Subject: comments on newly generated html draft format and font sizes

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 14:26:05 +0200 (CEST)

Hi,

I don't know where to turn, so I'll send email here.

I am reading two documents:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-04
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-02

The last one was created in in the past day or so. I noticed that it was 
in a much larger font size than other IETF html documents. I looked into 
the source, and the first one has "font-size: 1em;" in body {} and the 
last one has "font-size: 12pt;". I don't know if that's actually is the 
right place to look, but that's the one I found.

I am not an expert in HTML and CSS, but "1em" seems to result in a better 
expected result for me than "12pt".

I use latest Chrome on OSX 10.10.3. If I resize the 12pt document to my 
liking, now the "1em" is too small, and the other way around. This is 
really painful when trying to read two documents that are referring to 
each other and switching between them.

If I take the "12pt" document and do "view source", I get the text in the 
same size as the "1em" documents. It thus seems to me that at least Chrome 
defaults to 1em and for some reason treats "12pt" differently.

I like the old format better, the 12pt documents just defaults to too big 
text for me.

If I look at the txt versions (change /html/ to /id/) then they are the 
same text size as the "1em;" versions.

So to summarize:

https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-02.txt
https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-04.txt
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-homenet-hncp-04

all have the same font size on my screen (including following each other 
when I do cmd + and cmd - in one of them).

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-homenet-dncp-02

is a few font sizes bigger. Could someone please look into this, it 
doesn't seem optimal to me?

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [email-masked]

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:41:34 +0200

Hi Micke,

> I don't know where to turn, so I'll send email here.

Ok.  For the future, anything that has to do with content on the tools
server should go to either [email-masked] or [email-masked].
(It will end up on my plate in any case).

> each other and switching between them.

Agreed.  So, when I first set up the HTML converter for drafts and RFCs,
about 10 years ago, screen DPI was such that the documents served /without/
a point (pt) size mostly displayed on screen in the size I believe
people today will experience with the '12pt' documents.  What prompted
me to start changing this over was that the documents /without/ a point
size displayed so disgustingly small on smaller devices, like tablets.

The intention is to apply a point setting consistently to all the
htmlized documents on tools.ietf.org; the process of converting a document
is however sufficiently CPU-intensive that a bulk conversion of all ~165000
documents will take time.  Till now I've let it to progress at the rate
I renew the conversion by default, which should have them all done in about
20 days.

> I like the old format better, the 12pt documents just defaults to too big 

I'd like to hear from other people.  The choice of 12pt for today's devices
can definitely be changed; please let me know if you have a preference for
a different point size.

The effect of having two different sizes is transient.  I'll see if I can
speed it up, but it's /not/ going to be a permanent misfeature.

> doesn't seem optimal to me?

Understood.  Sorry I didn't hit the sweet spot for you in the first go.

Best regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 06:56:38 -0700

> can definitely be changed; please let me know if you have a preference for

Using "1em" seems semantically better than stating a specific size. On my browser, "1em" also has a more pleasing visual effect for me.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:58:39 +0200

Hi Paul,

> Using "1em" seems semantically better than stating a specific size. On my browser, "1em" also has a more pleasing visual effect for me.

1em is going away.  It's going to change to a point size, but which one, is the
question.  I thought I'd been pretty clear about that.

	Henrik

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 07:32:02 -0700

> question.  I thought I'd been pretty clear about that.

You were not, and I hope you will consider following the HTML semantics more closely. If you don't want to use "1em", please consider "medium", which tells the browser to use the default size it believes is best based on defaults and configuration by the user.

--Paul Hoffman

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:54:30 +0200

Hi Paul,

Snipping back in the part which you snipped out, where I asked people about
their preference for a point size:

> You were not.

I believe I was, see above, and I have no idea why you want a firefight about
this instead of letting people respond to what I'd really like to hear from
them about, namely preferences for point size.

> and I hope you will consider following the HTML semantics more closely.

