text:
Navotek Medical Ltd. (Navotek) is an intra-body tracking technologies developer. The company provides RealEye, a fiducial-based patient positioning and realtime target monitoring system for radiation therapy. It offers realeyeable tracer, an implantable trackable fiducial for use with the patient positioning and monitoring system. Navoteks RealEye Motion is an advanced software application, which enables monitoring and tracking of moving organs paths throughout radiation therapy. It offers Tracer for use in marking target tissue and enabling localization based on its radioactive signal. Navotek is headquartered in Yokneam, Israel.
- To Buy a Copy Of This Report: http://www.marketresearchreports.biz/analysis-details/navotek-medical-ltd-product-pipeline-analysis
This report is a source for data, analysis and actionable intelligence on the Navotek Medical Ltd. portfolio of pipeline products. The report provides detailed analysis on each pipeline product with information on the indication, the development stage, trial phase, product milestones, pipeline territory, estimated approval date, and estimated launch date
Each pipeline product is profiled to cover information on product description, function, technology, indication, and application. The report is also supplemented with a detailed company profile and information on clinical trials, wherever applicable.
This report is built using data and information sourced from proprietary databases, primary and secondary research and in-house analysis by GlobalDatas team of industry experts.
- For All Reports Kindly Visit: http://www.marketresearchreports.biz/
- Detailed company profile with information on business description, key company facts, major products and services, key competitors, key employees, locations and subsidiaries and recent developments.
- Detailed coverage on all the pipeline products, by equipment type, by therapy area, by development stage, and by trial phase.
- Information on product milestones and pipeline territory for each product, the estimated approval date, and estimated launch date.
- Profile of each pipeline product with additional information on product description, function, technology, indication(s), and application.
- Data on relevant clinical trials and product patent details, wherever applicable.
- Information on clinical trial, wherever applicable, is supplemented with information on trial phase, trial status, trial objective, trial design, target patients, unique physician identifier, primary point, secondary point, acronym, participants inclusion, participants exclusion, interventions, trial results, trial start date, trial end date, study type, trial site, trial funding, age eligibility, and gender eligibility.
- Develop business strategies by understanding the trends and developments driving the medical devices pipeline and technology landscape globally.
- Design and develop your product development, marketing and sales strategies.
- Exploit M&A opportunities by identifying market players with the most innovative pipeline.
- Develop market-entry and market expansion strategies.
- Exploit in-licensing and out-licensing opportunities by identifying products, most likely to ensure a robust return.
- Identify emerging players with potentially strong product portfolio and create effective counter-strategies to gain competitive advantage.
- Develop competition strategies by identifying the status and likely launch of your competitors pipeline products through review of the clinical trials, stage and phase of development, etc.- Which are the next high-value products that your competitor would add in its portfolio? identify, understand and capitalize.
- To Read The Complete Report with TOC: www.marketresearchreports.biz/analysis/157993


text:
Voting is now closed and judging will begin soon.
The UnShow competition celebrates all forms of expression on any uncoated paper (not just Neenah). Neenah covers your entry fee to make it FREE for you to enter one or multiple projects. The UnShow web site will be open for public voting, as designers across the world vote for the top 25 entries in each category. These entries will then be submitted to a selected jury of design judges. Two winners in each category will receive $500 in cash and have their image published in HOW Magazine. In addition, one overall grand prize winner will be selected and receive $1,000 in cash, plus admission to the HOW Design Conference 2013, to be held at the Moscone West in San Francisco, CA, from June 22-26, 2013. After the online voting process has identified the finalists, Neenah's judging panel will select 2 images to be the contest's winners in the following categories:
- Annual Report/Sustainability Report
- Identity
- Brochures
- Invitations/Cards
- Posters
- Packaging/Label
- Student Work
- Miscellaneous
Eligibility and Judging
The Contest is open to ALL individuals at least 18 years of age, except employees of Neenah and the immediate families of such employees. The Contest is open to participants regardless of residence or citizenship, so long as the laws of their jurisdiction allow participation.
