Much faster, more refined/professional, less clunky.lol, tell that to a web developer and he'll flip! IE is a major PIA to code for. Security dudes will also inform you that IE is rittled with security holes (it is in fact the biggest source for malware infections).
Absolutely! The topic titles are still too small.Quoted text is itsy-bitsy too.
There are three areas for possible improvement of the font on this Forum: it isn't black enough, the letters are too thin and they are a bit sandwiched together. According to my Word program it is Tahoma 7.5. Converting it to something that everyone has and is very readable - such as Times New Roman 12 - would be considerably easier on the eyes.
I assume you mean Verdana (not Veranda). If so, yes Verdana would be an excellent choice.Yes, Auto-spellcheck got me.
Re net security. Something I don't understand. Once one has a firewall - be it in a router or elsewhere - configured to reject certain kinds of code coming from the internet, is it not the case that IE or any other browser would not be able to transmit forbidden code into one's computer? If the answer is NO, that should ring loud alarm bells for many people
But on top of that, I have Norton AV 2005 that screens for viruses, worms, trojans, keyloggers, you name it, and also Microsoft's new Anti Spyware Beta.
This means that either I'm lucky or the tools are working - with IE as my only web browser.
Better and less bloated than Norton is either AVG or Nod32.I'd also like to throw in one for Norman Internet Protection, http://www.norman.com/ (http://www.norman.com/). Although there are a few minor user interface issues, it's pretty well-behaved. I don't know their pricing policy, because my Internet-over-cable provider gives this away for free.
The MS Anti-Spyware Beta is excellent. I'd also recommend Spybot S&D and Adaware SE to complement it too since sometimes one will miss something the others might catch.Well, I don't think that MS Anti-Spyware Beta is excellent.
Ok, here's a desenting voice about the new HUGE font being used throughout the forum. On a Mac system using Safari there's about enough room to display 2-3 short posts on a full screen on a typical 15" laptop. This doesn't make for a very satisfying experience for those of us who don't read through coke bottle bottoms. (I concede that on the big LCD it's not so much of an issue).I think this has something to do with available fonts.
How about dropping the size back one or two points? :blues: I think we've kind of over corrected here.
On my computer, which is a desktop using Microsoft IE and a 19 inch monitor, the font size is not bad - the style is the problem. I wonder what percentage of Forum readers are reading L-L on a Mac laptop using Safari?There's the big boo-boo right there, Mark. Catering for a single browser only is very, very bad web design, if you recall the reaction someone had to people designing something that worked with Firefox.
Jan, yes of course, for a website catering to people all over the world using everything under the sun, one needs to standardize on what is most universal and can work best for the most users. That is why I originally suggested Times New Roman, but then 61Dynamic responded that such fonts are not web-friendly; rather he suggested Verdana. I tried Verdana 12 as well as Verdana 10 bold in my Word program and they look great - strong, distinct, easy read, good letter spacing. I believe this is also a very commonly available font packaged with the applications most people use.Nopes, Verdana is yet another of those fonts that are only available in a select number of Windows versions, unless you've installed it specially. It's possible that it comes with recent versions of MacOS X, but I don't use that.
I wonder what percentage of Forum readers are reading L-L on a Mac laptop using Safari?I would venture that the number of Mac users here on these forums is a LOT more than you suppose. As regards Safari, it's the default for OS X these days and the idiot board font size is the same under Firefox too which just about includes 99.99% of all Mac users. The presentation doesn't change between my laptops and desktop Macs either - that's one of the beauties of having a platform that is built from the ground up using the elements of excellent visual design. What looks bad on the laptop looks just as bad on my desktop - I just have a desktop that's twice as big that's all.
Helvetica, Ariel and their relatives I believe are also fine - and you are right - likely more universally available on peoples' computers. I must emphasise though that whichever of these, if any, gets adopted - the critical issue here isn't only the font - it is the font STYLE: size, blackness and letter spacing. Any of these fonts can be useless or very effective depending on how they are specified.The point is that if the font is available, it's easier to configure the web browser to correct for font size etc.
From a design perspective I'm sure that anybody with basic typographical skills and experience is whincing when they see this board at the moment. It shows a Frankenstein of different font sizes and weights and lacks consistency. If it's all going to be large font for the Windows visually impaired then fine but let's at least make the site consistent.
Sensible values are usually the browser default (since these are configured by the user), not giving any font size specifics.
And that's why the style sheet reads with only tahoma, if you don't have it it will be the default font that you've specified so its a blend.Nopes, it still says:
Quote from: MarkDS,Sep. 19 2005,07:54Nopes, Verdana is yet another of those fonts that are only available in a select number of Windows versions, unless you've installed it specially. It's possible that it comes with recent versions of MacOS X, but I don't use that.Verdana should be on any modern system. It was created by Microsoft (http://www.will-harris.com/verdana-georgia.htm) for use as a system font in Windows 95. Any Mac with the mac version of IE or MS Office installed also got this font and the font continues to appear in OSX Tiger today. Basically a vast majority of Macs have it available.
