6 ms·

I have Firefox configured to force the same font face across all sites (I love the consistency this gives me, and also some some sites are extremely abusive in

by agwa 15y ago

I have Firefox configured to force the same font face across all sites (I love the consistency this gives me, and also some some sites are extremely abusive in their font selection) so this doesn't work for me. The "icons" show up as unknown Unicode characters. Not cool. This seems like the wrong approach - shouldn't characters have semantic meaning? It also doesn't seem accessible. Screen readers wouldn't know what to do with these invented characters. <img> tags at least have the alt attribute.

brcrth 15y ago
So you force a behavior through your browser but when it doesn't work you blame the site? Ok...
- lloeki 15y ago
 Unicode code points do have names and standardized meanings, so it's not a good idea to abuse them. Hopefully the 'create' one uses f003, which apparently lies in PRIVATE_USE_AREA [0] .mini-icon.create::before { content: "\f003"; } [0] http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/f003/index.htm http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/f003/index.htm
 - 54mf 15y ago
 All the icons lie in private use areas, specifically to avoid abuse.
 - TazeTSchnitzel 15y ago
 Abuse?
 - chc 15y ago
 As stated by the grandparent: > Unicode code points do have names and standardized meanings, so it's not a good idea to abuse them
- ori_b 15y ago
 The alternative is having sites select fonts that hurt my eyes. I want a consistent experience across the web.
 - huhtenberg 15y ago
 That's like wanting all cars on the road to be red :)
 - latortuga 15y ago
 It's more like expecting all cars to be narrow enough to fit in lanes or expecting all cars to have turn signals and brake lights. Type face has a huge impact on how readable text is, car color has almost zero impact on my ability to drive.
 - ori_b 15y ago
 No. It's like expecting that when I adjust my seat to fit my leg length, the doors still work. I like the text to be readable without me leaning in and destroying my vision. The fact that I'm forced to override font sizes for usability because sites don't respect my default settings is bad enough. When they break because of it, it becomes terrible design.
 - Nitramp 15y ago
 +1 on the font size - that's a big problem in particular if you happen to have a large screen. But forcing everything into the same font seems a bit excessive; I've actually seen a couple of sites make really nice use of fonts, and you can still install an extension that turns your page into an "easy reading" mode on a key press. What do you do about fixed width vs proportional fonts?
 ori_b 15y ago
 All browsers I've seen that allow you to override settings allow you to do it by family (sans, serif, fixed, etc)
 15y ago
- smackfu 15y ago
 The site uses a font choice to change how the site works, which is pretty much conflicting with the entire concept of a style sheet.
- gdubs 15y ago
 So if, say, an older user forces all text to be large and it renders a site unreadable, you would blame the user?
 - eps 15y ago
 Why would an older user want to enlarge text only, and not the images and other page elements? He wouldn't. He would be using either Ctrl-+ in the browser or an OS-level zoom.
 - vsl 15y ago
 The first thing I enable in Safari is View->Zoom Text Only. Just because you prefer whole-page zoom doesn't mean the rest of us does too. I use zooming only when a page has unreadably small text size, in which case I enlarge it to be readable and do not want to scale up and uglify images that are usually perfectly fine in their original size.
- fusiongyro 15y ago
 Fonts are not behavior. When the web was made of pages and style was secondary to content, this wasn't a problem.
 - look_lookatme 15y ago
 Welp, that's changed.
 - maaku 15y ago
 But should it have?
- vsl 15y ago
 Err, yes, I do blame the site for abusing HTML. If they misuse text markup to represent what is semantically an image, how is that my fault? HTML has <img> for a reason. There's perfectly suitable markup for text and another for images: using the former for the latter is no less idiotic than doing it the other way around. This fad is supremely annoying.
untog 15y ago
<img> tags at least have the alt attribute. And <a> tags have the title attribute.
- agwa 15y ago
 <img> has the title attribute too, but title is meant for displaying additional information via a tooltip. alt is for alternative text to be used in place of the image. Does any screen reader actually read the value of a title attribute on a link containing text? I doubt it. Instead it would descend into the <a> tag and try to read the text therein.
 - Nitramp 15y ago
 Actually the title attribute is used to annoy users who have their mouse cursor on the page by displaying exactly the same text again that's already in the link or para. At least in 90% of the cases I've seen it used, probably by some overzealous OCD person wanting to fill in _all_ the attributes.
agwa 15y ago
I've given it some thought and GitHub should be able to make this more accessible by doing something like this: Notifications Using media queries, serve CSS like this only to screen-like media (i.e. not screen readers): .mini-icon.create:before { content: "\f030"; } .mini-icon span { display: none; } Hopefully they'll adopt something like this, though it wouldn't help people like me who just want a consistent font across the Web.
- notJim 15y ago
 I think screen readers actually respect display:none. I believe the preferred solution is to use a large, negative text-indent.
 - agwa 15y ago
 That's why you use media queries to set display: none only for non-screen readers. Of course, screen readers might not respect that, in which your solution would work.
 - LocalPCGuy 15y ago
 I like this rather new solution, which actually works in older browsers including IE7 if you happen to need to support that. Still uses text-indent, but pushes it right instead of left and sets overflow hidden to hide it. http://www.zeldman.com/2012/03/01/replacing-the-9999px-hack-new-image-replacement/ http://www.zeldman.com/2012/03/01/replacing-the-9999px-hack-...
secoif 15y ago
If CSS and browsers weren't so broken and there was a convenient, semantic alternative, I'm sure github would have used that instead. Unfortunately icon fonts are one of the most convenient and compatible 'hacks' to render vector icons in the current climate. In a perfect world you'd be right, or perhaps even in a world where IE hadn't held the entire Internet back 10 years.