To ensure eligibility for the contest, entries must be submitted in pdf or jpg format through the webpage entry form listed above. Images that do not meet this standard may or may not be judged at the judging panel's sole discretion.
Previously published material for which non-exclusive rights were granted may be entered as long as you still maintain the right to grant us a license (see "Your Rights" below). You must be able to disclose when and where the image appeared previously to Neenah upon request.
All of the entries will be posted at the Website and will initially be judged by the online voting process detailed on the website. The top images receiving the most total votes in each category will be selected as finalists. The finalists in each category will then be judged by a panel of judges selected by Neenah in its sole discretion. The judges will select the winners in each category and one overall winner. Judging of the finalists' images will be determined in Neenah's sole discretion. All finalists' images will be judged on originality, technical excellence, composition, overall impact and artistic merit.
Neenah shall determine the winners' eligibility in its sole and absolute discretion. All decisions made by the judges are final.
Aaron Draplin, Owner of Draplin Design Co., Field Notes Co-Founder
Jessica Hische, letterer, illustrator, and self-described "avid internetter"
Bryn Mooth, former editor of HOW Magazine currently focused on food, wellness and design
Important Information
You will retain all rights to any image you submit — including ownership if applicable (any images including a person should include the appropriate release from such person as part of the contest submission). By entering your image in the contest you grant Neenah a nonexclusive right, in perpetuity, to:
- Publish the image for Neenah's purposes in any format, including on Neenah's website and in Neenah's publications or presentations, such as newsletters, brochures, public service announcements, advertisements, downloads and social media as part of the Contest.
- Use, in connection with the Contest, your name, city, state and country of residence in promotions and other publications.
- Keep the files provided, and to archive the image in other electronic form, so that your image can be properly credited and used for the above purposes.
As conditions of this permission, Neenah shall credit all images with the caption "© Person's Name"
Please download the rules below. This is the complete set of rules for the contest. By submitting to the contest, all entrants accept that they have read and accepted the complete rules.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
FARMINGTON — Two Board of Selectman incumbents, whose terms in office are due to expire, have each filed for a further three years, and they will be joined on the ballot by another four candidates. Joan Funk and Paula Proulx face challenges from Richard Cochran, Matt Scruton, Douglas Staples and David Connolly, when voters go to the polls on Tuesday, March 12.
Joan Funk
Funk, age 70, has lived in Farmington since 1975. She has three sons who all live in town and seven grandchildren. She is retired, after working for 30 years in the Farmington School District, although she still does her Saturday detention stint, as she has for the past 33 years.
She is completing her 15th year as a selectman, having served 12 years on the Parks and Recreation Commission before that. She serves on the Downtown Business Committee (DBC), and has for 12 years. She is a past president of Farmington High School Boosters, was a cheerleading coach for a dozen years, and is in the 500 Boys and Girls Club Hall of Fame as a contributor.
Funk said it has been a hard battle holding the line in this economy, and the board has flat-lined many items or given small increases where mandated.
She said that when taxes increase, some people look at the town, when it is the school that is responsible for the hike. Funk said she is running again in order to manage how things are done, and not increase the tax rate. The board is looking at all departments to see how money can be saved.
She noted that the DBC and the Economic Development Committee had been joined by the regional group WEDCO to put together a marketing package, and they were considering an extension of the Sarah Greenfield Business Park.
Paula Proulx
Proulx, age 52, is a lifelong Farmington resident who graduated from Keene State with a teaching degree. She taught for a couple of years in town, before going to work at Textron for 14 years. After that she opened a store in downtown Farmington which she ran for 15 years.
She served on the Zoning and Master Plan Subcommittee (ZAMPS) for three years. This formed the basis of the town's master plan. She was elected to the Board of Selectmen in 2004 and has served three three-year terms.
While serving on the board, she notes, that the landfill has been closed and a transfer station created, the upgrade waste water treatment is on line, and the grants for it have come in as predicted. The town now has extra sewer capacity to allow the expansion of the industrial and commercial tax base.