???  You obviously believe that a font size of '1em' or 'medium' is semantically
more correct than '12pt'.  Can you back that up?  The CSS 2.1 specification
is very clear about the semantic meaning of point sizes, see Section 4.3.2 of
the CSS 2.1 specifcaiton.

> If you don't want to use "1em", please consider "medium", which tells
> the browser to use the default size it believes is best based on
> defaults and configuration by the user.

That's funny.  'medium' is the default setting, which is what you get with
1em.  Hilarious :-D

	Henrik

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 11:42:58 -0400 (EDT)

> That's funny.  'medium' is the default setting, which is what you get with

Today I thought my browser on my laptop had a bug in it, because it
displayed the draft using insanely big letters and I had to hit ctrl "-"
to bring the size down to something reasonable. Then I noticed this thread :P

Paul

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 11:49:50 -0400

I have to agree that 12pt produces too large a default.  Is there an 
easy way for me as a user to experiment with what 10pt would look like, 
so I can comment on that?  And is there an easy way for me to try that 
size on my phone, to see if it seems equally readable there?

Thanks,
Joel

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 11:56:16 -0400

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]> wrote:
> I have to agree that 12pt produces too large a default.  Is there an easy
> way for me as a user to experiment with what 10pt would look like, so I can
> comment on that?  And is there an easy way for me to try that size on my
> phone, to see if it seems equally readable there?

Save the page as a file, open it with an editor, replace 'font-size:
foo' with whatever number you want to try, and reopen the file? You
will probably need to post it on a webserver or email it to yourself
(depending on the phone)
W

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 12:03:32 -0400

[ ... and this was intended to be off-list ]

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 12:03:14 -0400

Trying different sizes on my laptop, 10pt seems a good compromise.  I 
actually like the way 9pt looks on my screen, but I tend to prefer 
smaller fonts than some other folks, so I suspect that is not the sweet 
spot.

I tried to check on my phone, but I think my phone is defaulting to 
ignoring the pt size in the document.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 18:06:53 +0200

Hi Joel,

> On 22 Apr 2015, at 17:49, Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> I have to agree that 12pt produces too large a default.  Is there an easy way for me as a user to experiment with what 10pt would look like, so I can comment on that?  And is there an easy way for me to try that size on my phone, to see if it seems equally readable there?

I'll set up a bunch of sample pages for you to try out.

Best regards,

    Henrik

---

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 18:14:53 +0200 (CEST)

> I'll set up a bunch of sample pages for you to try out.

Yes, please, I am especially curious if "12pt" is affected by my chosen 
"text size"-setting on iPad and iPhone and Android-device, and if "1em" or 
"medium" is. I was going to fix some test pages tomorrow myself, but if 
you're willing to do it I'll use them as test instead.

Because I want to be able to set the font size according to my preference, 
not what the "web designer" thinks is best. I already have the problem on 
many "new and modern" web pages that the text is just way too big on my 
desktop monitor, probably because the web designer thinks it should look 
that way on most peoples' tablets or phones.

---

From: Joe Hildebrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 10:34:10 -0600

> On Apr 22, 2015, at 7:56 AM, Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Paul hints at an interesting line of reasoning here.  What we're actually looking for is "responsive typography", a combination of relative sizes with the default initial sizes chosen based on CSS @media queries.  Some starting points for consideration:

http://typecast.com/blog/a-more-modern-scale-for-web-typography
https://bugsnag.com/blog/responsive-typography-with-rems
http://codeitdown.com/responsive-font-size-css/

-- 
Joe Hildebrand

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 19:07:01 +0200

Hi Joe,

> http://codeitdown.com/responsive-font-size-css/

Thanks.  I'll try to find time to read and apply.

Regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 19:09:33 +0200

Hi Joel,

> I'll set up a bunch of sample pages for you to try out.

Here are links to pages set up with 9pt, 10pt, 11pt and 12pt:

	https://tools.ietf.org/pt/

Best regards,

	Henrik

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 13:39:35 -0400

Thanks Henrik.

On my laptop (Macbook Pro 15" with Retina screen), the 9pt and 10 pt 
look best.  The 12 looks very large.

