Now that you mention it specifically, I know what you mean. My sight is far from perfect and I frequently find myself increasing the font size of web pages. However, Internet Explorer only has five size levels: +2, +1, Normal, -1, and -2 - and I find that even the largest setting isn't that much larger than the default, especially when dealing with text that is initially very small. I don't see how a web designer could get around this by using font tags vs. CSS.
Well, it would be nice if they added more levels, or no limits at all.
However there is great difference in the 5, if you don't see much difference it is perhaps because of the font size locking.
What I do is use Mozilla. It allows an apparently unlimited level of font size adjustment, from microscopic all the way up to massive and it seems to always work, regardless of how the sizes were initially specified.
Yes i know, this is how i feel it should be done. Unfortunately i still need MSIE. If you don't have any choice but to use Internet Explorer, you have the option to ignore specified font sizes and to specify your own stylesheet.
Yes, but as i think i mentioned, there is a bug (or a peculiar feature) in MSIE that causes it to REMEBER the font line spacing, even when you have told it to ignore font sizes. So the letters are big, but the linespacing may still only be 5 points (ie, the letters are on top of each other) As for my own stylesheet, not sure how that would help since its one for all sites. If it was one for each site, then perhaps.
As an aside, do you have some examples of sites that don't work well in IE because of their use of CSS?
Well of the cuff there is http://www.cnn.com - you can't change the font size since they lock it with stylesheets, or http://www.usatoday.com/ - http://www.cbs.com/ is an example of where they letters are ontop of each other on some pages, even when you have disabled stylesheets.
(If you have a version of MSIE where this is not a problem, by all means do tell:)
>>Don't use Style Sheets - it makes web pages >>unreadable in Microsoft Internet Explorer.
>Are you insane? There are so many things wrong >with that statement:
There is only something wrong with that statement if you are 20 year old "websdesigner" who don't care about the readability of your pages.
>1. Obsolete: Style sheets and CSS are the >current standard.
Which is used wrongly by about 90% of those who use them.
>The alternative (font tags and the like) is >deprecated (not to mention generally a lot more >work to deal with).
Which is amusing since a lot of sites use inline stylesheet tags.
>2. False:
False? False what? Now you are insane - you think i would write about a problem if there wasn't one?
> Internet Explorer does a generally serviceable >job of rendering CSS.
Except you can't change font size on fonts which has been set to absolute font size in stylesheets. And since most webmasters (>90%) don't use stylesheets as they were intended, namely as a relative definition but define all fonts as ABSOLUTE sizes, you (i) have a problem! You can't adjust the font size in Microsoft Internet Explorer - ie, if your sight, like mine, isn't 20/20 it can be hard to read a lot of pages(fact! Even if you can spot a skaterbabe at 50 miles). If they had designed them with just a little bit of care, and used relative font sizes instead, they would be scalable and readable. If you tell that to the webmasters they either don't know what you are talking about or tell you to get lost (in varying degrees of politeness)
>3. You seem to be forgetting that this is/. - >not exactly the best place to go to drum up >sympathy for Microsoft products.
You mean this is slashdot where people don't care about anyone but themselves? I don't give a shit about sympathy for Microsoft products, I'm just trying to get some sympathy for myself... no wait, not even that, I'm just trying to get the amateurs to do a proper job when they are making webpages! (Follow the intent of stylesheets, not making a WYSIWYG page!) And if some of the idiots at Microsoft happen to read this so they could change the behavior of their damn browser that's even better ("So use another browser" - except you can't for a lot of websites)
I got another message along with yours, from a guy who says "You're right! I remember that when i design webpages" - so that's one down, a few millions to go.
Well, its a soundbite, your sig can't be very long. Follow: most webmasters (>90%) don't use stylesheets as they were intended, namely as a relative definition. They define all fonts as ABSOLUTE sizes, if you do that the font size can't be adjusted in Microsoft Internet Explorer - ie, if your sight, like mine, isn't 20/20 it can be hard to read a lot of pages. If they had designed them with just a little bit of care, and used relative font sizes instead, they would be scalable and readable. If you tell that to the webmasters they either don't know what you are talking about or tell you to get lost (in varying degrees of politeness)
>Would you prefer designers to embed the style >into the HTML via fonts tags and other horrible >hacks that's make no sence
Actually a lot of people are embedding stylesheet commands into the HTML
>and can't be overriden?
