Re: Simple Validation Questins
- From: 'sNiek <niekemmen@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 15:15:41 +0200
Alan J. Flavell schreef:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, 'sNiek wrote, quoting me:
From that follow the well known disadvantages of throwing Verdanainto an author-specified CSS font mix (which you, it seems, have decided to disregard, for whatever reason).
So you're meaning is that the author mustnt specify a font?
You seem to have a routine agenda of reading something extra into everything that you disagree with, in order to enhance your disagreement...?
Well no, I've been reading and posting in this newsgroup for a few months now and I thought that I have reached the point to give my opinion now and then. And this subject seems to be a worth a good discussion right?
I'm not into the "I'm against everything you say"-attitude at all. Neither do I want to enhance my disagreement, I just want to test my opinion against yours and other posters. If you concince me I'l be so honest to say so.
But since you ask: for body text, I'd say that it's an option worth considering, even though I wouldn't say "mustn't specify". For headings and other snippets expected to be displayed larger than body text, and if a wider character repertoire is avoided, then there's less at risk when a specific font is proposed.
You allready know what's my opinion about that ;-)
I find that very hard to follow, what;s next? The author mustn't specify a hyperlink-colour (Do I hear jakob Nielsen whispering?).
Let's try an analogy. It seems to be generally agreed around here that specifying an absolute font size is a bad idea, even though CSS contains the syntax for doing it.
Yep, I agree (you see!)
I'm not sure why you'd want to over-stretch that specific advice to mean that it's generally a bad idea to specify *anything* in CSS, which is where your debating style seems to be leading you.
Nope, just want to find out how far you would go. There are CSS-freaks who claim that you must leave as much as possible to the UA. I'm not into that, I think it is good to give a websites it's own identity.
Nevertheless, I hate it when authors set their links and visited links to be the same colour as normal text, and with no other indication that they are links, unless and until one hovers over them. I call that "mystery meat navigation", and I don't find it attractive in a web page.
That's one of the baddest things you can do, so again we agree :-)
Blue and purple might not have been the best possible choices for the purpose, but they -are- a widely-understood convention, and if there's no good reason to avoid them, why avoid them?
I like to specify a general link-colour, depending on the design, but let's say red. Visited links then will be dark or grayish red. The hover-colour will be another colour based on the website-design.
Sometimes you see a link-colour in - let's say - orange and then the visited link-colour will be blue. That's to much: I have to learn that orange is the unvisited colour and blue is the visited one.
-- Niek .
- References:
- Simple Validation Questins
- From: linda
- Re: Simple Validation Questins
- From: Darin McGrew
- Re: Simple Validation Questins
- From: 'sNiek
- Re: Simple Validation Questins
- From: Jake
- Re: Simple Validation Questins
- From: Stan McCann
- Re: Simple Validation Questins
- From: Jake
- Re: Simple Validation Questins
- From: 'sNiek
- Re: Simple Validation Questins
- From: Alan J. Flavell
- Re: Simple Validation Questins
- From: 'sNiek
- Re: Simple Validation Questins
- From: Alan J. Flavell
- Simple Validation Questins
- Prev by Date: Re: DIV top
- Next by Date: Re: Hyphen Bullet
- Previous by thread: Re: Simple Validation Questins
- Next by thread: Re: Simple Validation Questins
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|