Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Larger Font Please  (Read 26195 times)
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #40 on: September 24, 2005, 03:32:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Before I e-mail them the CSS I'll get some public opinion on it.

(...)

Here s a screenshot of what it'll look like in Safari:Yays or Nays?
Would you care to share the CSS file so that those of us with a "user mode CSS" thingy in our browsers (okay, okay, royal plurality there, nobody else uses Opera, right?) can test it?
Logged

Jan
61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #41 on: September 24, 2005, 04:02:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Sure, just download this link.
Logged
dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #42 on: September 24, 2005, 05:46:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Thanks Neil. Much better.

Now.. if you can address Jonathan and Rays comment above regarding the title/subtitle screen, we all be happy.

Chris -- I know a lot of people like Firefox. I tried it, its just not a good fit on my machine. I use Microsoft Explorer on my XP Pro machine. Much faster, more refined/professional, less clunky.
That isn't true at all. And FF is much more secure since it does not interact with your amchine at ther egistry level via Diarect X like MS IE does.

Read the FF website to understand the FF browser, and the tweaks you can easily apply to it using plugins and the command line variables. Once you understand how you can have the entire FF program, including your bookmarks and setting, in any folder you want for back up and restore, you'll never go back to the stiff, insecure, and unbending MS IE. When i do a reinstall on mjy hard drive, I simply load FF and copy the entire folder back over. The plugins, all settings, and bookmarks are readyn to go.

If you have experienced a slow FF browser, it could be a plugin trying to update itself. The FF browser is as fast if not faster than IE.
Logged

dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #43 on: September 24, 2005, 05:49:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Quote
Much faster, more refined/professional, less clunky.
lol, tell that to a web developer and he'll flip! IE is a major PIA to code for. Security dudes will also inform you that IE is rittled with security holes (it is in fact the biggest source for malware infections).

I used FF extensively on the PC and it's slower in speed to start but overall it performs equally well or better than IE. IE has a tendency to go cross-eyed and just slow down quite a bit when trying to connect to sites when it shouldn't. FF never did that to me.

Opera is one to try if you are a fan of the Snapy but it's a bit more cluttered than IE...

Safari is my current fav. but it's Mac only. I still use FF for web dev due to many useful extensions.


If you use FF, there is an extension (forget the name) that lets you modify a sites design via CSS and javascript. Each time you visit that site it'll automatically load that custom alteration you made/downloaded. There is also something like that for Safari called Stand. I haven't tried either one yet so I can't speak for how well they work or how much work they take to implement.

Quote
Absolutely! The topic titles are still too small.
Quoted text is itsy-bitsy too.

I wonder if...
Code:
<code rel="test">
Yup, code text is small too.
The only reason FF is starting slowly is because of some plugin you ahve loaded. I had the same problem. Unloaded the plugin, and FF starts almost immediately now. Just start unloading plugins until you get to the culprit. It's teh fastest browser I've ever used, including Opera, NN, IE, and some others I can't remeber.

Another great benifit that IE does not have--tabbed browsing.
Logged

dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #44 on: September 24, 2005, 05:52:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Most web devs today code to W3C web standards in XHTML+CSS which offers reduced bandwidth costs, greater interoperability, greater accessibility, easier maintenance and much greater freedom for design compared to a "traditional" HTML 4 only design that uses tables extensively. IE is by far the most problematic web browser out there if you are coding using XHTML+CSS since its implementation of CSS is p***-poor at best.

IE is quite long in the tooth (over 5 years old) and many of the issues are promised to be fixed in the upcoming v7 thanks to a bit of strong competition from FF. I never said IE can't be coded for. I simply said IE is simply a PIA to code for.

Calling IE more refined and less clunky is a matter of opinion which you are entitled to. I use FF since I find it more refined than IE for a multitude of reasons including stability. The current version of FF is far far less likely to have problems connecting to sites than IE and when WinExplorer crashes I don't loose every friggin web page I have open. That's my experience anyway in using FF since its 0.6 release.

FF isn't a Mac thing, it's a WinPC thing. The UI doesn't fit in the Mac environment. That's why they made Camino which is FF built from the ground up for Macs.

Security: Firewalls and routers don't matter since IE is given permission to access the internet it bypasses those items. If you have not run into any issues, that's good but the issue remains. I would recommend installing SpywareBlaster at the very least just in case.

Most corporations use IE because that's what comes with the computer. To use a different browser would require the IT department to perform extensive testing to ensure stability/compatability with the companies hardware/software/security setup. Then there is the time needed to install it on every computer. Many corporations do use FF but many more don't since they don't want to invest the time to do so. Basically, the larger the company, the less likely you'll see FF due to the cost of implementing it. This isn't saying FF is not good, it is just generally the procedure for any software that is used.

Anyhow I don't really care what browser you use. I'm not telling you you are wrong and I'm right. It's entirely up to you and your tastes. Browsers, like cameras are tools and each one has it's on set of benefits and minuses. Use the one you like best; I personally switch around between four of them for various tasks. There are tons to choose from (IE, FF, Opera, Mozilla, Camino, Safari, Camino, OmniWeb, and many IE spin-offs such as Avant) but IE is the only one that I tell people to be cautious about due to it's security issues.