To help economic development, Proulx said the board is looking at setting up a Tax Incentive Financial (TIF) district. "We are a community that cares about attracting business," she said.
"We want to continue the extension of the Sarah Greenfield Business Park where the gravel is extracted. We have road easement in place that will keep the scenery people happy and the business people happy. You have to find the balance," she said.
The board is also looking, Proulx said, to maintain quality services, while making departments smarter and more efficient.
Richard Cochran
Cochran, age 58, has lived in Farmington for 23 years. He is married with two grown children. After spending three years in the U.S. Army (where he met his wife, who outranked him), he worked for an office personnel management company, which had government federal agencies as their clients. He holds an associate's degree in business and a bachelor's degree in pre-law.
On coming to Farmington he bought the 5 & 10 store on Main Street, which he later closed with the arrival of Walmart on Route 11. Following this he worked in the Navy Yard. He is a member of Rochester Humane Lodge of Masons, a member of the National Association of Retired Federal Employees, and is a member of St. Peter's Church.
He had an unsuccessful run for selectman in 2010, but has no local political experience. Cochran describes himself as a people person, and said that he needs to find out what he can do, and will listen.
"Running for selectman is the first step in a long process. I am here to help people that are hurting, who don't have a voice. This is the only way I know to help," said Cochran.
Turning to the economy, he added, "The private sector is the key to bringing in more jobs. I would like to match up unemployed people with job openings that fit their skills. I favor worker training — that is better than the (federal) government giving tax breaks to business to take jobs overseas."
Matthew Scruton
Scruton, age 36, was raised on Scruton's Dairy on Meaderboro Road and still lives in the vicinity. He attended Farmington schools, and then obtained a bachelor's and master's degree in business administration from UNH.
While there, he won the Paul J. Holloway Prize, earning first place for a graduate level entrepreneurship competition for a detailed financial and marketing analysis for a business enterprise.
He is married, with "one dog." Scruton worked as an auditor and a research and information technologist at UNH from 2000 until 2011, when he became a victim of cutbacks. He currently works part-time as a webmaster, and is familiar with multiple computer programs.
Scruton served as a town selectman from 2003 to 2005 — two of these years as vice chair. He has served six years on the budget committee, and is familiar with dealing with school officials, municipal department heads, committees and taxpayers.
He has four main goals, if elected to the board. He will promote economic development on Route 11 and in the downtown area, thus expanding the tax base and creating jobs; he will ensure good public safety services; he will promote cultural and recreational opportunities in town; and he will encourage transparency in government using websites and social media.
"I have the education and the experience to help deal with the financial challenges the town faces," he said.
Douglas Staples
Staples, age 25, is a lifelong resident of Farmington. He is a homeowner, single, and has no children. He is a graduate of Farmington High School Class of 2005. He has worked as a carpenter and is currently employed by Index Packaging in Milton.
He has no previous political experience, and says one of the reasons he is running for selectman is rising property taxes. Staples says it is hard to bring businesses to town, partly due to restrictive zoning and signage regulations, which are impediments.
"I would like to make it easier for businesses to start up," he said, adding that Route 11 development would be an ideal way to broaden the tax base and ease the tax burden on homeowners.
"Police and fire are doing their job, but I would be tough on the Highway Department. Plowing is horrendous this year. Do they not have the stuff, or are they just not doing their jobs," Staples pondered.
If elected to the Board of Selectmen, Staples said he would encourage public participation at meetings, to get fresh ideas.
David Connolly
Connolly, age 51, is married with one grown child. He has lived in Farmington for 12 years. He graduated high school in Connecticut, and has worked in retail most of his life, as he "loves selling stuff." He is currently employed at Coyote Creek. He is also a home business owner. Fisherman's Fly 2 does rod and reel repair, and custom builds rods. A former charter member of Bass Fanatics, he is now a sponsor of the club.
Connolly has served on the Farmington Conservation Commission for the past five years, and has been the chair for a majority of this time. During his tenure it has gone from a three person commission to one with nine active members, with two high school students in addition.