On the other hand, on my phone (Samsung S II, not the most current :-)) 
the 9pt is unreadable.  The 12 point actually looks best.

I hope that there is some better way to express the sizing so that it 
works well across platforms.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 20:47:34 +0300

On my 13” Mac the 9pt and 10pt also look best. 

I tried on an iPhone and on a 6” Lumia, and in both cases all 4 looked nearly identical (to each other). On the Lumia the text looked quite small and barely readable even with 12pt.

Yoav

> On Apr 22, 2015, at 8:39 PM, Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Henrik.
> 
> On my laptop (Macbook Pro 15" with Retina screen), the 9pt and 10 pt look best.  The 12 looks very large.
> 
> On the other hand, on my phone (Samsung S II, not the most current :-)) the 9pt is unreadable.  The 12 point actually looks best.
> 
> I hope that there is some better way to express the sizing so that it works well across platforms.
> 
> Yours,
> Joel
>

---

From: Joe Hildebrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 11:56:14 -0600

Yes.  @media queries based on the number of pixels on your screen work well.

> On Apr 22, 2015, at 11:39 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Henrik.
> 

-- 
Joe Hildebrand

---

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 20:07:57 +0200 (CEST)

> 	https://tools.ietf.org/pt/

Could you please create versions with "1em" and "medium" as well?

Because I can already tell you that 12pt is too big in my OSX Chrome, and 
it's too big in landscape mode on my iPad, but it's just the right size in 
portrait mode on my iPad (tried both Safari and Chrome on iPad).

So there must be a better way to do this than to specify a point size?

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 18:38:39 +0000

> >> I have to agree that 12pt produces too large a default.  Is there an easy way
> for me as a user to experiment with what 10pt would look like, so I can

Please consider old people and their weak eyes. I would personally use 12pt or bigger, because that way I can read the screen from a safe distance without having to put up reading glasses. But twenty years ago I would most probably have voted for 9pt, because it allowed me to watch more text on a single screen. So, in practice, there is no good "fixed point" choice. The best outcome is to use the default font size chosen by the user, so the old guys get the big fonts that they like and the young ones get the small ones that they prefer.

-- Christian Huitema

---

From: Paul Wouters <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 14:42:59 -0400 (EDT)

>> 	https://tools.ietf.org/pt/

My eyes are bad. But 9-11 are fine for me. 12 is too big.

Paul

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 22 Apr 2015 19:44:32 -0000

>	https://tools.ietf.org/pt/

On my Nexus 7 tablet (Android 5) and Moto X phone (Android 4), the
pages show up as sort of random sizes, with 11 pt for some reason
bigger than 10 or 12.  At all sizes, it's too small to read but the
usual two-finger zoom makes the text big enough, particularly if I
turn the device sideways so the screen is wider than it is high.

I wouldn't put a lot of effort into fiddling with this, since the
next gen html generated from XML will look a lot better and will
probably auto-size a lot better.

R's,
John

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:01:43 -0400

> turn the device sideways so the screen is wider than it is high.

It's worth noting that in the XML version, the RFCs will be flowed and will not have page breaks in the HTML, so hitting CMD+ and CMD- to change the font size will provide a really good UX compared to the current fixed-width tools.ietf.org rendering.   There is no chance of this group (or any other) coming to consensus on the One Right Point Size, so better to not try.

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 22:02:15 +0200

Hi Micke, all,

> So there must be a better way to do this than to specify a point size?

Here's a strawman using @media queries:

  http://zin.tools.ietf.org/pt/draft-ietf-idr-error-handling-19-responsive.html

Comments on this one are very welcome.

(For my eyes, it works reasonably well on all the devices I have immediate
access to, even if I'd personally prefer a slightly larger font on my
laptop.  But my laptop browser lets me enlarge the font and will remember
the setting, so that's OK.

The original problem I wanted to address when leaving the default setting
was that on tablets, I /always/ had to reverse pinch to zoom out, which
becomes very tiresome after a while.)

Best regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 16:39:28 -0400

Monospaced fonts are going to look awful no matter what. That is why
the Web has assumed proportional fonts for the past 22 years.