Quote
There are three areas for possible improvement of the font on this Forum: it isn't black enough, the letters are too thin and they are a bit sandwiched together. According to my Word program it is Tahoma 7.5. Converting it to something that everyone has and is very readable - such as Times New Roman 12 - would be considerably easier on the eyes.

Times is not a good web font. Serifs are usually best for titles only. ArsTech is a good example as it lets you switch between serif and non-serif body fonts. A non-serif font family starting with Veranda would be much more legible and is a common font on any computer. The Mac doesn't have Tahoma and so I'm currently viewing this with Veranda and it's much easier on the eyes than it is on my PC using Tahoma.

Adjusting the kerning of the fonts may help too (CSS property "letter-spacing").
Tablesa ren't that bad. It's CSS that has reaally speeded things up, since it's only one file instead of each page having it's own markup. Many designs still use tables, however, since they are just, uh, more compatible than using pure layers that can act differently in browsers. It's coming along however. For instance, it's a common practice to add a table inside of a layer for layout stability.
Logged

dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #45 on: September 24, 2005, 06:00:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Quote
Jan, yes of course, for a website catering to people all over the world using everything under the sun, one needs to standardize on what is most universal and can work best for the most users. That is why I originally suggested Times New Roman, but then 61Dynamic responded that such fonts are not web-friendly; rather he suggested Verdana. I tried Verdana 12 as well as Verdana 10 bold in my Word program and they look great - strong, distinct, easy read, good letter spacing. I believe this is also a very commonly available font packaged with the applications most people use.
Nopes, Verdana is yet another of those fonts that are only available in a select number of Windows versions, unless you've installed it specially. It's possible that it comes with recent versions of MacOS X, but I don't use that.

That's why I suggested Helvetica and the more general "Sans-Serif".

Arial is another possibility, since this font has been available since Windows 95, at least, and has made its way to most other platforms, if I recall correctly.
Serif fonts are easier to read online and in print, but they don't look as pretty online. The "serif" aspect is what allows the eye to flow from one character to another. Ariel does not have that as it is a "non serif text.

Your eyes will get tired faster reading a non serif font, both on and off line. Howeer, it is common practice to use a non serif font for the menu, and a serif font for large text bodies--but some newspapers, like the LA times use another font, maybe Veranda on a PC. Is Veranda serif? I don't think it is.
Logged

dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #46 on: September 24, 2005, 06:05:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Bad day?

While I agree with your sedements, a more civil mannor of convaying them would be more productive.

That said, I noticed something odd. In Safari, the font displayed is Verdana but in FF it's Times New Roman. Just a passing observation.

**

There are only two calls for Tahoma in the first couple lines of the ikonboard.css file. Changing them to Verdana removes all instances of tahoma.

Actually, the second one is redundant...
I see veranda in my FF.
Logged

dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #47 on: September 24, 2005, 06:10:05 PM »
ReplyReply

About the only problem I see with this board is the color of the backgound where the main text for replies and posts goes. Black text on gray background is not as good as black text on a white background. that's why books and newspapers are white, not gray, and have been since the printing press was invested (and some red text here and there).

I think alot of contrast problems could be solved by simply using a white background in the message pains.

As far as the overall forum functionality goes--I give you great credit for one of the most, if not THE most, easiest and intuitive forum boards I've ever used.

Good job!
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8075



WWW
« Reply #48 on: September 24, 2005, 07:43:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
nobody else uses Opera, right?
Jan,

How can you say that. With a name like "myrvaagnes", of course I use Opera. ::

It is by far my favorite browser and has been for a long time. I also keep Firefox and Netscape 8 around for occasional use, and (blush  ) even Internet Exploiter, primarily for use with M$'s own website.

Eric
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #49 on: September 25, 2005, 03:57:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Sure, just download this link.
Thanks.

As you mentioned, there are still quite a few elements using manual fonts, colors etc, so I had to ask Opera to use "Page font and colors" in addition to "my" style sheet.

Readability is indeed improved, except for the info bar.

Here are screenshots (Opera 8.50 under Windows XP SP2):

Reading, author mode (the original, before your changes):
Logged

Jan
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6976


WWW
« Reply #50 on: September 25, 2005, 01:55:25 PM »
ReplyReply

I just logged-in with one post and noticed the change in font. It is a MAJOR improvement. Thanks Michael and Neil.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
61Dynamic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1442


WWW
« Reply #51 on: September 25, 2005, 02:09:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, as soon as I read the email Michael sent me this morning informing me he received my changes Neil had them up.

Thanks for using it. Makes forum life much more pleasant.

:cool:
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6976


WWW
« Reply #52 on: September 25, 2005, 02:21:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Daniel, appreciation to you too for the good work you put into it.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #53 on: September 25, 2005, 02:24:38 PM »
ReplyReply

It's definitely an improvement. Kudos.
Logged

Graham Welland
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 612


« Reply #54 on: September 25, 2005, 02:44:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Hmm, I believe my over zealous and prejoratve comments were vindicated ....
Logged

Graham
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #55 on: September 25, 2005, 02:59:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Yes, a great thanks to Daniel, Michael and Neil for putting in the time.

And to the rest of you for caring, too.
Logged

Jan
paulbk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 469



« Reply #56 on: September 25, 2005, 05:56:18 PM »
ReplyReply

I can see! I can see!...
thanks much Daniel, Michael, and Neil.

And fast too. Heaven!
Logged

paul b. kramarchyk
Barkhamsted, Connecticut, USA
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad