he is crazy or asking
rude personal questions or demanding justification.

 

[Martin Clark]

jodleren wrote...

I am aware of the problem.

Just checked pages like http://news.bbc.co.uk/ http://www.politiken.dk
etc. and quite many does not allow the text to be sized.

May I ask, what is your problem (glasses, bad sight...?),

Bad web designers.

and how do you overcome it?

I use Firefox, so that I can re-size the text if I wish.

And may I ask the group, how do you make a design with graphics and
stuff in tables/text so it allows to change the text size properly?

Express the text size in percentages, with general text being 100%.
Headings, etc. could be, for example, 120%.

 

[rf]

I am aware of the problem.

Just checked pages like http://news.bbc.co.uk/ http://www.politiken.dk
etc. and quite many does not allow the text to be sized.

More fool them.

May I ask, what is your problem (glasses, bad sight...?),

None of your business.

and how do
you overcome it?

The easiest way is to Ctrl mouse wheel (after cursing the designer who
forced this upon me). That enlarges my font size.

(Oh, by the way, all modern browsers allow one to change font size even if
the designer has coded in px of pt. Even the out of date Internet Explorer
has an option to ignore font sizes that designers specify.)

The second easiesy way, and the saddest for you, is for me to simply move on
to the next site in my search results.

 

[Robert Baer]

The op is asking how people cope with such small sizes when so
coded. He is perhaps unaware at this stage about the issue and is
groping for background. If he knew that in some browsers, eg, a
px or pt based font size, was hard to up in size on the screen
but that it is no barrier (just a nuisance) in other browsers, he
might appreciate it. It might not be that he is crazy or asking
rude personal questions or demanding justification.

??? Small? Ten point is standard on some typewriters and seems to be
the size one sees of text in NGs...

 

[dorayme]

dorayme wrote:
??? Small? Ten point is standard on some typewriters and seems to be
the size one sees of text in NGs...

Gosh... typewriters... now *that* takes me back! I doubt if I
would now be happy with the output from my first typewriter which
was indeed in 10pt. First thing in the morning, under reasonable
light, maybe... as the day wears on... nah...

I don't think anyone has the energy to keep going over this stuff
but I took another casual look at what was on the internet and I
found this on a site that was devoted to advice on css and html:

http://www.basictips.com/which-font-size-px-pt-em.shtml

I mention it because there is a lot of bad advice about. OP
should not be fooled in researches.

Here is some more sensible stuff:

http://k75s.home.att.net/fontsize.html

Here is something on points that starts with a promising "Many
beginning CSS authors use points to size text, in part because
many of them come from a desktop publishing background, where
everything is set in points. However, points are a very bad unit
for screen-based design"

http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=UsingPoints

 

[rf]

NG? Newsgroups? Even *my* news client allows me to set the size *I* want to
view text at.

If you mean those forum things, well they are just sheep following all the
other sheep.

dorayme, you should mention *before* citing the following URL that the
advice contained therein is bad advice and totally outdated.

http://www.basictips.com/which-font-size-px-pt-em.shtml

I mention it because there is a lot of bad advice about. OP
should not be fooled in researches.

Here is some more sensible stuff:

http://k75s.home.att.net/fontsize.html

Agreed.

http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=UsingPoints

So why does this site specify font-size: small?

 

[dorayme]

dorayme, you should mention *before* citing the following URL that the
advice contained therein is bad advice and totally outdated.

You program in... ? What letter was it?

T? S? U? F? E? D? E? T? G? F?

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 25 Oct 2007 06:00:10 GMT
dorayme scribed:

You program in... ? What letter was it?

T? S? U? F? E? D? E? T? G? F?

How come you're always picking on rf? He's a fellow Aussie for Pete's
sake.

 

[dorayme]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 25 Oct 2007 06:00:10 GMT
dorayme scribed:


How come you're always picking on rf? He's a fellow Aussie for Pete's
sake.

How come he is always picking on me? Or don't you notice those
things? Perhaps you are biased towards sexist mates of yours? He
should watch how he talks to folks *before* he talks. There are
simple ways to be nice. He should learn them. But he invariably
puts his big fat ski into it.

He could have been simple and friendly. "... yes that was
certainly poor advice in that url (as you indicate). It is
outdated rubbish and there is no end of this sort of thing on the
internet, you are right! Yes, that other reference, as you say,
is much better..."

This sort of thing, maybe not laid on quite so thick would have
served to emphasise how bad the first URL was and correct any
misunderstandings he *thought* everyone else stupider than
himself might be prone to. But no. That is way too much for him.
Perhaps he has bad role models? Instead of thinking *before* he
*lectures* me, he comes with this crap tone. He does not think
before *or* after. He just spews this lecturing crap. Well, he
can shove his lectures. There are some people I would let get
away with this. But he has been too rude to me too often. He can
get stuffed.

While I am at it, do you think your idiotic remarks about women
and his provocations and snide remarks are such great things? Did
you notice his utterly gratuitous entry into a simple and
friendly enough exchange between Travis and me about movies
recently? I held fire then to see if it was just going to be a
one off (it says to do this in the FAQs on Usenet). That was the
primer. Know what I mean? Or not as usual.

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 25 Oct 2007 08:03:12
GMT dorayme scribed:

How come he is always picking on me? Or don't you notice those
things? Perhaps you are biased towards sexist mates of yours? He
should watch how he talks to folks *before* he talks. There are
simple ways to be nice. He should learn them. But he invariably
puts his big fat ski into it.

