Different size for different font

Scripsit Jonas Smithson:

> In his book "CSS: The Definitive Guide" 2nd edition (pgs. 116-117),
> Eric Meyer has an interesting discussion about "font-size-adjust"
> that was evidently dropped in CSS 2.1 due to browser non-support.

It has now been implemented on Firefox 2 (on Windows).

> p.someClass {font: 13px/1.5em Georgia, 15px/1.4em "Times New Roman",
> 14px/1.5em serif;}
>
> ...but I have a feeling that wouldn't actually do what I want. Er...
> would it?

I doubt that. It violates CSS syntax.

You might be able to do something via client-side scripting, but that would
be off-topic here.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Scripsit Bergamot:

> Jonas Smithson wrote:
>>
>> different fonts display at very different optical
>> sizes for the same nominal sizes.
>>
>> For example, suppose I want type to display in 13px/1.5em Georgia.
>
> Simple solution - don't specify an absolute font-size. If you leave it
> at the default size (100%), then the user will see the font (be it
> Georgia or not) in whatever size *they* think is optimal.

You missed the point. Of course absolute font sizes should be avoided, but
that doesn't solve the problem.

For example, suppose you want to use Arial. Setting just font-family: Arial
works for a great majority of users. And there the problem is. If they have
set their browser to use a font size that is suitable for their browser's
default font, which is probably Times New Roman, they will see Arial in that
size, which is probably 12pt (16px).

While 12pt Times New Roman looks reasonable on screen, 12pt Arial looks too
big to most people. So what can you do?

If you ask me, you should just accept that. Too big font size is seldom
complained by _users_ (and quite often by designers), and users can reduce
the font size if it matters.

But many authors set e.g. font-size: 80% or even smaller. This is usually
not catastrophic, but it's not nice either, especially to users who have set
their browser to use e.g. Arial in 10pt size. The reduction takes the size
to 8pt, which is probably too small to be read comfortably.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

>>> different fonts display at very different optical
>>> sizes for the same nominal sizes.
>>>
>>> For example, suppose I want type to display in 13px/1.5em Georgia.
>>
>> Simple solution - don't specify an absolute font-size. If you leave it
>> at the default size (100%), then the user will see the font (be it
>> Georgia or not) in whatever size *they* think is optimal.
>
> You missed the point. Of course absolute font sizes should be avoided,
> but that doesn't solve the problem.
>
> For example, suppose you want to use Arial. Setting just font-family:
> Arial works for a great majority of users. And there the problem is. If
> they have set their browser to use a font size that is suitable for
> their browser's default font, which is probably Times New Roman, they
> will see Arial in that size, which is probably 12pt (16px).
>
> While 12pt Times New Roman looks reasonable on screen, 12pt Arial looks
> too big to most people. So what can you do?
>
> If you ask me, you should just accept that. Too big font size is seldom
> complained by _users_ (and quite often by designers), and users can
> reduce the font size if it matters.
>
> But many authors set e.g. font-size: 80% or even smaller. This is
> usually not catastrophic, but it's not nice either, especially to users
> who have set their browser to use e.g. Arial in 10pt size. The reduction
> takes the size to 8pt, which is probably too small to be read comfortably.

This argument is all well and good in theory, but one important part of
it really isn't based -- in my experience -- in the real world. That
part is the "users who have set their browser to use...". I've come
across maybe two or three people in my years of Web work that have
utilized user style sheets beyond a little experimentation, and none of
them was your typical mainstream user. Most people don't even know such
a thing exists.

A few more may change the default font size in the browser View menu,
but very few, certainly (IMO) not enough to compromise ideal visual
appearance.

The way I see it, font size is largely an element of design. That is,
the designer can SUGGEST what they believe works best visually, so long
as they allow the user to size as needed (by using ems or percentages).
This way, one meets the accessibility needs of the vast majority of
users, while initially displaying the intended look.

I know YMMV, and some folks here will vehemently disagree with this
approach, but I've not gotten a single complaint from a client or client
user.

--

*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***

======================================================
Kevin Scholl http://www.ksscholl.com/
kscholl.TakeThisOut@comcast.DELETE.net
------------------------------------------------------
Information Architecture, Web Design and Development
------------------------------------------------------
We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of
the dreams...
======================================================

Kevin Scholl wrote:

> I know YMMV, and some folks here will vehemently disagree with this
> approach, but I've not gotten a single complaint from a client or client
> user.
>

http://www.ksscholl.com/

Well 75% of 16px is 12px and on my monitor is a bit small for the copy
especially when grey on white...