There is a lot of confusion in the specs though and it is far from
clear where the HTML specification is definitive and where it is
merely aspirational.

We had long arguments over the <img> tag use of pixels because even at
that time display resolution varied between 75 and 100 dpi. And there
are probably as many strategies for dealing with 'retinal' displays
now as there are browsers.

I am also rather worried about this question about the need to
reprocess so many files. The variable bit should be in a stylesheet so
this can all be modified in one place. And then we can do things like
allow people to choose their own display preferences.

---

From: "John Levine" <[email-masked]>
Date: 22 Apr 2015 21:48:37 -0000

>Comments on this one are very welcome.

Looks about the same as the others on my Android phone.

R's,
John

---

From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 18:46:15 -0400

It looked good on my laptop, and came out like the 12 pt on my phone, 
which seems to me to be as good as it reasonably gets on each platform.

Yours,
Joel

---

From: Matthew Kerwin <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 10:00:46 +1000

On 23 April 2015 at 00:54, Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]> wrote:

> ​[snip]
​The spec defines the terms, but the guidance and "BCP" for web development
comes from elsewhere. A strong candidate for showing us "how to use the
standard" is MozDev:

"It is best to use values that are relative to the user's default font
size, and avoid absolute values such as lengths with units other than em or
ex."

 <https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/font-size#Values>

Anecdotally, there is lots of similar guidance on the web, but personally I
like using MozDev as my primary source.

Can I also mention, to those discussing @media queries and (ad absurdum) a
font size for every possibly resolution: that's silly. Browser developers
are thinking of their users while developing their browsers, so those
browsers already come packaged with 1) a well thought-out default font size
for the context in which that browser is used, and 2) the ability for users
to override the defaults based on personal preference. We should trust the
browsers to handle rendering of fonts, we do not need to control every
pixel on the screen.

-- 
  Matthew Kerwin
  http://matthew.kerwin.net.au/

---

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 05:35:59 +0200 (CEST)

> Comments on this one are very welcome.

My wish is that the font size will be the same on my desktop browser as 
the one it will choose for displaying a .txt file in the browser. That way 
I will get identical text size for RFCs regardless if I look at a txt 
version or html version.

Basically, I wish my entire web experience worked like this (which it has 
historically) bit it's getting destroyed by a trend by web sites to go for 
larger and larger fonts, which I guess is driven by the same goal that you 
had, ie for things to look better on tablets and phones.

But if I have to choose, then I much prefer the responsive version over 
the 12pt version. Responsive is either very similar to txt or one font 
size bigger than txt, and it works reasonably well on all devices. 12pt is 
just way too big.

---

From: Måns Nilsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 07:51:21 +0200

> 	https://tools.ietf.org/pt/

I've gone through the list and find the 9pt size most suitable for laptop
(rMBP15 with Chrome ) and low-end desktop (Ubuntu running Firefox with
1280x1024 resolution on a 17" 4x3 aspect ratio screen. The others are
obnoxiously large. Comparing to some of my own web pages that discard such
print-age anachronisms as point size; instead dictating relative sizes,
I find that the 10pt probably matches those best, so I'm probably a bit
of a small-fonter.

On my hand-portable devices, all font sizes are too small for me to read,
so I must zoom the page to get to readability. The point specification
thus is pointless. (pun intended post facto) There, the web browser
(Chrome something on screens between 5" and 7") probably is at fault
for not auto-zooming to fit to margins. Perhaps it is a setting I missed.

Having said that, and given input as requested, I feel that I must state
that I'm 

Pro Primo: completely flabbergasted by the idea of forcing point sizes
on readers. This is the bag of tricks used by advertising and design
agencies nostalgic for the printed page; and I feel it does not belong
on web pages published by a group of people that IMNSHO ought to try to
eat dogfood.

Pro Secundo: used to have lived in the false belief that setting point
sizes was something of the "Under Construction" animated gif Web 1.0
(with BLINK tags) and not really cool in the CSS era. Apparently I've
viewed too little source.

