Post by: Bruce_F on October 28, 2003, 02:36:27 AM
Why, you ask?
When you have your monitor resolution set very high like the Apple Cinema Displays are, by default, it's nearly impossible to read the fine print on some web sites.
In Jaguar and Safari 1.0, one could use Safari Enhancer to set a minimum font size. In Safari v1.1, developers decided to change things in so the minimum font size could not be manipulated.
So, with the help of the person who wrote Safari Enhancer, it appears we convinced one of the Safari developers to fix it so the user can decide whether to set the minimum size or not!
Post by: pendragon on October 28, 2003, 04:24:06 AM
Amongst other things, the latest version of TinkerTool (v3.01) accommodates the setting of minimum font size in Safari and is Panther compliant. What a relief for mature eyes.
Post by: Bruce_F on October 28, 2003, 10:55:38 AM
I didn't know it existed. Maybe I'll use it until the Safari fix is out.
Post by: Bruce_F on October 28, 2003, 11:09:59 AM
Oh well, I'll just wait.
Post by: gmann on October 28, 2003, 11:37:40 AM
Post by: Xairbusdriver on October 29, 2003, 02:48:02 PM
Jim C. (now so much feeling better after releasing all that negative energy!
)
Post by: bobw on October 29, 2003, 04:52:22 PM
Product Description:
SafariFont aims to fix one of the biggest complaints with the version of Safari included in Mac OS X Panther - font sizes that are too small or big.
Using SafariFont you can easily change Safari's minimum font size to 8, 10, 12, 14, or 16 points. Safari's default font size of 12 can easily be restored simply by selecting this option from within the program.
While this program was designed for the version of Safari included with Panther, it should also work within Jaguar.
Post by: Bruce_F on October 29, 2003, 05:29:11 PM
Unfortunately, SafariFont doesn't work for me. I ran the script that is provided twice, just to make sure. It didn't make any difference in the font size on my computer.
Post by: gmann on October 29, 2003, 07:03:45 PM
Post by: Bruce_F on October 29, 2003, 08:20:51 PM
QUOTE
The problem with minimum font size is that there is really a need for two features:
(1) An implicit minimum size that can be applied automatically by the Web browser in situations where layout won't be disrupted.
(2) Support for a true minimum font size that is applied by the user to all fonts as an override, and that will disrupt page layout potentially (but the tradeoff is obviously worth it for users with vision problems).
Jaguar supported (2) but not (1). I then changed the meaning of minimum font size in Panther to mean (1) and not (2). It seems obvious now that both features are valuable, and that at the very least support for a separate minimum font size preference is worthwhile.
I'll look into fixing this. Thanks for the feedback.
(1) An implicit minimum size that can be applied automatically by the Web browser in situations where layout won't be disrupted.
(2) Support for a true minimum font size that is applied by the user to all fonts as an override, and that will disrupt page layout potentially (but the tradeoff is obviously worth it for users with vision problems).
Jaguar supported (2) but not (1). I then changed the meaning of minimum font size in Panther to mean (1) and not (2). It seems obvious now that both features are valuable, and that at the very least support for a separate minimum font size preference is worthwhile.
I'll look into fixing this. Thanks for the feedback.
Post by: Xairbusdriver on October 30, 2003, 04:44:13 PM
There is no way to keep a layout from being disrupted when there are both fixed size objects (images) and variable sized ones (text). Even if the images sizes could be changed, even when pixel sizes are given, that would not make them more readable, just more blocky or with less visible detail.
While images are great for 'flash' and entertainment, they usually fail to provide the same quality of information that can be presented with text for those with vision problems. Sure, a picture can be worth a thousand words. But I want information that is viewable/readable. That usually means text. And limiting a browsers ability to display text in the size that the user wants is just poor programming and not a little arrogant. It is telling the user that the developer knows what's best for him, regardless of whether or not the developer even knows what the user needs/wants.
Stop worrying about how the layout may look. That's what the W3C and CSS standards are for. Let the site developers be concerned about that. And even they should be more concerned about following those same standards, so the site is usable on any browser, be it Safari or IE on a Mac/PC or whatever is available on a PDA, cell phone or webTV (shudder!).
Of course, that's just my opinion and what's that worth?!
I'm just a user... 
Jim C.
Post by: Bill on November 02, 2003, 01:52:14 AM
I see what you mean about Safari in panther.
I've been running around with camino.