Maybe folks don't complain they just don't come back.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Kevin Scholl wrote:
> [re: font-size:75% and other tiny settings]
>
> I've not gotten a single complaint from a client or client user.

FYI, I've had font size discussions with almost everyone I've worked
with. You might be surprised at the number of users that are secretly
dissatisfied with the tiny type size prevalent on web sites. Once I
teach them how to adjust their browser settings (usually to make the
default larger), their only remaining complaint is that it doesn't work
on every web site.

BTW, I've never gotten a single complaint from a client or client user
about font-size:100% being too big, so your lack of complaints doesn't
mean there aren't any, just they don't tell you about it.

--
Berg

Scripsit Kevin Scholl:

> This argument is all well and good in theory,

Before that statement, you quoted my entire message, practically speaking.
Comprehensive quoting generally indicates lack of comprehensive reading on
Usenet. In particular, you missed the point that my argument was practical -
actually, more practical than yours.

> -- in my experience -- in the real world.

Your personal opinions don't become any more objective if you call them the
real world.

> A few more may change the default font size in the browser View menu,
> but very few, certainly (IMO) not enough to compromise ideal visual
> appearance.

"IMO" is the key here; there's your real world: you _don't care_ about
people who set the font size.

Of course, this is just the top of the iceberg. There are millions of people
around who have never touched any relevant browser settings and to whom
their browser's basic font size is the _smallest readable_ size. So you want
to go below that, in your quest for "ideal visual appearance" (i.e., a look
that pleases _your_ eyes, or the eyes of your team, or whatever).

The default setting of 12pt is good exactly _because_ it is somewhat too
large to most people when sans-serif fonts are used. Give some thought to
the variation of people and browsing conditions, and you'll see this.

> The way I see it, font size is largely an element of design. That is,
> the designer can SUGGEST what they believe works best visually, so
> long as they allow the user to size as needed

You don't present any concrete method so that we could evaluate it. If
you're suggesting body { font-size: 80% }, then that's usuallu not
catastrophic, as I wrote, though it prevents users from _easily_ selecting a
fairly large font size (since "largest" in the font size menu of IE is
relative to the size set on the page). But your tone of voice suggests
something more drastic. Even if it didn't, many newbies and clueless
"advanced" authors will apply your principles so that they set the font size
to the smallest value they can read in optimal circumstances. This is often
accompanied with other settings that reduce legibility further.

And, for example, the page mentioned in your sig (
http://www.ksscholl.com/ ) uses tiny text, in gray on a little lighter gray
background. Even when I set the font size to "largest" on IE, it's
inconveniently small due to insufficient contrast, and this means that for
millions of people, it's too small to read. Of course, _those_ people who
have _severe_ eyesight problems have already somehow configured, or have had
someone to configure, their browsing environment to deal with such issues,
e.g. by disabling all author stylesheets; otherwise they wouldn't be
browsing at all. But a much larger group just finds the page too difficult
to use due to its _visual presentation_.

Moreover, if you think that most people don't even use the font size menu,
you should be worried about hundreds of millions of people who just can't
read tiny gray text on gray background. They simply go away. Now you might
say that they are not your potential customers. But your potential
customers, tough young people with good eyesight, might understand the
importance of thinking about _their_ customers in a manner that you don't
seem to care about.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> Scripsit Kevin Scholl:
>
>> This argument is all well and good in theory,
>
> Before that statement, you quoted my entire message, practically
> speaking. Comprehensive quoting generally indicates lack of
> comprehensive reading on Usenet. In particular, you missed the point
> that my argument was practical - actually, more practical than yours.

No, quoting the entire message in this case indicates that I recognized
that this was a fairly new thread, and that those reading it might want
some reference. Everything I left was pertinent to my reply.

>> -- in my experience -- in the real world.
>
> Your personal opinions don't become any more objective if you call them
> the real world.

No more personal opinion that yours. If I can support my comments -- as
I did -- with a basis in what I regularly see, that's real world.