Thus, I oppose the change; relative should return. The reader should
decide. The page creator can impossibly keep up with all wishes and
devices and preferences. Better to hint than dictate. 

-- 
Måns Nilsson     primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE                             +46 705 989668
TAPPING?  You POLITICIANS!  Don't you realize that the END of the "Wash
Cycle" is a TREASURED MOMENT for most people?!

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 12:39:02 +0200

Hi Micke,

> I will get identical text size for RFCs regardless if I look at a txt 

Understood.  On my desktop machine, in Safari, the font size for the link
above is exactly the same as for 
   https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-idr-error-handling-19.txt

The fact that this seems not to be the case for you is inevitable, I guess,
given all the possible combinations of browser and platform in play.

The reason why I want to go to a point size instead of the previous setting
is to avoid the gradual display size change which has taken place for the '1em'
setting over the 10 years since I first set up the service.  I'd be happier to
have the font size experience stay relatively constant over time, and I believe
that the likelihood of achieving that is greater with 'absolute length units',
in w3c's vocabulary (http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#value-def-length).

I could be wrong about that, of course.

> had, ie for things to look better on tablets and phones.

Understood.  And for what it's worth, I'm also bothered by overly large fonts
on many recently designed websites.

> size bigger than txt, and it works reasonably well on all devices. 12pt is 

Ack.  I'll wait to see if there seems to be consensus on the current responsive
version, or if it needs further tweaks, then I'll start converting pages to use
that instead of the 12pt version.

	Henrik

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 12:40:49 +0200

Hi Måns,

Below:

> devices and preferences. Better to hint than dictate. 

Do you have any comments on how this displays for you?

  https://zin.tools.ietf.org/pt/draft-ietf-idr-error-handling-19-responsive.html

	Henrik

---

From: Måns Nilsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 13:13:11 +0200

>   https://zin.tools.ietf.org/pt/draft-ietf-idr-error-handling-19-responsive.html

Pretty much like raw .txt on my rMBP15, so yes, an improvement over the fixed pt sizes.

-- 
Måns Nilsson     primary/secondary/besserwisser/machina
MN-1334-RIPE                             +46 705 989668
... this must be what it's like to be a COLLEGE GRADUATE!!

---

From: "Andrew G. Malis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 19:39:40 +0800

On both my Macbook Pro 13" using Chrome and my iPhone 6 using Safari,
"responsive" looks the best, on the phobe it leaves a small margin on the
right. Of the others, on the laptop, 10 looks the best, and on my iPhone, 9
leaves a bit of a larger margin on the right, but is the most readable
because 10, 11, and 12 all look identical, taking the text right up to the
right edge of the screen.

Cheers,
Andy

On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 1:09 AM, Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> easy way for me as a user to experiment with what 10pt would look like, so
> I can comment on that?  And is there an easy way for me to try that size on
> my phone, to see if it seems equally readable there?
> >

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 08:01:01 -0400

>  https://zin.tools.ietf.org/pt/draft-ietf-idr-error-handling-19-responsive.html

Too small (not that you were asking me).   The problem with a responsive design in this case is that there is no need for it.   We just want the browser to display the text in a font that's readable on the display, and to flow it correctly, which it should do based on the xml2rfc html output.

I wonder if you are reacting to the current HTML output of XML2RFC v2.   I don't like the way this looks, and I like the way your fixed-width text looks better.   But we should figure out why that is, if there is general agreement about it.

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 14:05:16 +0200

> Pretty much like raw .txt on my rMBP15, so yes, an improvement over the fixed pt sizes.

Ok, good :-)

	Henrik

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 14:07:40 +0200

Hi Andy,

> right edge of the screen.

Ok, good.  Thanks!

	Henrik

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 14:12:04 +0200

Hi Ted,

On 2015-04-23 14:01, Ted Lemon wrote:
> Too small (not that you were asking me).   The problem with a
> responsive design in this case is that there is no need for it.   We
> just want the browser to display the text in a font that's readable
> on the display, and to flow it correctly, which it should do based on
> the xml2rfc html output.

