Message: previous - next
Month: November 2014

Re: [trinity-users] Email server maintenance

From: "E. Liddell" <ejlddll@...>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2014 06:58:56 -0500
On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 21:38:21 -0600
"Timothy Pearson" <kb9vqf@...> wrote:

> Hash: SHA224
> > Timothy Pearson composed on 2014-11-12 20:14 (UTC-0600):
> >
> >> Any further suggestions?
> >
> > Little new. :-(
> >
> > Better, but:
> >
> > 1-Spindly, worst looking "common" monospace font I've ever seen, Courier,
> > is
> > still what it's using, since Monaco is only found on Macs. On Linux
> > installations that do not have M$ web fonts installed, and even on plenty
> > of
> > those that don't, Courier is extra bad, since it's usually an ancient
> > bitmap
> > font (available in limited sizes) instead of a vector font.
> What is your font suggestion?  Remember I didn't write the mailing list
> archive software, so I am unaware of the design decisions behind these
> strange selections. ;-)

Preferences vary widely, and you will *never* be able to satisfy
everyone.  Especially not on Linux--although the old font stack
creation page I got the data from is down, I'd bet that there's still no
single font that can be found on >60% of all Linux boxen.  (I prefer
Courier New as a monospace font, since it's effectively invisible to
me and lets me concentrate on the content.  Other people prefer
sans-serif monospace fonts.)

You could set "monospace" instead of specifying an individual font,
which bats the choice back to the user's browser, but some people
will probably complain about even that.

> > 2-font size is still disrespecting users. What purpose is served setting
> > small on PRE here?
> When I did not explicitly set "small" (i.e. the CSS default of "medium"
> was used), on my unmodified Firefox installation the text was so large as
> to render it unreadable without significant effort.  Perhaps the
> difference between my system and yours is related to the font issue?

And yet, the default size for monospace fonts in an unmodified Firefox
profile (I just checked) is 12px, which is pretty small (I jack mine up to
16, which is around 10-11pt on my screen).

> > Not previously mentioned: previous/next and month are set to .7em
> > (physical
> > size 49% of default). Why?
> As mentioned above I'm not the designer of the ezmlm-archive software, so
> I don't know.  Suggestions for fixing it are welcome.

Probably because the designer who created the original stylesheet considered
those links to be less-important elements and was trying to de-emphasise them.

E. Liddell