Lost 'bold' effect on link
in [CSS]
|
From: Ben C on 21 Nov 2009 09:16 On 2009-11-21, dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > In article <slrnhgfd59.47j.spamspam(a)bowser.marioworld>, > Ben C <spamspam(a)spam.eggs> wrote: > >> >> > There is only a problem when it is given a font-size less than >> >> > 100%, and that is a problem with *any* font. >> >> >> >> A climate change skeptic in the Australian federal parliament this week >> >> was keen to point out that CO2 is not a poison. >> > > >> I don't know what point he was making, > > A bit less than 100% for Verdana is less of a problem than for many > other fonts. So it is not quite true that the very same problem exists > for *any* font. One notable problem, perhaps the only real one, is that > if you set a font-size for Verdana less than 100% and someone does not > have Verdana on their machine, they will probably get a font that is > naturally smaller than Verdana and so less than 100% can *more* easily > trip them into having reading difficulties. > > Let's put this in another way: There *are* problems with all texts set > too small to read - obviously! It is a constant phenomenon and does not > depend on Verdana being in the equation at all. But if Verdana is in the > equation, then there is a particular danger because Verdana is not only > a bit bigger to start with than many other fonts but is also a bit > better designed to be read at smaller sizes than some other fonts. If > Verdana is in the author's mind when setting a size less than 100%, he > is likely not imagining or testing for when some other naturally smaller > font is fell back upon when the user does not have Verdana. > > In other words, to put it simply, there is a special sort of problem > with Verdana. > > So too with the CO2 being produced on earth lately. It has not been a > problem for billions of years. But it is now. In a particular situation, > it is a problem. Never mind some very narrow technical definition of > "poison", it is a very bad gas to have in some quantities for many > living things in certain circumstances. That it is not a bad gas in > other "normal" situations does not change this fact. Pointing out that > it is not bad normally might well distract people from the fact that in > some special circumstances it is very bad. Pointing out that all text > that is less than 100% is a problem could similarly distract from what > is particularly pertinent to the problem with Verdana. I see, I think I follow the logic. Verdana is rather big which makes setting small font sizes even worse than it would be in a world without Verdana. We're all doomed because of global warming, so that makes CO2 even worse than it would be in a world without global warming. Just saying small fonts are bad is like saying CO2 is bad-- neither is bad per se, well not that bad anyway (small fonts are probably worse than CO2 on their own merits)-- but this distracts from the contexts that make them really bad in practice: Verdana and the Apocalypse.
From: dorayme on 21 Nov 2009 17:11
In article <slrnhgfthn.47j.spamspam(a)bowser.marioworld>, Ben C <spamspam(a)spam.eggs> wrote: > On 2009-11-21, dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote: > > In article <slrnhgfd59.47j.spamspam(a)bowser.marioworld>, > > Ben C <spamspam(a)spam.eggs> wrote: > > > >> >> > There is only a problem when it is given a font-size less than > >> >> > 100%, and that is a problem with *any* font. > >> >> > >> >> A climate change skeptic in the Australian federal parliament this week > >> >> was keen to point out that CO2 is not a poison. > >> > > > > >> I don't know what point he was making, > > > > [...fast talking ...] > I see, I think I follow the logic. > I do admit that the sudden leaps my brain makes sometimes require serious post-leap fast-talking to justify. My brain seems not to understand that analogies are best made clear and transparent and helpful rather than convoluted and opaque to outsiders. > Verdana is rather big which makes setting small font sizes even worse > than it would be in a world without Verdana. > > We're all doomed because of global warming, so that makes CO2 even worse > than it would be in a world without global warming. > > Just saying small fonts are bad is like saying CO2 is bad-- neither is > bad per se, well not that bad anyway (small fonts are probably worse > than CO2 on their own merits)-- but this distracts from the contexts > that make them really bad in practice: Verdana and the Apocalypse. It brings a little tear to my eye how you can understand me - yes, Verdana and the Apocalypse is at the heart of the matter. I might have to hire you from now on for my communications with earthlings. -- dorayme |