by agwa 15y ago

brcrth 15y ago

So you force a behavior through your browser but when it doesn't work you blame the site? Ok...

lloeki 15y ago
Unicode code points do have names and standardized meanings, so it's not a good idea to abuse them. Hopefully the 'create' one uses f003, which apparently lies in PRIVATE_USE_AREA [0] .mini-icon.create::before { content: "\f003"; } [0] http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/f003/index.htm http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/f003/index.htm
- 54mf 15y ago
  All the icons lie in private use areas, specifically to avoid abuse.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 15y ago
    Abuse?
    - chc 15y ago
      As stated by the grandparent: > Unicode code points do have names and standardized meanings, so it's not a good idea to abuse them
ori_b 15y ago
The alternative is having sites select fonts that hurt my eyes. I want a consistent experience across the web.
- huhtenberg 15y ago
  That's like wanting all cars on the road to be red :)
  - latortuga 15y ago
    It's more like expecting all cars to be narrow enough to fit in lanes or expecting all cars to have turn signals and brake lights. Type face has a huge impact on how readable text is, car color has almost zero impact on my ability to drive.
  - ori_b 15y ago
    No. It's like expecting that when I adjust my seat to fit my leg length, the doors still work. I like the text to be readable without me leaning in and destroying my vision. The fact that I'm forced to override font sizes for usability because sites don't respect my default settings is bad enough. When they break because of it, it becomes terrible design.
    - Nitramp 15y ago
      +1 on the font size - that's a big problem in particular if you happen to have a large screen. But forcing everything into the same font seems a bit excessive; I've actually seen a couple of sites make really nice use of fonts, and you can still install an extension that turns your page into an "easy reading" mode on a key press. What do you do about fixed width vs proportional fonts?
      - ori_b 15y ago
        All browsers I've seen that allow you to override settings allow you to do it by family (sans, serif, fixed, etc)
      - 15y ago
smackfu 15y ago
The site uses a font choice to change how the site works, which is pretty much conflicting with the entire concept of a style sheet.
gdubs 15y ago
So if, say, an older user forces all text to be large and it renders a site unreadable, you would blame the user?
- eps 15y ago
  Why would an older user want to enlarge text only, and not the images and other page elements? He wouldn't. He would be using either Ctrl-+ in the browser or an OS-level zoom.
  - vsl 15y ago
    The first thing I enable in Safari is View->Zoom Text Only. Just because you prefer whole-page zoom doesn't mean the rest of us does too. I use zooming only when a page has unreadably small text size, in which case I enlarge it to be readable and do not want to scale up and uglify images that are usually perfectly fine in their original size.
fusiongyro 15y ago
Fonts are not behavior. When the web was made of pages and style was secondary to content, this wasn't a problem.
- look_lookatme 15y ago
  Welp, that's changed.
  - maaku 15y ago
    But should it have?
vsl 15y ago
Err, yes, I do blame the site for abusing HTML. If they misuse text markup to represent what is semantically an image, how is that my fault? HTML has <img> for a reason. There's perfectly suitable markup for text and another for images: using the former for the latter is no less idiotic than doing it the other way around. This fad is supremely annoying.

untog 15y ago

<img> tags at least have the alt attribute. And <a> tags have the title attribute.

agwa 15y ago
<img> has the title attribute too, but title is meant for displaying additional information via a tooltip. alt is for alternative text to be used in place of the image. Does any screen reader actually read the value of a title attribute on a link containing text? I doubt it. Instead it would descend into the <a> tag and try to read the text therein.
- Nitramp 15y ago
 Actually the title attribute is used to annoy users who have their mouse cursor on the page by displaying exactly the same text again that's already in the link or para. At least in 90% of the cases I've seen it used, probably by some overzealous OCD person wanting to fill in _all_ the attributes.

agwa 15y ago

I've given it some thought and GitHub should be able to make this more accessible by doing something like this: Notifications Using media queries, serve CSS like this only to screen-like media (i.e. not screen readers): .mini-icon.create:before { content: "\f030"; } .mini-icon span { display: none; } Hopefully they'll adopt something like this, though it wouldn't help people like me who just want a consistent font across the Web.

notJim 15y ago
I think screen readers actually respect display:none. I believe the preferred solution is to use a large, negative text-indent.
- agwa 15y ago
  That's why you use media queries to set display: none only for non-screen readers. Of course, screen readers might not respect that, in which your solution would work.
- LocalPCGuy 15y ago
  I like this rather new solution, which actually works in older browsers including IE7 if you happen to need to support that. Still uses text-indent, but pushes it right instead of left and sets overflow hidden to hide it. http://www.zeldman.com/2012/03/01/replacing-the-9999px-hack-new-image-replacement/ http://www.zeldman.com/2012/03/01/replacing-the-9999px-hack-...

secoif 15y ago

If CSS and browsers weren't so broken and there was a convenient, semantic alternative, I'm sure github would have used that instead. Unfortunately icon fonts are one of the most convenient and compatible 'hacks' to render vector icons in the current climate. In a perfect world you'd be right, or perhaps even in a world where IE hadn't held the entire Internet back 10 years.