Prev: bank gothic in CSS
Next: MSIE, Firefox positioning differences
From: Ben C on 19 Nov 2009 10:49
On 2009-11-19, C A Upsdell <cupsdell(a)nospam.not> wrote:
> Josiah Jenkins wrote:
>> I don't know whether it's related to this or I changed something
>> previously, and didn't notice this at the time, but the text in the
>> header of my page (it's a link) used to go bold on a mouseover . . .
>> not now.
>
> You may want to rethink making the text become bold on :hover. The CSS
> specification says:
>
> "User agents are not required to reflow a currently displayed document
> due to pseudo-class transitions. For instance, a style sheet may specify
> that the 'font-size' of an :active link should be larger than that of an
> inactive link, but since this may cause letters to change position when
> the reader selects the link, a UA may ignore the corresponding style rule."
>

Is that in CSS2.1 or CSS2?
From: C A Upsdell on 19 Nov 2009 10:58
Ben C wrote:
> On 2009-11-19, C A Upsdell <cupsdell(a)nospam.not> wrote:
>> Josiah Jenkins wrote:
>>> I don't know whether it's related to this or I changed something
>>> previously, and didn't notice this at the time, but the text in the
>>> header of my page (it's a link) used to go bold on a mouseover . . .
>>> not now.
>> You may want to rethink making the text become bold on :hover. The CSS
>> specification says:
>>
>> "User agents are not required to reflow a currently displayed document
>> due to pseudo-class transitions. For instance, a style sheet may specify
>> that the 'font-size' of an :active link should be larger than that of an
>> inactive link, but since this may cause letters to change position when
>> the reader selects the link, a UA may ignore the corresponding style rule."
>>
>
> Is that in CSS2.1 or CSS2?

2.1, section 5.11.3.



From: Josiah Jenkins on 19 Nov 2009 12:20
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:20:49 +1100, dorayme
<doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> Josiah Jenkins <josiah-jenkins(a)somewhere_else.invalid> wrote:
>> <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> > Josiah Jenkins <josiah-jenkins(a)somewhere_else.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> <sniP
>> >
>> >> . . . the text in the header of my page (it's a link) used to go bold
>> >> on a mouseover . . . not now.
>> >
>> >Put your hover after your visited.
>
>I agree with C A Upsdell about the advisability of doing this. The text
>can 'jump about' to accommodate a bigger text object for bold. The
>trouble with bigger things suddenly happening is that they can affect
>other things to move aside to accommodate and it then becomes a bit too
>much of an effect!

That's what was happening on the sidebar initially. I didn't want to
increase the width but reducing the font by 10% cured the problem.
But I've taken on-board what he says about a browser declining to
display the effect and changed "stuff".
>
>Best to get rid of all those units for font-size. Use em or %, pts are
>for printing and do not relate to screens in useful ways for authors.

That's one of the next jobs to tackle. From what I've read, and if I
understand this correctly . . . use pixels for images, percentages for
columns in tables and use 'em' for defining font-size, margins and
borders ?
Is my understanding correct ?

After that I'll look into this 'Flexible' layout thingie !
>
>- Some remarks that might be useful to you in the long run, (no
>particular order)

Always appreciated !
>
>- You might google up for issues to do with Verdana ("problems with
>Verdana" or some such phrase)

Found a nice clear explanation on a page by a Stephen Poley.
http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
>
>- The problem with
>
>* {
> margin: 0;
> padding: 0;
>}
>
>is that you then have to make sure you set all relevant margins and
>paddings. You have to wonder a bit whether this is worth it. Perhaps the
>more modest
>
>body {margin: 0;...} might suffice.

Mmmm, tried that and it messed up the alignment of text, search box
and button in the header. Think I'll leave that one for the time being
and concentrate on sorting out the fonts.
>
>- Best not to use px for font-sizes, one reason being that some browsers
>make it then very hard for a user to up the text to suit the users
>eyesight.

I've now got a conversion chart here, I'll go through the css and
change all the font-sizes to 'em' and then see what needs 'tweaked'.
>
>- You don't have to put in things like:
>
>font-weight: bold;
>font-style: normal;
>
>for heading elements because they are generally taken care of by
>browser's default style sheets. But it depends on how much you want to
>nail down.

You'll see that my css is scattered with comments and there are
several selectors which have 'zero' values. Most of them really only
to help me keep track of what's what.
>
>There is wisdom in doing as little as possible and treading
>lightly, others have provided for you. These sorts of things can help
>reduce bloat and make it easier to troubleshoot.

Thanks for the input, it's appreciated.
--

http://www.ian-stewart.eu
From: Chris F.A. Johnson on 19 Nov 2009 12:32
On 2009-11-19, dorayme wrote:
....
> - You might google up for issues to do with Verdana ("problems with
> Verdana" or some such phrase)

There is no problem with Verdana. It is slightly larger than
Helvetica/Arial, which is considerably larger than most serif
faces.

There is only a problem when it is given a font-size less than
100%, and that is a problem with *any* font.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
===================================================================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Pro Bash Programming: Scripting the GNU/Linux Shell (2009, Apress)
From: Josiah Jenkins on 19 Nov 2009 12:46
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:35:44 -0500, C A Upsdell <cupsdell(a)nospam.not>
wrote:
>Josiah Jenkins wrote:
>
>You may want to rethink making the text become bold on :hover.
>The CSS specification says:
>
<.....>
>
>The browser may therefore legitimately decline to make the text bold on
>:hover.

Aaah, back to the, 'you can't force users to see what *you* want' ?
>
>Changing the colour

The colours did change previously but I've changed them again to
get better contrast.
>
>and/or adding an underline on :hover would be better.

What about using the old Netscape <blink> ?

Only joking !!!
I've used 'underline'.

Thanks for the help.
--

http://www.ian-stewart.eu
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: bank gothic in CSS
Next: MSIE, Firefox positioning differences