"We have over 500 acres of conserved land in Farmington, now," said Connolly, "and half the easements are held by Fish and Game." He pointed out that the town-owned conservation land on River Road has a management plan, which his commission is enacting, including a timber harvest, and the establishment of user-friendly walking trails. There are also snowmobile trails on that land maintained by the Powdermill club, he said.
Connolly said he is now running for selectman "to get into the heart of the community, and not just the conservation aspect." Economic development "is high on the list" and he wants Farmington to keep its "village charm" and the "agricultural aspects" while ensuring that industrial development of Route 11 and the Sarah Greenfield parcel doesn't miss the boat.
The Planning Board, he said, is working on grants to extend water and sewer lines on Route 11 to any interested businesses. "But it's tough, and that's where the selectmen sit down and brainstorm," he said.
If elected, Connolly will maintain open communication with the people and town departments.
"I will listen to all sides and make the right decision for the town as a whole," he said, "while being fiscally responsible. I am ready to take on the challenge."


text:
By KATHRYN FLAGG
BRISTOL — During his recent six-month tour in Afghanistan, Vermont Air National Guard Technical Sergeant Steve Heffernan, 43, braved blistering heat, guerilla warfare and a bevy of improvised explosive devices.
And as an Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD) specialist, Heffernan faced the especially perilous task of uncovering and dismantling the explosive devices littered through the countryside by the Taliban and terrorist cells.
But most harrowing of all, according to Heffernan, were the roads.
"The roads, if you could call them roads, were the worst," he said. "The best way to describe the roads would be 'mud season, dried up.' That was a good road."
For Heffernan, the long road home — which included a 30-hour trip from the Manas Air Base in Kyrgyzstan to Baltimore — drew to a close just a week and a half ago, when the EOD team leader returned home to Bristol after six months at war.
His service in Afghanistan came after nearly 17 years in the Air National Guard.
"I'd always wanted to join the military," Heffernan said. But after marrying his wife, Erin, when he was 21, Heffernan put his plans on the backburner.
A few years later, though, jobs dried up — and Heffernan started looking again at the military. He joined the Air National Guard, and given his blasting experience, he was a natural fit for the EOD unit.
"I joined to serve my country, believe it or not, as corny as that can sound to some people," Heffernan said. "I joined to serve my country because I enjoy the freedoms that we all have."
By ANDY KIRKALDY
MIDDLEBURY — On July 16, like any number of summer vacationers, Swift House Inn co-owner Dan Brown and his longtime friend Jim Mower dipped their toes into the Atlantic Ocean in Hampton, N.H., not far from Mower's home.
But Brown and Mower were not typical bathers: Getting their feet wet was the last step of a 3,173-mile, 48-day bicycle trip that began in Everett, Wash., on the shore of the Pacific Ocean.
And the journey truly began 20 years ago, when the idea of a two-wheel cross-country odyssey first struck Brown, a retired U.S. Navy pilot who is now 59.
Back then, before 13 years of innkeeping began to demand his full attention, Brown was a cycling enthusiast, and trans-continental bike races were making headlines.
"I just thought it was a great thing," he said. "It was just something so big that when I first started talking about it, it was like talking smack, 'OK, I'm going to do this.' And then eventually talking smack it was like, 'OK, you're going to have to do this if you're going to keep talking smack about doing this.'"
The Ithaca, N.Y., native and U.S. Naval Academy graduate kept that dream alive when he retired from the military 10 years ago. At that time he and his wife, Michele, sold their Annapolis, Md., bed and breakfast and bought a small inn in Maine, which they sold in 2004 to buy the Swift House in Middlebury.
But the moves and the rigors of the hospitality business kept postponing the trip, until finally everything lined up for this year — the Browns felt they had done enough at their Stewart Lane inn to allow him the time off.
If anything, Brown's motivation had grown stronger in the interim.
By JOHN FLOWERS
MIDDLEBURY — Middlebury's junk ordinance received its first test in Addison County District Court last week, when an Addison County jury found Rogers Road resident Terry Morris guilty on two violations of the two-year-old law.
