From my grandfather:
1. Never sit with your back to an open door.
2. Your first million you gotta steal.
From Slashdot:
More than a thousand hacked Web sites are serving up fake Flash Player software to users duped into clicking on links in mail that's part of a massive spam attack masquerading as CNN.com news notifications, security researchers said today. The bogus messages, which claim to be from the CNN.com news Web site, include links to what are supposedly the day's Top 10 news stories and Top 10 news video clips from the cable network. Clicking on any of those links, however, brings up a dialog that says an incorrect version of Flash Player has been detected and that tells users they needed to update to a fake newer edition, which delivers a Trojan horse — identified by multiple names, including Cbeplay.a — that 'phones home' to a malicious server to grab and install additional malware.
I would think that the first thing a terrorist planting a bomb would want to do is to HIDE the thing! You don't want it to be found, you want it to stay in place until it goes BOOM.
Mary Dell said, "I think the author list is really just the same as the 'artist' list for songs. That is, the person performing the thing. So 'author' is only valid if the author is also the one reading it."
However, I just did a "power search" in the ITMS for audiobooks for an artist named "Dickens" and found a bunch of stuff by Charles D. himself...I doubt he did any audio recordings of his works. And Charles Dickens appears as an artist when you browse audiobooks, too.
On the other hand, the artists are all alphabetized by first name when you browse (as opposed to search) the store, so, say, if you don't happen to know what Vonnegut's first name is, you will have trouble....
Xeger...which one is the Safari shot in your image? On my image, Safari is on the right. And it looks pretty much like the page shown on the left in your image, at least to me.
"Clearer"? Well, my IE 6 is not anti-aliasing the fonts, and Safari is. IE 6 looks "clearer" on my machine in that you can see each pixel of the typeface; Safari looks smoother on my machine because the jaggies have been anti-aliased. Which is better? Beats me--better is whichever one you like. I like my Safari version, myself.
Also, since the images are jpegs, "clearer" also depends on the quality of the jpeg compression, so it's really hard to use these pictures for making fine distinctions. Besides, I was more interested in looking at relative font sizes, not font rendering technologies, when I took the picture.
Patrick, two points:
1. Yes, someone will always hate your aesthetics, no matter what you do. De gustibus and all that.... In such cases, ignore the whine and enjoy the cheese.
2. In Web page design, pixel measurements for fonts really should be avoided. Period. Why? Because a pixel varies in size based upon the monitor settings. On my long-decommissioned Mac IIcx a pixel was 1/72 of an inch (more or less one point). On my iBook, a pixel is 1/106 (more or less) of an inch. Improvements in display technology may soon get us 150 pixel per inch resolutions or better, at which point an 11px font setting will be itsy-bitsy.
Note that in CSS, a 1em font size simply means that the font will be displayed at the default size for text fonts, as decided by the client system software or the user. As a user, I can specify that the default browser font size on my machine is 16pt (maybe because my system software is stupid and assumes that a pixel = a point [it usually doesn't] and that, say, 12 pt text, as measured with a real physical type ruler, is really more like 10pt, so that 16pt type, on my screen, comes out to be more like 12pt when measured with the ruler).
As a designer, you can use fractional ems when you design a page; e.g., if you want slightly tighter and smaller text, instead of 11px you might specify 0.8em as your text size. This will result in a slightly smaller than default font size on nearly ALL user machines, regardless of system settings and user preferences. Try it: you'll probably like it. It's easy to do and doesn't force you to bend your mind into moebius pretzels trying to second-guess the relation between pixels and points on the user's machine.
That said, you should still use pixel measurements for bit-mapped graphics and the like, because in a picture (as opposed to rendered text) a pixel IS a pixel.
By the way: here's the Making Light page as seen on my iMac in both Virtual PC running IE 6 (on the left) and Safari (on the right). I have no point to make regarding the picture...just thought it would be fun to compare the two.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2008 | 3 |
| 2007 | 1 |
| 2005 | 1 |
| 2004 | 2 |
Total: 7 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Michael C.:
Show all comments by Michael C..