How to stretch a background (!) image horizontally (only) ?
in [CSS]
|
Prev: How (the heck) do you center a Web page in IE8 (for the umpteenthtime)?
Next: How to repeat a background image on the left side and another on the right side of a web page?
From: Andreas Prilop on 18 Mar 2010 11:20 On Thu, 18 Mar 2010, dorayme wrote: >> Sadly, most people today cannot tell real italics and boldface >> from slanted and bolded fonts. > > Do you notice the difference when reading normal sized text on > screen? No, I meant printed text on paper. -- In memoriam Alan J. Flavell http://www.alanflavell.org.uk/charset/
From: Andreas Prilop on 18 Mar 2010 12:53 On Thu, 18 Mar 2010, dorayme wrote: > http://dorayme.netweaver.com.au/boldVfauxBold.html Windows users can try this with Microsoft Sans Serif, which has a similar function in the Windows operating system as Geneva has on Mac OS. http://www.user.uni-hannover.de/nhtcapri/temp-1.html Has anyone ever specified "Microsoft Sans Serif" as text font? -- Solipsists of the world � unite!
From: Jukka K. Korpela on 18 Mar 2010 13:05 Andreas Prilop wrote: > On Thu, 18 Mar 2010, dorayme wrote: > >>> Sadly, most people today cannot tell real italics and boldface >>> from slanted and bolded fonts. >> >> Do you notice the difference when reading normal sized text on >> screen? > > No, I meant printed text on paper. I'm not sure I see what you are discussing here. Surely one can see the difference between "real italics" and "slanted fonts" in many cases on screen, without any deep understanding of font issues. Just look at how the letter "a" looks like: is it a slanted version of the upright glyph, or is it something completely different, of different basic design? The issue is complicated by the fact that there are really three kinds of italics/slanted, and they all correspond to font-style: italic and font-style: oblique (which are supposed to be different, but I've never seen a difference in real life): a) genuine italic font b) an italic/oblique font that mostly looks just like slanted but is still designed by a typographer c) upright font algorithmically slanted. If you use font-style: italic or font-style: oblique, you get e.g. a) for Calibri, b) for Arial, and c) for Arial Unicode MS. You don't need to be an expert on anything to see the difference. -- Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
From: Andreas Prilop on 18 Mar 2010 13:31
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010, Jukka K. Korpela wrote: > Just look at how the letter "a" looks like: is it a slanted version > of the upright glyph, or is it something completely different, > of different basic design? Yes, it is trivial for serif face like Times (New Roman) and Garamond. But this thread was on sans-serif. /* I wonder what the Subject has to do with it ;-) */ > If you use font-style: italic or font-style: oblique, you get e.g. > a) for Calibri, b) for Arial, and c) for Arial Unicode MS. > You don't need to be an expert on anything to see the difference. Arial vs. Arial Unicode MS is really a good example! Arial consists of four fonts, whereas Arial Unicode MS is only one font. But I'm afraid most people cannot tell an oblique "a" in Arial from a slanted "a" in Arial Unicode MS. So many cannot even tell an apostrophe from an acute accent: http://www.tut.fi/library/dlib/faq.htm scnr -- From the New World: http://www.google.co.uk/search?ie=ISO-8859-2&q=Dvofi%E1k |