It was in May of 2006 that Middlebury selectmen approved the municipal junk ordinance, a move triggered by neighborhood complaints about Morris's property. Morris, during the past several years, has accumulated on his lawn a large collection of items, including skis, bathtubs, toilets, wheelchairs, Jell-O molds, wooden pallets, sleds and bowling balls.
Morris has argued his possessions are not junk, but valued items he collects and enjoys. But neighbors have said Morris's yard has become an eyesore, to the extent that it is affecting their property values. Town listers have agreed, in some cases lowering the assessments on some neighboring properties. Rogers Road residents Bernard and Ruth Stewart — who testified at the July 23 trial — saw their property valuation reduced by $15,000 as a result of the condition of Morris's lawn.
Ruth Stewart said she was pleased with the jury's verdict in the case.
"We're glad that something is being done," she said. "I hope (authorities) will follow through until there is a cleanup."
Morris, reached on Wednesday, declined to comment pending his sentencing hearing, tentatively scheduled for Aug. 11.
Morris acted as his own attorney during the trial.
It was a trial that saw the Stewarts testify that they had erected a fence along the property line when Morris's yard became a problem.
MIDDLEBURY — Developers will be able to build a proposed Staples store in The Centre shopping plaza in Middlebury if they adhere to a series of town-mandated conditions, including that they provide access between The Centre parking lot and two adjoining properties, and finance a re-timing of traffic signals to minimize additional gridlock on Route 7.
Those were some of the conditions included in a 24-page "notice of decision" sent to developers Middlebury Associates LLC last week by the Middlebury Development Review Board (DRB). It was the second such conditional decision sent to the developers, who are seeking to build a 14,737-square-foot Staples next to the Hannaford Supermarket.
The proposal has come under fire from various residents and citizens' groups who believe Staples would hurt some smaller, locally owned stores that also sell office supplies. Opponents have also voiced concerns that Staples would add more traffic to Route 7 and to a Centre parking lot that is already dangerous to negotiate, according to some shoppers who have testified at DRB hearings.
Key elements of the DRB decision call for Middlebury Associates LLC to meet the following conditions:
• Negotiate access connections between The Centre parking lot and the adjoining Middlebury Short Stop and former bowling alley properties.
• Pay for an adjustment to The Centre/Route 7 intersection traffic signal that would lengthen the light from the current 60 seconds to an 80-second cycle.
• Complete, with input from the Middlebury Design Advisory Committee, a series of pedestrian safety, traffic circulation and aesthetic improvements to The Centre property.
ADDISON — Unsurprisingly, dairy farmer Mike Eastman is a big milk drinker.
"I drink three quarts, three and a half quarts a day," he said, grinning. "I drink a lot."
But Eastman's smile — and that telltale milk moustache — aren't splashed across the iconic "Got Milk?" posters made famous over the last 15 years by a national advertising campaign. Instead, he's at the forefront of a fight closer to home.
From his Addison farm — and from his seat as co-chairman of the board of directors for Rural Vermont, a nonprofit farm advocacy group — Eastman is at work putting "raw" milk — milk that has not been pasteurized or processed to kill potential bacteria — into the hands of Vermonters.
Legislation passed last winter doubled the amount of unpasteurized milk that farmers can sell from their farms — but raw milk sales remain a contentious issue among consumers, farmers and health officials.
"I think that a lot of people really feel, including myself, that drinking fresh, raw milk is healthier," said Eastman.
But with the Vermont Department of Health strongly warning of potential perils, consumers are left to negotiate the murky territory between the opposing camp, choosing between gallons of pasteurized milk in grocery stores and the increasingly popular farm-fresh milk peddled by farmers like Eastman.
Eastman's farm is small by Addison County standards — he has 40 Holsteins under his careful watch. But his organic certification — and the unusual fact that his cows are purely grass-fed — attracts milk enthusiasts from Middlebury, Vergennes and as far away as near Burlington.
When a customer arrives at the 300-acre farm, Eastman directs them to a small, dark, cool room off the main barn. A large silver bulk tank takes up the majority of the small space.