The point is that a lot of pages become unredable because their effects can't be overridden (in MSIE)
>Why no use another browser if it's that much of a problem?
that much of a problem? That 90% of web pages become hard to read - because most of the web (non linux pages) are designed for MSIE and many of them won't work (and the adage, then don't visit the page hurts me not them)
Its a soundbite, your sig can't be very long. Follow: most webmasters (>90%) don't use stylesheets as they were intended, namely as a relative definition. They define all fonts as ABSOLUTE sizes, if you do that the font size can't be adjusted in Microsoft Internet Explorer - ie, if your sight, like mine, isn't 20/20 it can be hard to read a lot of pages(you can disable it in the advanced options, but it still uses the stylesheet hight for linespacing! Ie, the letters are on top of each other). If they had designed them with just a little bit of care, and used relative font sizes instead, they would be scalable and readable. If you tell that to the webmasters they either don't know what you are talking about or tell you to get lost (in varying degrees of politeness)
This is probably going to attract people who hope to be able to make money from the being in the game (we see this in just about all other online games, where they sell items and equipment for real life money) - it may also be a way for nolife nerds to make a living without leaving their sofa!
>>... according to fans online, Fox has run about >>2 promos for the show? Since.. ever! >That's not exactly accurate.
Actually yes it is, that is what fans are claiming - but i surmised I understand what you mean:)
> Fox has spent quite a bit on marketing for the >show,
Well, that's not what people on http://www.fireflyfans.com or the offical board say, nor what they say in alt.tv.firefly or rec.arts.tv.sf - of course they may have been looking in the wrong direction.
> even going so far as to set up a pretty >impressive official web site with message boards >and whatnot.
Well, your milage may vary, but I don't think the official website is particularly impressive, and the messageboard is the one fox generally uses to all shows, simply adding some areas for Firefly is not that big a deal. However, the board is very interesting given that most of the actors hang out there inbetween shots, and some of them are down right chatty, and all come across as likeable people(instead of egomaniacs).
>They didn't have to do that.
I disagree. Because:
> Fox spent a blessed fortune on the pilot-- the >sets alone cost more than most episodes.
If that is the case, one would think that they most definately would drum up interest to protect their investment.
> When they got a pilot that wasn't exactly what >they wanted, they could have cancelled the show >completely and put the pilot on a shelf, but >they didn't. They ordered some more episodes and >decided to give it a shot.
I suspect Berman likes Whedon from the old days... alas, money is her master in the end...
>And the most important thing is that they don't >show up at story meetings every Tuesday with a >briefcase full of notes. Amazingly, there hasn't >been one "more sex," "more proactive," or "can >you Rastify him by about 10%?"
This is of course paramount, that the tomato salesmen stay out of it - of course a cynic might say that its because they have already decided to cancel the show so they don't bother...
Don't get me wrong, i very much hope that they will keep their hands of it, place it in a good spot and run tons of promos so that it will grow into what they consider a hit... i just get a bit nervous when i read all the voices say that 'hiatus' is just another word for 'canceled'...
... according to fans online, Fox has run about 2 promos for the show? Since.. ever! Ironic then, that another channel are running lots of promos for a canceled show.. tsk tsk
An alien SETI@Centauri project might assign us a slightly lower priority because we're not making a deliberate effort to be noticed. Nevertheless, continuous radio and television signals across multiple frequencies would probably make us quite an interesting target to any race with good enough detectors and large enough dishes.
And when they recieve the Anna Nicole show, its war!
>Even if we picked up something now, it would >only be a tiny flicker of something that existed >millions of years ago, with no hope of us ever >meeting whoever created this glimpse of order in >the chaos of the universe.
Many Firefly fans decided that instead of waiting to see if the show would be canceled they would start a rescue effort right away. Firefly support has been raising money, and on December 9th they will run a full page add in Variety supporting Firefly, they are sending copies of that issue to advertisers and to the execs at Fox. They have also used some of the money raised on producing T-shirts and bags with the Logo of the support campaign, this too will be send to Fox execs.