The first problem I was trying to solve was that for me, the text without
responsive design was too small to read comfortably on my tablets.

I was assuming, maybe incorrectly, that other people might like to be able
to read on tablets, too.

> I wonder if you are reacting to the current HTML output of XML2RFC
> v2.

No, I've never found that particularly readable, and don't use it.

>   I don't like the way this looks, and I like the way your
> fixed-width text looks better.

I agree on that.

>   But we should figure out why that is, if there is general agreement about it.

Right now, I'd be happy if I can provide something that looks pretty much
as it used to on laptops and desktops, and is better than it used to be
on tablets and large smartphones.

Best regards,

	Henrik

---

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 14:24:50 +0200 (CEST)

On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:

> I was assuming, maybe incorrectly, that other people might like to be 
> able to read on tablets, too.

I could read the old html format just fine on my iPad. I'd say the old 
HTML format didn't need fixing, at least not on iPad, because if you 
wanted small text then you could use it in portrait mode (this is what I 
typically used), and if you wanted big text, you could use it in landscape 
mode (too big for me, but I don't see how you can display a 80 char wide 
text any bigger than this without scrolling around).

What tablet is it that you have that works a lot worse than this?

I don't have access to an Android tablet to check, is that what you have?

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 14:46:55 +0200

> I don't have access to an Android tablet to check, is that what you have?

Two iPad minis.  Fits in both jacket and coat inner pockets.  Incredibly
handy :-)

	Henrik

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:11:40 -0400

I'm assuming folk know that (on a computer at least), most browsers
will zoom, increasing the text size?

Onna Mac under Chrome, Safari and Firefox it is Command-+ (or
Command--). PC people don't have a 'Command' key, but I think they are
available on eBay.
On an iPhone, under Chrome, it is the 'zoom' gesture (like you have
chewing-gum stuck between your thumb and forefinger and are stretching
it!)

This is not a full, or particularly elegant, solution, but figured
worth mentioning.
W

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:49:22 -0400

I'm constantly being asked, when people look at my screen or printouts:
how can you read that? I think the size is quite comfortable to read,
but others do not.

Moral of the story: the point size someone thinks is comfortable is
>>highly<< subjective.

    Tony Hansen

On 4/22/15 12:03 PM, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> smaller fonts than some other folks, so I suspect that is not the
> sweet spot.
>

---

From: Tony Hansen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 09:51:39 -0400

> 	https://tools.ietf.org/pt/

Would you please also add some sample pages that use 1em, 1.25em and
1.5em? Those should be rendered relative to the user's preferred font
size on their device.

    Tony Hansen

---

From: Nico Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 11:25:53 -0500

> responsive design was too small to read comfortably on my tablets.

+1 relative font size (1em), even though it doesn't produce the best
results in all my {device, browser} combinations.

If we can't find a choice that works for everyone on all their devices
-- and almost certainly we will not be able to! -- then add a button to
the htmlized I-D for bigger/smaller font.

Tablet and smartphone browsers all too often have font size +/- buttons
that are much more difficult to reach than a button on the page would
be.

> I was assuming, maybe incorrectly, that other people might like to be able

You were assuming that your {tablet, browser} choices are representative.

> No, I've never found that particularly readable, and don't use it.

That too should be fixed to have a +/- font size button at the top.

Nico
--

---

From: James Cloos <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 19:11:17 -0400

>>>>> "HL" == Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]> writes:

HL> Here are links to pages set up with 9pt, 10pt, 11pt and 12pt:

HL> 	https://tools.ietf.org/pt/

First of all, the *ONLY* time it is ok to use pt for the font sizes in
html is when it is denstined for print.

So using pt in the @media print {} chunk of css is fine.

Using it anywhere else is inappropriate.

Even on the handheld with its not quite 5" display 1em was fine.

That being said, pt/draft-ietf-idr-error-handling-19-responsive.html,
while not perfect, is ok.

-JimC
-- 
James Cloos <[email-masked]>         OpenPGP: 0x997A9F17ED7DAEA6