However, the new style has got to go, because it doesn't actually have an `update journal' link that's visible in Mozilla with JavaScript turned off (on the other hand, it does when viewed in Lynx).
. . . and it's got to go again, because apparently this is a per-browser, rather than per-user, configuration. The disadvantage of this is that you have to redo it when changing computers. The advantage, I suppose, is that it works for people who aren't logged on yet (or don't have a journal). (But the latter means I won't at any time see the new style and be reminded that I need to log on.)
Yeah, but your personal style uses tiny font too, so you wouldn't. Like Sion I think the font is on thing that's putting me off this style. It's not too small to read, but it is ugly.
No, as in I've noticed no change between the old LiveJournal default font and this one. They might have knocked it down a point and I'm not noticing, but I'm just surprised that the change is suddenly illegible elsewhere... Ho hum.
Old style has a default size of "12px" while new style has a default size of "small". Since my choice of default font is 14 pixels, I think those two definitions amount to the same thing, which is why I can't see any difference.
Although I can see that having the default size be "small" is a bit naughty, if you have your browser font set to 12px then you probably have better eyes than I. ;-) Mozilla's default seems to be 16, and in today's environment with high resolution screens you would expect people to prefer the fonts larger rather than smaller (which would mean the new LJ font got proportionately bigger while the old one stayed the same).
A slight curiosity is that with my browser set to 14px, the very small text on the page you mention is smaller in the old style than in the new style, while the rest of the text is the same size.
Are you sure you don't have Mozilla's "minimum font size" option set? I do as part of an exercise in suppressing what people fondly suppose is Web design.
I am very much looking forward to the "read all comments pages in the same style" option making it out of testing, to put an end to eye-bleedingly vile S2 comments styles.
[Actually it is more awkward that they are all different. I'd settle for almost any vile S2 style if they were all in the _same_ vile style.]
Are you sure you don't have Mozilla's "minimum font size" option set?
It is set, but it doesn't seem to make much difference to anything.
What appears to be causing the size anomaly is that when the style sheet sets the default to 12px the <font size=1> is interpreted relative to that, but when the style sheet sets the default to "small" the <font size=1> is interpreted relative to my default (which is 14px).
This is Netscape 7 which, for all I know, could be horribly broken (well, I do know from bugzilla that there have been reams of bugs fixed).
I still can't see any difference (Netscape 7 on Solaris). Which page should I be looking at?
One vaguely unrelated thing I've noticed, though, is that the font used on my journal view page (using the default style) is Arial, which doesn't exist on [my] Linux or Solaris systems, so it comes out in roman instead. Good job I'm not still using Netscape 4 or it would be in a typewriter-style font. I'm disappointed, I really am. I thought LJ was better than to make rookie mistakes like that. ;-)
Ooo, how peculiar, despite having community properties, the special 'news' account (it has a special account type) is addressed as a user rather than a community.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2003-09-05 02:09 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-09-05 02:42 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-09-05 04:40 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-09-05 05:04 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-09-05 05:25 am (UTC)However, the new style has got to go, because it doesn't actually have an `update journal' link that's visible in Mozilla with JavaScript turned off (on the other hand, it does when viewed in Lynx).
(no subject)
Date: 2003-09-05 05:33 am (UTC)The animated menus are a tad irritating, yes. They are also rather fiddly --- makes me wonder how disability-friendly they are...
The text-only interface is a definite improvement though .
(no subject)
Date: 2003-09-05 03:23 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-09-05 05:49 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-09-05 05:54 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-09-05 06:42 am (UTC)http://www.livejournal.com/community/pubquiz/48132.html?thread=309764
In the old style the second half of the comment is obviously in small print, in the new style that distinction is lost.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-09-05 07:24 am (UTC)Old style has a default size of "12px" while new style has a default size of "small". Since my choice of default font is 14 pixels, I think those two definitions amount to the same thing, which is why I can't see any difference.
Although I can see that having the default size be "small" is a bit naughty, if you have your browser font set to 12px then you probably have better eyes than I. ;-) Mozilla's default seems to be 16, and in today's environment with high resolution screens you would expect people to prefer the fonts larger rather than smaller (which would mean the new LJ font got proportionately bigger while the old one stayed the same).
A slight curiosity is that with my browser set to 14px, the very small text on the page you mention is smaller in the old style than in the new style, while the rest of the text is the same size.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-09-08 06:54 pm (UTC)I am very much looking forward to the "read all comments pages in the same style" option making it out of testing, to put an end to eye-bleedingly vile S2 comments styles.
[Actually it is more awkward that they are all different. I'd settle for almost any vile S2 style if they were all in the _same_ vile style.]
(no subject)
Date: 2003-09-09 08:14 am (UTC)It is set, but it doesn't seem to make much difference to anything.
What appears to be causing the size anomaly is that when the style sheet sets the default to 12px the <font size=1> is interpreted relative to that, but when the style sheet sets the default to "small" the <font size=1> is interpreted relative to my default (which is 14px).
This is Netscape 7 which, for all I know, could be horribly broken (well, I do know from bugzilla that there have been reams of bugs fixed).
(no subject)
Date: 2003-09-05 06:33 am (UTC)One vaguely unrelated thing I've noticed, though, is that the font used on my journal view page (using the default style) is Arial, which doesn't exist on [my] Linux or Solaris systems, so it comes out in roman instead. Good job I'm not still using Netscape 4 or it would be in a typewriter-style font. I'm disappointed, I really am. I thought LJ was better than to make rookie mistakes like that. ;-)
(no subject)
Date: 2003-09-05 05:48 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2003-09-05 03:11 am (UTC)