One guy in American Mensa paid for an add to telling other members about this new program, another guy in Ohio bought cable adds to get other people to watch. And tons of people have been writing the advertisers thanking them for supporting the program, and generally oozing goodwil towards it.
Its not over yet. There are two episodes and the pilot to be shown in December, and two more episodes already in the can. I you like the show, make a different spread the word, send a postcard, take a chance on something which is not the usual premasticated gruel. If you hate the show... don't do anything, no need to actively annoy other people is there?
Think its sick to try to save a TV program? A sign of looserhood? Perhaps, but it makes more sense to fight for something you like, as opposed to spend effort on something you dislike, no?
Just because you don't agree with the facts doesn't give you the right to try and supress it! Idiot.
What I wrote is correct. Stealing is when you deprive someone of something. If you steal a sodapop from a store, they have lost that item. They have payed for it, now they can't get the money back because you took it. When you copy something you don't have the right to copy, nobody loose anything. They MAY be deprived of the money would have payed IF you bought it. That's the difference. But there are a lot of people who still need to understand that if we have idiots who will moderate it as a troll.
Slashdot Mirror
Now that you mention it specifically, I know what you mean. My sight is far from perfect and I frequently find myself increasing the font size of web pages. However, Internet Explorer only has five size levels: +2, +1, Normal, -1, and -2 - and I find that even the largest setting isn't that much larger than the default, especially when dealing with text that is initially very small. I don't see how a web designer could get around this by using font tags vs. CSS.
:)
Well, it would be nice if they added more levels, or no limits at all.
However there is great difference in the 5, if you don't see much difference it is perhaps because of the font size locking.
What I do is use Mozilla. It allows an apparently unlimited level of font size adjustment, from microscopic all the way up to massive and it seems to always work, regardless of how the sizes were initially specified.
Yes i know, this is how i feel it should be done.
Unfortunately i still need MSIE.
If you don't have any choice but to use Internet Explorer, you have the option to ignore specified font sizes and to specify your own stylesheet.
Yes, but as i think i mentioned, there is a bug (or a peculiar feature) in MSIE that causes it to REMEBER the font line spacing, even when you have told it to ignore font sizes. So the letters are big, but the linespacing may still only be 5 points (ie, the letters are on top of each other)
As for my own stylesheet, not sure how that would help since its one for all sites. If it was one for each site, then perhaps.
As an aside, do you have some examples of sites that don't work well in IE because of their use of CSS?
Well of the cuff there is http://www.cnn.com - you can't change the font size since they lock it with stylesheets, or http://www.usatoday.com/
- http://www.cbs.com/ is an example of where they letters are ontop of each other on some pages, even when you have disabled stylesheets.
(If you have a version of MSIE where this is not a problem, by all means do tell
... because police confiscated his cell phone - thinking it was a hacking instrument??
>>Don't use Style Sheets - it makes web pages
>>unreadable in Microsoft Internet Explorer.
>Are you insane? There are so many things wrong
>with that statement:
There is only something wrong with that statement if you are 20 year old "websdesigner" who don't care about the readability of your pages.
>1. Obsolete: Style sheets and CSS are the
>current standard.
Which is used wrongly by about 90% of those who use them.
>The alternative (font tags and the like) is
>deprecated (not to mention generally a lot more
>work to deal with).
Which is amusing since a lot of sites use inline stylesheet tags.
>2. False:
False? False what? Now you are insane - you think i would write about a problem if there wasn't one?
> Internet Explorer does a generally serviceable
>job of rendering CSS.
Except you can't change font size on fonts which has been set to absolute font size in stylesheets. And since most webmasters (>90%) don't use stylesheets as they were intended, namely as a relative definition but define all fonts as ABSOLUTE sizes, you (i) have a problem! You can't adjust the font size in Microsoft Internet Explorer - ie, if your sight, like mine, isn't 20/20 it can be hard to read a lot of pages(fact! Even if you can spot a skaterbabe at 50 miles). If they had designed them with just a little bit of care, and used relative font sizes instead, they would be scalable and readable. If you tell that to the webmasters they either don't know what you are talking about or tell you to get lost (in varying degrees of politeness)
>3. You seem to be forgetting that this is
>not exactly the best place to go to drum up
>sympathy for Microsoft products.