That's why I suggested Helvetica and the more general "Sans-Serif".
Arial is another possibility, since this font has been available since Windows 95, at least, and has made its way to most other platforms, if I recall correctly.
And since a vast majority of IBM-compatable PCs are Win95 and above, it's safe to say it's a standard and readily available font.
Helvetica on the other hand was designed in '57 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvetica) and is a default font used on the Mac. It does not appear on any Windows system unless it was installed by software or bought by the user.
And this is why in CSS font families are used. This lets the designer choose what the fallback font should be n case the primary choise is not available.
An example of a non-serif family could be:font-family: Verdana, Tahoma, lucida, Geneva, Arial, sans-serif;
Well, I'm sorry you feel this way but as of this morning, until a change was made, the main fonts used in these forums was rendering at least two points larger than it currently is and was similarly residing side by side with other much smaller fonts.QuoteFrom a design perspective I'm sure that anybody with basic typographical skills and experience is whincing when they see this board at the moment. It shows a Frankenstein of different font sizes and weights and lacks consistency. If it's all going to be large font for the Windows visually impaired then fine but let's at least make the site consistent.
Gwelland,
Seems your problem is isolated to your machines. I'd suggest you setup your browsers to use thier own CSS and overide the board if you don't like it, or maybe that's what is creating your problems in the first place. Otherwise hold your overzealous and pejoritive comments to yourself.
Verdana should be on any modern system. It was created by Microsoft (http://www.will-harris.com/verdana-georgia.htm) for use as a system font in Windows 95.Verdana was introduced with Windows 98. Arial was the one that was introduced with Windows 95 (if you don't believe that, I can send you one of my Windows 95 install media, but see also this list of standard Windows fonts (http://www.kayskreations.net/fonts/fonttb.html)). While Verdana may have been designed for use with Windows 95, it certainly wasn't shipped with the system. However, I think you got it if you downloaded an upgrade of Internet Explorer sometime later.
Helvetica on the other hand was designed in '57 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helvetica) and is a default font used on the Mac. It does not appear on any Windows system unless it was installed by software or bought by the user.Sorry, I was so used to it appearing in Windows 3.x (I think), that I forgot about that.
And this is why in CSS font families are used. This lets the designer choose what the fallback font should be n case the primary choise is not available.Exactly.
This font sucks, period.Now don't you go criticising the presentation of these forums - I'm supposed to the be the overzealous and prejorative one here so no stealing that crown ... lest the wrath of a miffed admin come your way!
Forums are all about reading information, not looking fancy and trendy. Out of the dozen daily forums I participate in, this is the ONLY one that is actually HARD to read, and makes you concentrate just to see it.
Why this site continues it's blunders is beyond me. It's such a simple thing, to set up a server and forum. After a year+ of critisism and suggestions they finally are forced to correct the setup problems - and now it's all blown on the simple, SIMPLE execution of the forum look.
I just don't get it.
ADMINS - FIX YOUR TERRIBLE SETUP!
Set all your forum fonts to Verdana or Arial and BE DONE WITH THE COMPLAINTS! Tahoma is one of the WORST fonts to use for easy reading on a forum, period!
Before I e-mail them the CSS I'll get some public opinion on it.Would you care to share the CSS file so that those of us with a "user mode CSS" thingy in our browsers (okay, okay, royal plurality there, nobody else uses Opera, right?) can test it?
(...)
Here s a screenshot of what it'll look like in Safari:Yays or Nays?
Thanks Neil. Much better.That isn't true at all. And FF is much more secure since it does not interact with your amchine at ther egistry level via Diarect X like MS IE does.
Now.. if you can address Jonathan and Ray’s comment above regarding the title/subtitle screen, we all be happy.
Chris -- I know a lot of people like Firefox. I tried it, it’s just not a good fit on my machine. I use Microsoft Explorer on my XP Pro machine. Much faster, more refined/professional, less clunky.
The only reason FF is starting slowly is because of some plugin you ahve loaded. I had the same problem. Unloaded the plugin, and FF starts almost immediately now. Just start unloading plugins until you get to the culprit. It's teh fastest browser I've ever used, including Opera, NN, IE, and some others I can't remeber.QuoteMuch faster, more refined/professional, less clunky.lol, tell that to a web developer and he'll flip! IE is a major PIA to code for. Security dudes will also inform you that IE is rittled with security holes (it is in fact the biggest source for malware infections).
I used FF extensively on the PC and it's slower in speed to start but overall it performs equally well or better than IE. IE has a tendency to go cross-eyed and just slow down quite a bit when trying to connect to sites when it shouldn't. FF never did that to me.
Opera is one to try if you are a fan of the Snapy™ but it's a bit more cluttered than IE...
Safari is my current fav. but it's Mac only. I still use FF for web dev due to many useful extensions.