>> A few more may change the default font size in the browser View menu,
>> but very few, certainly (IMO) not enough to compromise ideal visual
>> appearance.
>
> "IMO" is the key here; there's your real world: you _don't care_ about
> people who set the font size.

I DO care. As I present later in my reply, I believe that font sizes
should be applied such that anyone can resize them if necessary.
However, should one cater to the clear minority to the detriment of the
majority, when that minority has the easy means to adjust? I think not.

> Of course, this is just the top of the iceberg. There are millions of
> people around who have never touched any relevant browser settings and
> to whom their browser's basic font size is the _smallest readable_ size.
> So you want to go below that, in your quest for "ideal visual
> appearance" (i.e., a look that pleases _your_ eyes, or the eyes of your
> team, or whatever).
>
> The default setting of 12pt is good exactly _because_ it is somewhat too
> large to most people when sans-serif fonts are used. Give some thought
> to the variation of people and browsing conditions, and you'll see this.

Again, I DO see this.

>> The way I see it, font size is largely an element of design. That is,
>> the designer can SUGGEST what they believe works best visually, so
>> long as they allow the user to size as needed
>
> You don't present any concrete method so that we could evaluate it. If

Yes, I did.

> you're suggesting body { font-size: 80% }, then that's usuallu not
> catastrophic, as I wrote, though it prevents users from _easily_

I hardly call a click or two difficult. And better that click of two for
a few people, as opposed to most.

> selecting a fairly large font size (since "largest" in the font size
> menu of IE is relative to the size set on the page). But your tone of
> voice suggests something more drastic. Even if it didn't, many newbies
> and clueless "advanced" authors will apply your principles so that they
> set the font size to the smallest value they can read in optimal
> circumstances. This is often accompanied with other settings that reduce
> legibility further.
>
> And, for example, the page mentioned in your sig (

A design a couple of years old, I'll add.

> http://www.ksscholl.com/ ) uses tiny text, in gray on a little lighter

A dark gray on an extremely light gray fading to white is hardly
illegible. FWIW, I test in grayscale, and have had visually-impaired
people look at my work. None have expressed any trouble. It seems to me
you're grasping here to try to make your point.

> gray background. Even when I set the font size to "largest" on IE, it's
> inconveniently small due to insufficient contrast, and this means that
> for millions of people, it's too small to read. Of course, _those_
> people who have _severe_ eyesight problems have already somehow
> configured, or have had someone to configure, their browsing environment
> to deal with such issues, e.g. by disabling all author stylesheets;
> otherwise they wouldn't be browsing at all. But a much larger group just
> finds the page too difficult to use due to its _visual presentation_.
>
> Moreover, if you think that most people don't even use the font size
> menu, you should be worried about hundreds of millions of people who
> just can't read tiny gray text on gray background. They simply go away.
> Now you might say that they are not your potential customers. But your
> potential customers, tough young people with good eyesight, might
> understand the importance of thinking about _their_ customers in a
> manner that you don't seem to care about.

I guess I'll just say that I'll agree to disagree on this topic in
general. However, I am a put off by YOUR tone, which is very
condescending. Unfortunately, as I see that tends to be your way in
these discussions. It's no wonder that so few people are willing to even
reply with _potential_ alternatives or even thoughts for discussion.

--

*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***

======================================================
Kevin Scholl http://www.ksscholl.com/
kscholl.RemoveThis@comcast.DELETE.net
------------------------------------------------------
Information Architecture, Web Design and Development
------------------------------------------------------
We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of
the dreams...
======================================================

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

> Then why does it take you to the folllowing when JavaScript is disabled?
[snip]
> ..and there is no link on this page to get you to the rest of the site
> that "doesn't require JavaScript". So why do that?

Sure there is. Did you miss the "Continue anyway" at the bottom of the
page? As I mentioned, this site is rather old, and at one time
included a fair amount of DHTML examples and such. Hence the warning
page. But the site does not require Javascript, nor states that it
does. Recommended, yes (like so many sites nowadays), but not
required.

> Screen resolution? Not important. Firefox default font size? Factory
> stock. As a developer, I would have mentioned if I was using any
> user-defined style sheet that would affect your site. I do not do that,
> so I can test my own sites as others would see them.

But resolution IS important in this case. Higher resolutions will of
course make text appear smaller on screen. For example, someone
running 1600x1200 would certainly find 10 or 11px text unreadable; no
likely so at 800x600.

