Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [NH] Colors of link, vlink & alink when using a photo background.

Expand Messages
  • Axel Berger
    As to colour I stand by what several people wrote, it must be perception. As a case in point I have just adjusted the default colours in my browsers a little.
    Message 1 of 14 , May 6, 2008
      As to colour I stand by what several people wrote, it must be
      perception. As a case in point I have just adjusted the default colours
      in my browsers a little. Text made of thin lines looks totally different
      from the block of colour where I define it, it took many trial and error
      steps to get it right. (My being colour deficient limits choices.)

      But additionally we no longer use MGA or CGA, where a pixel is a pixel,
      but proportional fonts where lines straddle pixel boundaries. The actual
      pixel then becomes a mixture of foreground and background colour. You
      can see that by taking a screen shot and zooming very far in with a tool
      that does not smooth the enlargement but shows actual pixels as square
      blocks (Irfanview when looking at a selection). There's not much you can
      do but live with it and choose colours it does not become too bad with.

      woodysnomad wrote:
      > body { font = bold; size = -1 }

      I've done that myself, as it seems to be the taste of the advertising
      flacks and the masses have come to expect it, but it is wrong. You can
      use big and small script where appropriate, but the main text, the bread
      font, ought to be left well alone. The reader chooses how he likes it
      best for optimal legibility and it is up to us to respect their choices.
      In fact three out of four of my browsers are set to ignore all font
      style, size, and colour directives that may be in the page and present
      them exactly the way I find them most comfortable to read.
      At least test your pages with raising and lowering font sizes in the
      browser (<Ctrl><+> in Mozilla) and check they do not break. If they do,
      redesign them.

      And lastly you forgot the basic rule "if you change one colour, change
      them all" If you set a background you must set a font colour and vice
      versa. It may not be very probable, but it's entirely possible that
      someone for whatever reason has set his default font colour to exactly
      or very nearly your choice of background.

      Axel
    • sisterscape
      In addition to what Marcelo listed (he beat me to it!). . . If you are using a linked style sheet you shouldn t include the . I also use around the
      Message 2 of 14 , May 6, 2008
        In addition to what Marcelo listed (he beat me to it!). . .

        If you are using a linked style sheet you shouldn't include the <!--
        -->.

        I also use " " around the image file name but can't remember why. Mac
        compatability?

        Added background: transparent ; to your links just to be safe a user
        doesn't see something funny.

        Try this:

        body { background-image: url("woodh1.jpg");
        color: #660000;
        font-family: Tahoma, Sans-serif;
        font-weight: bold;
        font-size: 90% }

        a:link {color: #660000 ; background: transparent ; font-weight: bold
        ; font-family: Tahoma, Sans-serif;}
        a:visited {color:#000000 ; background: transparent ; font-weight: bold
        ; font-family: Tahoma, Sans-serif;}
        a:active {color: #663333 ; background: transparent ; font-weight: bold
        ; font-family: Tahoma, Sans-serif;}

        Sister

        --- Marcelo de Castro Bastos <mcblista@...> wrote:
        >
        > OK, in the first example your CSS syntax is just wrong. You are using
        >
        > HTML syntax in CSS, which won't work, unless the browser is more
        > forgiving than it should be. Your second example is MOSTLY right,
        > though.
        >
        > Let's see point by point:
        > - Don't use the equal sign to assign property values in CSS; use a
        > colon.
        > - Also, don't use quotes in the property values.
        > - "-1" is NOT an acceptable value for the "font-size" property.
        > Acceptable values are:
        > * Absolute-size keywords [ xx-small | x-small | small | medium |
        > large | x-large | xx-large ]
        > * Relative size keywords [smaller | larger ]
        > * Size in valid CSS units (px, pt, em, %) -- usage of em or % is
        > suggested as px and pt can cause problems.
        > - It's good practice to assign MORE than one name in the
        > "font-family"
        > property -- if the browser can't find the first font, it will try the
        >
        > second, then the third and so on, until it finds one it can use. A
        > good
        > idea is to use a generic font name as the last one. Generic font
        > names
        > are 'serif', 'sans-serif', 'cursive', 'fantasy', and 'monospace'.
        > - Although {font:bold} is a valid syntax, you should be careful using
        >
        > this: "font" by itself is a SHORTHAND syntax, supposed to set a
        > number
        > of attributes in one line, and it might end up setting attributes you
        >
        > didn't want to change. Try using separate properties to set each
        > attribute, like you did in your second example.
        >
        >
        >
        > Marcelo



        ____________________________________________________________________________________
        Be a better friend, newshound, and
        know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
      • Axel Berger
        ... And I didn t even notice. Am I going balmy? That said, Joe, you really ought to validate your code and your stylesheets. If not for grossly wrong syntax
        Message 3 of 14 , May 6, 2008
          sisterscape wrote:
          > In addition to what Marcelo listed (he beat me to it!). . .

          And I didn't even notice. Am I going balmy?
          That said, Joe, you really ought to validate your code and your
          stylesheets. If not for grossly wrong syntax then for all those
          nasty typos and missing brackets that creep in.

          In fact, if anything does not seem to work as expected, validation
          should always be the first step. If the code is valid, you can look
          for faulty logic, but if not, some tiny innocuous mistake might take
          ages to find on your own.

          Axel
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.