If you use FF, there is an extension (forget the name) that lets you modify a sites design via CSS and javascript. Each time you visit that site it'll automatically load that custom alteration you made/downloaded. There is also something like that for Safari called Stand. I haven't tried either one yet so I can't speak for how well they work or how much work they take to implement.QuoteAbsolutely! The topic titles are still too small.Quoted text is itsy-bitsy too.
I wonder if...<code rel="test">Yup, code text is small too.
Most web devs today code to W3C web standards in XHTML+CSS which offers reduced bandwidth costs, greater interoperability, greater accessibility, easier maintenance and much greater freedom for design compared to a "traditional" HTML 4 only design that uses tables extensively. IE is by far the most problematic web browser out there if you are coding using XHTML+CSS since its implementation of CSS is p***-poor at best.Tablesa ren't that bad. It's CSS that has reaally speeded things up, since it's only one file instead of each page having it's own markup. Many designs still use tables, however, since they are just, uh, more compatible than using pure layers that can act differently in browsers. It's coming along however. For instance, it's a common practice to add a table inside of a layer for layout stability.
IE is quite long in the tooth (over 5 years old) and many of the issues are promised to be fixed in the upcoming v7 thanks to a bit of strong competition from FF. I never said IE can't be coded for. I simply said IE is simply a PIA to code for.
Calling IE more refined and less clunky is a matter of opinion which you are entitled to. I use FF since I find it more refined than IE for a multitude of reasons including stability. The current version of FF is far far less likely to have problems connecting to sites than IE and when WinExplorer crashes I don't loose every friggin web page I have open. That's my experience anyway in using FF since its 0.6 release.
FF isn't a Mac thing, it's a WinPC thing. The UI doesn't fit in the Mac environment. That's why they made Camino which is FF built from the ground up for Macs.
Security: Firewalls and routers don't matter since IE is given permission to access the internet it bypasses those items. If you have not run into any issues, that's good but the issue remains. I would recommend installing SpywareBlaster (http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareblaster.html) at the very least just in case.
Most corporations use IE because that's what comes with the computer. To use a different browser would require the IT department to perform extensive testing to ensure stability/compatability with the companies hardware/software/security setup. Then there is the time needed to install it on every computer. Many corporations do use FF but many more don't since they don't want to invest the time to do so. Basically, the larger the company, the less likely you'll see FF due to the cost of implementing it. This isn't saying FF is not good, it is just generally the procedure for any software that is used.
Anyhow I don't really care what browser you use. I'm not telling you you are wrong and I'm right. It's entirely up to you and your tastes. Browsers, like cameras are tools and each one has it's on set of benefits and minuses. Use the one you like best; I personally switch around between four of them for various tasks. There are tons to choose from (IE, FF, Opera, Mozilla, Camino, Safari, Camino, OmniWeb, and many IE spin-offs such as Avant) but IE is the only one that I tell people to be cautious about due to it's security issues.QuoteThere are three areas for possible improvement of the font on this Forum: it isn't black enough, the letters are too thin and they are a bit sandwiched together. According to my Word program it is Tahoma 7.5. Converting it to something that everyone has and is very readable - such as Times New Roman 12 - would be considerably easier on the eyes.
Times is not a good web font. Serifs are usually best for titles only. ArsTech is a good example (http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/lostcoast.ars) as it lets you switch between serif and non-serif body fonts. A non-serif font family starting with Veranda would be much more legible and is a common font on any computer. The Mac doesn't have Tahoma and so I'm currently viewing this with Veranda and it's much easier on the eyes than it is on my PC using Tahoma.
Adjusting the kerning of the fonts may help too (CSS property "letter-spacing").
Serif fonts are easier to read online and in print, but they don't look as pretty online. The "serif" aspect is what allows the eye to flow from one character to another. Ariel does not have that as it is a "non serif text.QuoteJan, yes of course, for a website catering to people all over the world using everything under the sun, one needs to standardize on what is most universal and can work best for the most users. That is why I originally suggested Times New Roman, but then 61Dynamic responded that such fonts are not web-friendly; rather he suggested Verdana. I tried Verdana 12 as well as Verdana 10 bold in my Word program and they look great - strong, distinct, easy read, good letter spacing. I believe this is also a very commonly available font packaged with the applications most people use.Nopes, Verdana is yet another of those fonts that are only available in a select number of Windows versions, unless you've installed it specially. It's possible that it comes with recent versions of MacOS X, but I don't use that.
That's why I suggested Helvetica and the more general "Sans-Serif".
Arial is another possibility, since this font has been available since Windows 95, at least, and has made its way to most other platforms, if I recall correctly.
Bad day?I see veranda in my FF.
While I agree with your sedements, a more civil mannor of convaying them would be more productive.
That said, I noticed something odd. In Safari, the font displayed is Verdana but in FF it's Times New Roman. Just a passing observation.
**
There are only two calls for Tahoma in the first couple lines of the ikonboard.css file. Changing them to Verdana removes all instances of tahoma.
Actually, the second one is redundant...
nobody else uses Opera, right?Jan,
Sure, just download this link (http://www.dynamicartwork.com/tmp/ikonboard.css).Thanks.