> > The CNet page appears to have the same font size as my page at default
> > settings, so your finding is odd. Herein lies my primary point, and
> > purpose for posting in this thread to begin with.
>
> Start Firefox.
> Look at your kssholl.com main page.
> Press Control-Plus twice (which is what I did so I could read it).
> Click the link to the CNET page about Vista.

Okay, did that, and it only supports what I mentioned, that the body
text appears to be set to roughly the same size as my own site. The
article TITLE on CNet is quite large, and their navigation breaks down
a bit (a whole other can o' worms), but the content of the article is
the same size as mine (albeit verdana as opposed to arial). Am I
missing something?

> "From the box to the code, Redmond is clamping down, ..." is
> grey-on-grey. Wait until you are 65 years old and tell me if you can
> read it.

For the record, that is #666 on a background that is #EEE fading to
#FFF (white). Studies for years have shown that high contrast such a
black on white cause the eyes to tire quickly, so I softened the
contrast. Not the highest contrast, to be sure, but not flagged by
contrast analyzers, either.

> > I'm not trying to be combative here. Rather, I'm trying to determine
> > why some of the people in this forum design and develop based on the
> > assumption that viewers are utilizing user style sheets, or to a
> > lesser degree, regularly resize the text in their browsers.
>
> I would say that hardly any of normal people have user style sheets.
> They don't know what they are. To a far more *greater degree*, you are
> going to find users with vision difficulties (many people over 50) who
> will have discovered how to resize fonts if they can't read a site. Or

Exactly!

> if they haven't figured how to do that, they just go back to Google and
> find something else to read.

Quite possible. But then this falls under the auspices of intended
audience and the need to retain that audience. My personal site that
appears to be under the magnifying glass is a playground of sorts.
It's not really geared toward mass consumption. Take a different site,
say for example the http://www.compsolutionat.com/ from my portfolio,
and you have a different situation. In fact, that site is presents
products FOR visually impaired persons, and was tested by a number of
such people, getting very favorable reviews.

> > I just don't see it happen much at all (be it in usability testing or
> > common usage), nor do I hear of it from fellow designers/developers.
>
> Don't read these groups much?

Newsgroups are not often a valid indication of the "normal" user.
Those who typically post are not what I would refer to as typical
users. Sure, we can relay findings and observations, but then we run
into exactly what's happening here. That is, a wide scale of results,
with a lot of variables at play.

> > It simply seems odd that a methodology would be so driven by a clear
> > minority,
>
> What minority? Us web developers? Do you expect the average surfer to
> know anything about authoring?

No, which is my point...

> > when it's that very minority that typically has the
> > knowledge and gumption to make a settings change if necessary.
>
> Ahh, if only the majority of web authors knew how to do this...

I wasn't referring to the authors, but users. The visually impaired
(whatever the reason, be it age, injury, birth defect, whatever)
generally will know how to adjust their font sizes. The average,
typical user does not, because they do not NEED to. So as authors,
does it not seem more logical to present our work in its optimal
visual manner for the majority, while allowing the minority to do what
they must? or is it better to cater to the minority, to the visual
detriment of the majority?

As I previously alluded to, these groups aren't necessarily mutually
exclusive. Every project and its intended audience may be (and usually
is) different. There are a lot of considerations at play that must be
looked into. This is why I have a hard time understanding why a
developer would lock themselves into ALWAYS leaving text at 100%.

Consider this as well, just to play devil's advocate. If text less
than 100% is so problematic, why do the various operating systems and
their applications all employ default text that is roughly equivalent
to 11px for their chrome elements (e.g., menus)? Isn't this too small
for someone such as yourself? How do you deal with that?

> We have too many developers 'round the planet who do stupid stuff like
> one of my ISPs does on its Home and News pages. They use a silly
> JavaScript font-size-chooser, with the three sizes of "A", and the
> underlying CSS changes from 65% to 75% to 92%. At "medium" (75%) the
> text is barely above the flyspeck stage.

I won't argue the "stupidity" (or more to the point, needlessness) of
such controls. But I must ask, do the browser text size options
continue work as expected?

> I've been telling them for years to simply set it to 100% so everyone
> benefits and no JavaScript 'chooser' is necessary. They don't listen.