You mean this is slashdot where people don't care about anyone but themselves? I don't give a shit about sympathy for Microsoft products, I'm just trying to get some sympathy for myself
I got another message along with yours, from a guy who says "You're right! I remember that when i design webpages" - so that's one down, a few millions to go.
> What's with you sig?
Well, its a soundbite, your sig can't be very long. Follow: most webmasters (>90%) don't use stylesheets as they were intended, namely as a relative definition. They define all fonts as ABSOLUTE sizes, if you do that the font size can't be adjusted in Microsoft Internet Explorer - ie, if your sight, like mine, isn't 20/20 it can be hard to read a lot of pages. If they had designed them with just a little bit of care, and used relative font sizes instead, they would be scalable and readable. If you tell that to the webmasters they either don't know what you are talking about or tell you to get lost (in varying degrees of politeness)
>Would you prefer designers to embed the style
>into the HTML via fonts tags and other horrible
>hacks that's make no sence
Actually a lot of people are embedding stylesheet commands into the HTML
>and can't be overriden?
The point is that a lot of pages become unredable because their effects can't be overridden (in MSIE)
>Why no use another browser if it's that much of a problem?
that much of a problem? That 90% of web pages become hard to read - because most of the web (non linux pages) are designed for MSIE and many of them won't work (and the adage, then don't visit the page hurts me not them)
They had to drop that, it had been taken!
How many have she got?!
And what when they are all sold - how is she going to listen to music?
And where did she get all those mp3s anyway - did she download them from the net? Eh? Eh? Eh?
>You're sig is a joke right?
Its a soundbite, your sig can't be very long. Follow: most webmasters (>90%) don't use stylesheets as they were intended, namely as a relative definition. They define all fonts as ABSOLUTE sizes, if you do that the font size can't be adjusted in Microsoft Internet Explorer - ie, if your sight, like mine, isn't 20/20 it can be hard to read a lot of pages(you can disable it in the advanced options, but it still uses the stylesheet hight for linespacing! Ie, the letters are on top of each other). If they had designed them with just a little bit of care, and used relative font sizes instead, they would be scalable and readable. If you tell that to the webmasters they either don't know what you are talking about or tell you to get lost (in varying degrees of politeness)
Some sites who do it wrong:
http://www.cnn.com
http://www.nvidia.com
>Trying to figure out what the point is though...
Hoping for a better world?
>>"Don't use Style Sheets - it makes web pages
>unreadable in Microsoft Internet Explorer" use a
>better browser
And be greeted by: "You need Internet Explorer to view this page - free download here!"
Remember the sims? A game where you have to work, pay bills, clean the house, etc etc etc ... people are weird!
This is probably going to attract people who hope to be able to make money from the being in the game (we see this in just about all other online games, where they sell items and equipment for real life money) - it may also be a way for nolife nerds to make a living without leaving their sofa!
another leaves the fold of geekdom
>>(And here hexapodia is not the key insight ;-)
;) :)
>Hexapodia is always the key insight. If it
>doesn't seem that way, it's just because you
>don't have all the facts yet.
I admit to not being omnipotent
(perhaps its just this zone that is slowing me down though
>>... according to fans online, Fox has run about
:)
;-)
>>2 promos for the show? Since.. ever!
>That's not exactly accurate.
Actually yes it is, that is what fans are claiming - but i surmised I understand what you mean
> Fox has spent quite a bit on marketing for the
>show,
Well, that's not what people on http://www.fireflyfans.com or the offical board say, nor what they say in alt.tv.firefly or rec.arts.tv.sf - of course they may have been looking in the wrong direction.
> even going so far as to set up a pretty
>impressive official web site with message boards
>and whatnot.
Well, your milage may vary, but I don't think the official website is particularly impressive, and the messageboard is the one fox generally uses to all shows, simply adding some areas for Firefly is not that big a deal. However, the board is very interesting given that most of the actors hang out there inbetween shots, and some of them are down right chatty, and all come across as likeable people(instead of egomaniacs).