LEICESTER — Leicester Republican John "Ike" Hughes believes the state Legislature has strayed off course.
That said, Hughes said he is running for the Addison-2 House seat to help bring lawmakers' focus back home and away from issues over which Hughes believes the state has little or no control: The War in Iraq, global warming and impeachment of President George W. Bush.
"I just don't think the state is spending proper time on state issues," Hughes said, citing energy policy, school spending and smaller government as among priority topics.
Hughes, 63, is a retired United States Navy master chief petty officer who most recently ran his own instrumentation business. A Pittsford native who has lived in Leicester for the past 25 years, Hughes is challenging incumbent Rep. Willem Jewett, D-Ripton, in the district that includes Salisbury, Cornwall, Ripton, Leicester, Hancock and Goshen.
Hughes has been an active volunteer in statewide GOP politics since 1983. He became involved in Addison County Republican causes around 10 years ago. When the July 21 candidates' filing deadline was fast approaching and no Republicans had declared an interest in Addison-2, Hughes stepped forward.
"I think the voters should have a choice," Hughes said. "I think if you feel strongly about the issues, you should get out there."
Hughes has developed strong opinions about health care, government spending and energy during a life that has included a 21-year stint in the United States Navy. He served three tours in Vietnam and visited more than 100 countries during a military career that saw him in charge of repairs to 26 nuclear submarines. That experience has given him a respect and appreciation for nuclear power at a time when the state is approaching a crossroads in determining whether to re-license Vermont Yankee.
SALISBURY — Faced with mounting expenses, soaring fuel bills, lower client rolls and the prospect of major new competition, Shard Villa — one of the oldest and most historically significant senior care facilities in Vermont — will likely close its doors this November.
While the Shard Villa board of directors plans to keep the ornate, 130-year-old mansion and its spectacular Italian wall murals open to the public, the senior care component of the estate — barring a quick, major infusion of cash — will cease operation this fall after an almost 90-year run. That portends a potentially traumatic uprooting for more than a dozen current Shard Villa residents (most of whom are in their 90s) and layoffs for the 14 full- and part-time workers at the facility.
"It is a decision that has been a long-time coming, and not an easy one to make," said Shard Villa board President Diane Benware. "But it does not seem economically feasible to continue."
While the board has not yet formally voted to close Shard Villa's elder care operation, it is taking steps that would lead toward ending that service on Nov. 1. Those steps include notifying the state of Vermont and securing permission through Addison County Probate Court, which is responsible for enforcing the execution of wills.
Columbus Smith built Shard Villa in 1872-74. He and his wife Harriett began taking in elders in 1919, then the family formally launched the senior care facility in an L-shaped addition built in 1922 — a service they sought to perpetuate through their respective wills. Shard Villa leaders will have to convince a probate court judge that financial hardship now makes the senior care operation untenable.
Officials vowed to work with families to find new accommodations for current Shard Villa residents. They also promised to work with staff to line up new jobs.
SALISBURY — Collin Tompkins was one of the first out of the old Lund boat, springing onto the narrow dock while the 16-foot craft shimmied up alongside its moorings.
He, like the other three young men in the boat, was damp and smiling. It was a game of back and forth for a little while, and the four men, their wetsuits slung down to mid-waist, looked like they've done this a hundred times. Someone secured the boat. Another hoisted their dripping scuba equipment into a deep wheelbarrow.
And among the last items unloaded onto the dock, and then piled into the wheelbarrow, were several mesh bags filled with heavy, wet weeds — Eurasian watermilfoil, the invasive species this team of young divers is at work carefully plucking from Lake Dunmore's lakebed.
Tompkins, 22, Nate Bierschenk, 19, Derek LaRosee, 19, and Will Pitkin, 17, are the specially trained corps of divers that make up the Lake Dunmore/Fern Lake Association (LDFLA) Milfoil Project. They're charged with keeping the milfoil problem in Lake Dunmore and Fern Lake — Dunmore's little sister — in check.