*shrug*

On May 21, 1:20 pm, "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorp... DeleteThis @cs.tut.fi> wrote:

> It was simply foolish, as is your continued massive quoting. Read a tutorial
> on Usenet, or _read_ some constructive discussions, and you'll see that
> massive quoting typically indicates stupidity or intentional misbehavior.

Nowhere am I retaining previous comments unrelated to my responses. I
am snipping appropriately, and don't need a tutorial to tell me that.

> Yet you have decided to use text sizes like 70%. What you do does not match
> what you claim to understand.

Of course it does. You're being too hard-headed to accept my words at
face value. Does a percentage-based font allow a vision-impaired user
to resize IF THEY NEED TO, while retaining an optimal visual
experience for the vast majority of users under default settings? Yes.
Simple as that.

> > However, I am a put off by YOUR tone, which is very condescending.
>
> When people have no rational arguments, they start talking about other
> people's tones, motives, and things like that.

Pot calling the kettle black. After all, you were the one that opted
to accuse me of impracticality, downplay my experience as foolish, and
generally question my professionalism. All while adding little to the
topic of discussion, nor providing any viable argument against any of
my points.

You know, I don't post all that often in Usenet for precisely this
reason. There's always someone with a holier-than-thou attitude who
thinks they're some kind of forum police, keeping people from posting
legitimate questions or alternatives that could generate useful
discussion. Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Jon, dorayme -- at least they
demonstrate some candor despite the difference of opinions. It's not
that you don't occasionally make some good points of consideration,
Jukka, but rather that they often get lost in the egotistical muck.

Bergamot <bergamot.RemoveThis@visi.com> writes:

> BTW, I've never gotten a single complaint from a client or client user
> about font-size:100% being too big, so your lack of complaints doesn't
> mean there aren't any, just they don't tell you about it.

Unfortuntaly I've had such a complaint from a client (and
for this particular client I'm too far down the hierarchy to
have much say in the matter). It seems to me that the root
cause of this is that the font default sizes on Windows (IE
at any rate) are rather strange. Having looked at every
sans font available in a default install of Windows XP, I
found that not one of them has the same x height as the
default serif font. While I guess that the argument might
be that it's harder to make a good looking sans font with an
x height of that number of pixels¹, it's not obviously true
to me, and the consequences are dire -- particularly when
you consider that, strangely, some of the sans fonts have x
heights /smaller/ than the default serif font.



[1] with current screen resoloutions, the default font sizes
are small enough numbers of pixels that whether the x is an
odd or even number of pixels tall does make a difference,
though I don't see how sans/serif puts one either side of
this.

--
Jón Fairbairn Jon.Fairbairn.RemoveThis@cl.cam.ac.uk

In article <JPWdnefPYuPkas3bnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d DeleteThis @comcast.com>,
Kevin Scholl <kscholl DeleteThis @comcast.DELETE.net> wrote:

> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>
> > But many authors set e.g. font-size: 80% or even smaller. This is
> > usually not catastrophic, but it's not nice either, especially to users
> > who have set their browser to use e.g. Arial in 10pt size. The reduction
> > takes the size to 8pt, which is probably too small to be read comfortably.
>
> This argument is all well and good in theory, but one important part of
> it really isn't based -- in my experience -- in the real world. That
> part is the "users who have set their browser to use...". I've come
> across maybe two or three people in my years of Web work that have
> utilized user style sheets beyond a little experimentation, and none of
> them was your typical mainstream user. Most people don't even know such
> a thing exists.
>

I assume you mean to include those who look into properties or
browser font preferences (Mac). If, in general, a user was not
comfortable with the font sizes he was seeing, then he would
likely get to do something about it. There is a sort of arms race
going on. Mostly, and ridiculously, authors use less than 100%
even for main body text (to look neat, to get more in etc). So
browsers either come with or are set by technicians or savvy
friends or users to show such comfortably. These defaults or
adjustments are made to compensate for the unnatural choices of
authors in general. When an author uses 100%, it can cause
surprise and comment about 'the bigness'.