>They didn't have to do that.
I disagree. Because:
> Fox spent a blessed fortune on the pilot-- the
>sets alone cost more than most episodes.
If that is the case, one would think that they most definately would drum up interest to protect their investment.
> When they got a pilot that wasn't exactly what
>they wanted, they could have cancelled the show
>completely and put the pilot on a shelf, but
>they didn't. They ordered some more episodes and
>decided to give it a shot.
I suspect Berman likes Whedon from the old days... alas, money is her master in the end...
>And the most important thing is that they don't
>show up at story meetings every Tuesday with a
>briefcase full of notes. Amazingly, there hasn't
>been one "more sex," "more proactive," or "can
>you Rastify him by about 10%?"
This is of course paramount, that the tomato salesmen stay out of it - of course a cynic might say that its because they have already decided to cancel the show so they don't bother...
Don't get me wrong, i very much hope that they will keep their hands of it, place it in a good spot and run tons of promos so that it will grow into what they consider a hit... i just get a bit nervous when i read all the voices say that 'hiatus' is just another word for 'canceled'...
(And here hexapodia is not the key insight
... according to fans online, Fox has run about 2 promos for the show? Since.. ever!
Ironic then, that another channel are running lots of promos for a canceled show.. tsk tsk
Farscape is gone, Firefly is still alive - so start early saving it!
http://fireflysupport.com/
Quality manages.. hang on, what am i saying this is for profit tv... oh well
An alien SETI@Centauri project might assign us a slightly lower priority because we're not making a deliberate effort to be noticed. Nevertheless, continuous radio and television signals across multiple frequencies would probably make us quite an interesting target to any race with good enough detectors and large enough dishes.
And when they recieve the Anna Nicole show, its war!
Is that the same as cowboynealcentric?
That's the where the Vulcan homeworld is - known as the home of the funkiest party goers of the galaxy!
>Even if we picked up something now, it would
>only be a tiny flicker of something that existed
>millions of years ago, with no hope of us ever
>meeting whoever created this glimpse of order in
>the chaos of the universe.
In your opinion.
>That was outstandingly funny. Thanks
Why?
... and if you quote me, that's $5 a quote.
How does the artificial gravity work on the ship? Magic. It actually says that, right there in the series bible.
Where did you get the bible?
Don't forget the rescue efforts.
Many Firefly fans decided that instead of waiting to see if the show would be canceled they would start a rescue effort right away. Firefly support has been raising money, and on December 9th they will run a full page add in Variety supporting Firefly, they are sending copies of that issue to advertisers and to the execs at Fox. They have also used some of the money raised on producing T-shirts and bags with the Logo of the support campaign, this too will be send to Fox execs.
One guy in American Mensa paid for an add to telling other members about this new program, another guy in Ohio bought cable adds to get other people to watch. And tons of people have been writing the advertisers thanking them for supporting the program, and generally oozing goodwil towards it.
Its not over yet. There are two episodes and the pilot to be shown in December, and two more episodes already in the can. I you like the show, make a different spread the word, send a postcard, take a chance on something which is not the usual premasticated gruel. If you hate the show... don't do anything, no need to actively annoy other people is there?
http://fireflysupport.com/
Think its sick to try to save a TV program? A sign of looserhood? Perhaps, but it makes more sense to fight for something you like, as opposed to spend effort on something you dislike, no?
Just because you don't agree with the facts doesn't give you the right to try and supress it! Idiot.
What I wrote is correct. Stealing is when you deprive someone of something. If you steal a sodapop from a store, they have lost that item. They have payed for it, now they can't get the money back because you took it. When you copy something you don't have the right to copy, nobody loose anything. They MAY be deprived of the money would have payed IF you bought it. That's the difference. But there are a lot of people who still need to understand that if we have idiots who will moderate it as a troll.
So, an independent organization with no legal jurisdiction can levy legal fines on private individuals in Denmark?
If they can remains to be seen. Their point of view is that they are allowing a criminal to get of easy.