But in addition to serving as lake watch guards, these divers also happen to be a friendly gaggle of students — boys happy with a summer job that puts them on the lake, in the water and among good company.
"It's a nice way to be on the lake all summer and help out," said Bierschenk, whose family owns a house on Dunmore.
It's a remarkable team, in large part because Tompkins, Bierschenk, Pitkin and LaRosee — and the "Lake System Monitors" who have staffed the project in previous summers — demonstrate that it is possible to control milfoil in an environmentally friendly way, without chemicals, herbicides or lumbering, expensive mechanical harvesters.
Subscribe to Online Edition
Online PDF Print Edition
Copyright 2011 Addison Independent | 58 Maple Street, Middlebury, Vt. 05753 | All Rights Reserved
Site Development by Surf New Media


text:
This HDMI Cable Represents The Edge Of Human Stupidity
We'd like to believe that the packaging for this HDMI cable is the victim of poor translation or some kind of misunderstanding. We sincerely hope that no one working in the consumer electronics industry believes that digital video is susceptible to viruses, those viruses cause noises, and that you can fend them off with a nice coating of Mylar. But we've had to deal with the public, and know better.
A reader kindly sent this photo to our estranged ex-cousins over at Gizmodo. This is an HDMI cable marketed to go along with an Xbox. Okay. You don't need a special cable for an Xbox, but we'll let that go. The real problem is on the back of the package, where the made-up boasts begin.
"100% Mylar" double shield 1.3c grade cable with anti-virus protection to reduce virus noises and to obtain perfect image transmission
I miss Monster Cable. They probably wish that they had thought of this antivirus cable idea first.
Is There Anyone Stupid Enough to Believe That This Cable Has Anti-Virus Protection? [Gizmodo] (Thanks, Heidi!)
How This $2,000 HDMI Cable Will Change Your Life
Pick The Right HDMI Cables Without Getting Ripped Off
Want more consumer news? Visit our parent organization, Consumer Reports, for the latest on scams, recalls, and other consumer issues.


text:
Filter By:
- Malekko X
Showing all 5 results
Buying, selling and trading gear is part of the fun of being a guitar player. With the announcement of Gibson's new product line for 2019, guitarists around the world may… READ MORE
"That Great Gretsch Sound" Gretsch has a long storied history dating back to 1883, when Friedrich Gretsch first set up shop in Brooklyn, New York. Their guitars are celebrated pieces of… READ MORE
About a month ago, the team at Dave's Milwaukee were approached by local musician, Victor Manuel Campos, about making a bulk order for acoustic guitars. Campos volunteers at Faith/Santa Fe… READ MORE
If you've been playing guitar for a while, you know there is always a new piece of gear you just "gotta have." Winter NAMM comes and goes, and some guitar… READ MORE


text:
It has nearly been twenty years(!) since the death of rapper/actor/poet/artist/icon Tupac Shakur, which is why it seems so shocking that no one in Hollywood has successfully
exploited adapted the late star's life story into a major motion picture. Tupac's contemporary The Notorious B.I.G. was gunned down a year after Shakur - and yet his life has already been immortalized in the 2009 film, Notorious. So what's the hold up with 'Pac's story?
Well, after many years of starts, stops, estate battles and the like, it is now official: The Tupac biopic is indeed moving ahead, With Morgan Creek Productions financially backing Emet/Furla/Oasis Films (2 Guns, Escape Plan) in order to bring the project to fruition.
Deadline dropped the initial news, which was then quickly corroborated by an official press release from Morgan Creek. Last we heard, untested screenwriter Michael Starrbury was brought in to re-work a script by Oscar-nominated duo Stephen J. Rivele and Chris Wilkinson; however, reports now state that the film is being scripted by Eddie Gonzalez and Jeremy Haft (Street Kings 2), and a draft is expected to be completed by mid-October.