> The way I see it, font size is largely an element of design. That is,
> the designer can SUGGEST what they believe works best visually,

Perhaps it behoves authors not to think this way as it is too
risky and too paper-print orientated in concept. Happier, and
much weaker of course, is the idea that font-size _range_ is an
element of design. In plain language, if a design looks good at a
few clicks either way of text size, so much better is the design
for websites. Your stated approach is different and can result in
one optimum and everything goes bad after this whereas what many
people have been thinking around these parts is that there is a
likely a cluster of nice enough and useful enough range of
font-size designs,

--
dorayme

dorayme wrote:
> In article <JPWdnefPYuPkas3bnZ2dnUVZ_jGdnZ2d.DeleteThis@comcast.com>,
> Kevin Scholl <kscholl.DeleteThis@comcast.DELETE.net> wrote:
>
>> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>>
>>> But many authors set e.g. font-size: 80% or even smaller. This is
>>> usually not catastrophic, but it's not nice either, especially to users
>>> who have set their browser to use e.g. Arial in 10pt size. The reduction
>>> takes the size to 8pt, which is probably too small to be read comfortably.
>> This argument is all well and good in theory, but one important part of
>> it really isn't based -- in my experience -- in the real world. That
>> part is the "users who have set their browser to use...". I've come
>> across maybe two or three people in my years of Web work that have
>> utilized user style sheets beyond a little experimentation, and none of
>> them was your typical mainstream user. Most people don't even know such
>> a thing exists.
>>
>
> I assume you mean to include those who look into properties or
> browser font preferences (Mac). If, in general, a user was not
> comfortable with the font sizes he was seeing, then he would
> likely get to do something about it. There is a sort of arms race

That's rather my point. Most people, indeed a very small percentage,
actually do look into these things. Realistically, most don't need to,
and a well-designed site allows a user to resize text through the
browser's View menu without having to set a global minimum in the
browser setting (i.e., a user style sheet). Unfortunately, there are a
great many sites -- too many -- that are not designed in such a manner.

> going on. Mostly, and ridiculously, authors use less than 100%
> even for main body text (to look neat, to get more in etc). So
> browsers either come with or are set by technicians or savvy
> friends or users to show such comfortably. These defaults or

Honestly, I don't see this happening. A browser's font settings being
set to anything but the default is an exceedingly rare occurrence in my
experience. Again, I'm not saying my experience is the be-all, end-all,
though.

> adjustments are made to compensate for the unnatural choices of
> authors in general. When an author uses 100%, it can cause
> surprise and comment about 'the bigness'.
>
>> The way I see it, font size is largely an element of design. That is,
>> the designer can SUGGEST what they believe works best visually,
>
> Perhaps it behoves authors not to think this way as it is too
> risky and too paper-print orientated in concept. Happier, and
> much weaker of course, is the idea that font-size _range_ is an
> element of design. In plain language, if a design looks good at a
> few clicks either way of text size, so much better is the design
> for websites. Your stated approach is different and can result in
> one optimum and everything goes bad after this whereas what many
> people have been thinking around these parts is that there is a
> likely a cluster of nice enough and useful enough range of
> font-size designs,

Perhaps I should have specified to this point. Certainly I expect a
well-designed site to "behave" as font sizes are changed, at least
within some reason (I doubt all but the simplest sites would not break
layout if text is resized to its absolute maximium).

--

*** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***

======================================================
Kevin Scholl http://www.ksscholl.com/
kscholl.DeleteThis@comcast.DELETE.net
------------------------------------------------------
Information Architecture, Web Design and Development
------------------------------------------------------
We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of
the dreams...
======================================================

Kevin Scholl <kscholl.TakeThisOut@comcast.DELETE.net> writes:
> > going on. Mostly, and ridiculously, authors use less than
> > 100% even for main body text (to look neat, to get more in
> > etc). So browsers either come with or are set by
> > technicians or savvy friends or users to show such
> > comfortably. These defaults or
>
> Honestly, I don't see this happening. A browser's font
> settings being set to anything but the default is an
> exceedingly rare occurrence in my experience. Again, I'm not
> saying my experience is the be-all, end-all, though.

The problem with personal experience of this sort of thing
is that it's likely to give very distorted results because
of the small sample size, particluarly when the real value
is fairly small. The people most likely to have changed (or
have changed for them) their browsers font settings are
those with impaired (in whatever degree) eyesight, and
depending on such things as agegroup, you may or may not
encounter a representative sample of such people... but
they're the ones for whom this "80% is the new 100%"
silliness causes the most inconvenience.

--
Jón Fairbairn Jon.Fairbairn.TakeThisOut@cl.cam.ac.uk