On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 02:50:44AM -0500, Nitesh Dhanjani wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Feb 2000, Vidiot wrote:
> > >I have three separate windoze boxes, totally disconnected from each other,
> > >that have had exactly the same font problem with CNN you describe for the
> > >same past several days. I though it was just me. Part of the site is like
> > >it was, but the headline areas (mostly) are messed up bad. Maybe a new
> > >web designer that doesn't understand fonts? Hafta squint to read it, I
> > >doubt they did that on purpose.
> > >--
> > >Matt Nelson
> > >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >At 11:14 AM 2/9/2000 -0600, you wrote:
> > >> >Im using true type fonts within netscape.. is it just me or do the fonts
> > >> >at http://www.cnn.com/ look funny since a few days?
> > >> >nitesh.
> > >>Look fine to me.
> > >>MB
> > Funny looking fonts is not the same as fonts too small to read. To me
> > funny looking means there is a problem rendering the fonts, as in, pixelated
> > or some other such problem. A correctly rendered font that is too small is
> > a whole 'nother matter. For that you bitch to the webmaster at CNN.
> > But, CNN isn't the only site that tries to cram too much on the display
> > and uses smaller sizes in order to do it.
> Why does it look fine and not 'small to read' when viewed with netscape on
> a windows machine? Makes me wonder if it is really CNN's fault.
I doubt that it's a Windows vs others. I think it's a screen
resolution issue. Running 1280x1024, I found the old cnn.com pages to
be virtually unreadable unless I stuck my nose right up to the screen.
Their pages are specifying document defined fonts and are taking control
of the font size, unless you override with a very specific option in
preferences. The pages were also relatively narrow after rendering,
being only about half the width of the screen in full screen mode. IMHO,
I think the fonts were optimized for something in the 640x480 to 800x600
range. The newer pages seem to be optimized for larger screens. The
font size and page size are significantly larger. Maybe it's a concession
on their part that a large part of their target audience are running
screens larger that a 13" 640x480 VGA display. :-)
Since they are defining explicitly the page layout (and size) and
the font pitch, it is CNN's "fault", if you want to assign fault. If
you're layout and screen doesn't reasonably match their preconceived
preoptimized notion of what they thing you should be looking at, it's
not going to look quite right. They pick a size to explicitly optimize
for and they are guarenteed to be wrong quite frequently. It also
assures them that they will be right quite often as well (hence the
"look's pretty good to me" messages that have been a part of this
thread).
> nitesh.
Mike
--
Michael H. Warfield | (770) 985-6132 | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(The Mad Wizard) | (770) 331-2437 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/
NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all
PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471 | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it!
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
