Posted by dorayme on 01/17/08 23:24

In article <jb3565-b8c.ln1@xword.teksavvy.com>,
"Chris F.A. Johnson" <cfajohnson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2008-01-17, John Hosking wrote:
> ...
> > And here's a contribution for you to put inside the <style> element,
> > although at some point[1] you will probably want to move from embedded
> > CSS like this to using an external stylesheet.
> >
> > html, body {
> > font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;
> > font-size: 100%;
> > background-color:#FFFFFF; color:#000000;
> > padding:0px; margin:0px; }
> >
> > The most instructional thing you can do is tweak small things in your
> > code (markup and CSS) and see the effect(s). So don't just accept the
> > CSS above; add it to your page, view it in some browsers, then change it
> > and see what happens.
> >
> > For example, a lot of folks don't care for serif fonts for long online
> > texts. So try something like
> >
> > font:100% Arial, Helvetica, "Century Gothic", sans-serif;
> >
> > instead of the fonts I gave you at first.
>
> Better still, don't specify a font family for the body text, and
> let the user's default (and presumably preferred) font be used.
>
> If I have my browser set so that the default font is Helvetica (or
> something similar in size) and a page is served with, e.g., Times
> New Roman, the text is smaller than is comfortable.

This guy is never going to get this site up if anyone suggests
the least thing that is not needed. See how many concerns are
crowding him already? I tend to agree with Chris on this because
it is less to worry about for now.

John's points are all fair enough though. Later we will hive off
the CSS to external. The title point is not a bad one to start
with though (see John's previous post). OP needs a nice short
better than "My sister".

But you have to admit, the site does not seem to have any obvious
visual faults right at this moment. <g>

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]