He could have been simple and friendly. "... yes that was
certainly poor advice in that url (as you indicate). It is
outdated rubbish and there is no end of this sort of thing on the
internet, you are right! Yes, that other reference, as you say,
is much better..."

This sort of thing, maybe not laid on quite so thick would have
served to emphasise how bad the first URL was and correct any
misunderstandings he *thought* everyone else stupider than
himself might be prone to. But no. That is way too much for him.
Perhaps he has bad role models? Instead of thinking *before* he
*lectures* me, he comes with this crap tone. He does not think
before *or* after. He just spews this lecturing crap. Well, he
can shove his lectures. There are some people I would let get
away with this. But he has been too rude to me too often. He can
get stuffed.

While I am at it, do you think your idiotic remarks about women
and his provocations and snide remarks are such great things? Did
you notice his utterly gratuitous entry into a simple and
friendly enough exchange between Travis and me about movies
recently? I held fire then to see if it was just going to be a
one off (it says to do this in the FAQs on Usenet). That was the
primer. Know what I mean? Or not as usual.

Let me ask you a fundamentally pertinent question. Do you think I'm
dumb? You've mentioned before that I should read your messages
_carefully_ and now you ask if I know what you mean. And, ironically,
the last sentence in relation to the content of your post puts you smack
dab in the middle of the "pot - kettle - black" scenario. -Or am I wrong
again?

Anyway, my idiotic remarks about women are meant to be idiotic remarks
about women. They're like the Polish jokes of yore except that the
Pollacks are broads. It's good-natured in a rueful sort of way so don't
let it upset you.

In regard to rf's manner of speaking, -yes, he probably could have been a
little more polite. But guys are guys. Nowadays it seems women want
them all to be pansies (except when they get the hots for The Hulk or
some fantasy which satisfies their inner lust.) If we have to accept
them (-and we do; it's either one form of abuse or the other,) they
should accept us with similar magnanimosity. I'm not saying rf wasn't a
trifle brusque or even egoey, but women should learn to expect that and
handle it with graceful aplomb so as not to start a needless fuss over
basically nothing. Containment is something which makes them desirable
(-besides the usual equipment, of course.)

Anyway, is it Kangaroo Day yet?

 

[dorayme]

Let me ask you a fundamentally pertinent question. Do you think I'm
dumb? You've mentioned before that I should read your messages
_carefully_ and now you ask if I know what you mean.

Then why do you *pretend* to know nothing about this arrogant
man's attitude and remarks to me? Now that I explain some things
to you, you suddenly show some knowledge. Funny that? You never
gave a bloody clue before. You asked as if all innocent why *I*
am picking on *him*? Do you see anything of bad faith in this? Do
you know what I am saying? How smart are you? Are you very smart?
But pretending an innocence?

Anyway, my idiotic remarks about women are meant to be idiotic remarks
about women. They're like the Polish jokes of yore except that the
Pollacks are broads. It's good-natured in a rueful sort of way so don't
let it upset you.

Why the hell do you think Officer Bud White has not actually done
you in completely? Because I know you have just taken some wrong
turns, got into a bit of bad company obviously, you have kow
towed to some awful role models and like that but you will be
most relieved to hear that you are not essentially bad.

Look I *am* in a very bad mood, it *is* true. I don't appreciate
anyone *asterisking* his way in put-downs of or lecturing of me
or making snide remarks about men another thread. It is really
simple. If he was polite, he would get it back in the same
coinage.

I am sorry, but that is how I feel. I have generally kept away
from all this crap but when I am called out, I come out. Gary
Cooper, Charles Bronson, John Wayne, Annie (of Annie Get your
Gun) and Kirk Douglas all did the same before me. Why should a
Martian be left out of a line up like this?

In regard to rf's manner of speaking, -yes, he probably could have been a
little more polite. But guys are guys. Nowadays it seems women want
them all to be pansies

This is just more pure crap in your mind. No woman on God's earth
wants men to be pansies. Where you get these silly ideas I do not
know. I lie! I do know, they make you feel better about yourself.
You schmuck!

(except when they get the hots for The Hulk or
some fantasy which satisfies their inner lust.) If we have to accept
them (-and we do; it's either one form of abuse or the other,) they
should accept us with similar magnanimosity. I'm not saying rf wasn't a
trifle brusque or even egoey, but women should learn to expect that and
handle it with graceful aplomb so as not to start a needless fuss over
basically nothing. Containment is something which makes them desirable
(-besides the usual equipment, of course.)

Look, this crap seems to me to be as offensive to any decent
fellers as to any women. You are simply not getting it are you?
You are ignorant about your own manly history, mate. Go and see
some American westerns. You will see plenty of examples of good
American male role models there. In fact, mostly, the male heroes
are touchingly impressive in their respect for females. You are
following the wrong models.

Boji, I have always had this faith in your improvement. Please do
not disappoint me.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

dorayme, you should mention *before* citing the following URL that the
advice contained therein is bad advice and totally outdated.

I was thinking the same thing. <g>

It says, "Using a pt or em font-size property instead of px allows for
your site text to be resized according to the viewer's system settings."

Whoohoo. Great for all the folks with perfect vision.

It goes on, "If their system is set to view very large text, your web
site's layout will become distorted and your web site may be illegible
to them."

Not if you use ems or percentages, and layout your page correctly...

Oh, she did say so, but 'after the fact.'

Agreed.

Thenk yew.