Production is being slated for a February 2014 start date; the filmmakers have access to Tupac's music catalog and the late star's mother, Afeni Shakur, will produce the film, much the same way that Voletta Wallace (mother of B.I.G.) produced Notorious. Fitting eulogies, if ever there were any. The production budget for the Tupac movie will be set at $45 million - which is pretty solid, given the current state of the movie business. Clearly this film will have a built-in audience it attracts; but with no word yet on a director, the question of creating a Tupac film that has mainstream appeal is still a lingering challenge.
...And then there's the bigger challenge (no pun) (no double pun!) of casting the film. Tupac remains as difficult as ever to cast (established star? Relative unknown?); actor Michael B. Jordan had breakouts with Chronicle and Fruitvale Station and has since become that one young black actor du jour that everyone nominates for applicable leading role (or, you know, as a black Johnny Storm in a Fantastic Four reboot) - which is probably why Deadline writer Mike Fleming Jr. can "see a guy" like him in the part. Of course, there are plenty of other young black male actors - discovered or not - that could handle the part, so we'll see what shakes out.
Meanwhile, there are plenty of other famous celebrities and icons who were involved with Tupac's life, who would also need to be cast for the film. Assuming the movie covers something of 'Pac's parents' time as members of the Black Panther Movement, those roles would need to be cast; as a teen Tupac attended the Baltimore School for the Arts, where he met future lifelong friend Jada Pinkett, so someone would need to play a version of her; then there is the long list of musical artists 'Pac rubbed elbows with, including Digital Underground ("The Humpty Dance"), Notorious B.I.G., and fellow Death Row Records label mates and associates like Suge Knight, Snoop Dogg and Dr. Dre - all of whom will be controversial in terms of "proper" casting.
Who do YOU want to see play Tupac - an unknown or a familiar face? Let us know in the comments.
The Tupac biopic will start shooting in early 2014. We'll keep you updated on release date info.
Sources: MCP & Deadline


text:
Font Size: No Happy MediumNovember 26, 2003
If there's one thing nobody can agree on, it's how to treat your text size. Pixels aren't scalable within the most common browser on the market, and if you do everything you can to support relative units, you will still get people complaining that you are using text that's too small, or too big, or too low in contrast, or too high in contrast. A designer can do his or her best to find a happy medium, but someone will always speak up:
Please see http://www.w3.org/2003/07/30-font-size
I have. Why? The only point on that list that I might be breaking is "Avoid sizes in em smaller than 1em for text body" — a pretty good success rate.
Because your fonts are tiny!
CTRL + '+' ? Or CTRL + 'scroll wheel'? I'm using relative sizing specifically for cases like this. Besides, my text is a pretty common size…
Of course I know how to adjust font size in my browser quickly. Doing it all the time is annoying though.
My fonts are based on your default browser size. If you bump that up, they scale accordingly. So is this my problem, or, perhaps, yours?
And what about thin users who think that IE 'is the internet'?
My site is not for them. I have a target audience; what do mom & pop care about CSS, after all?
Perhaps your site is not for them, but, in my opinion, ALL websites should be accessible to ANYONE, ANYWHERE. My opinion of course.
Then read [above] again. My target audience is not clueless newbie. But they are able to view it all the same — not only are my fonts scalable, the rest of my site complies with Section 508 and the better half of WAI's AAA. In fact, it would be single A if it weren't for FIR; other than that it's kosher. Even IE can scale my fonts just fine, and it renders the site well.
I really have a hard time understanding what your problem is — if you don't want to hit CTRL + '+' just say so, and don't cloak it behind misdirected accessibility concern. This isn't an accessibility problem, it's a convenience problem, n'est-ce pas?
Okay, a rather contentious way to start off the day. But something I'm hearing more often than I'd like is the opinion that text size should be left alone; a user's default font size shouldn't be messed with. This is an idealist view, and not at all representative of how the world works.
Built into that viewpoint is the naïve, or willfully ignorant assumption that all users are a) aware of this setting, and b) have changed it to suit their preference. Even the low percentage of the population that know they can do this generally won't; too many existing pages rely on a 16px default font size. The majority, believe it or not, would bump their default down a size or two. 16px is too big for most people.
If it helps, don't consider this issue on a site-by-site basis, consider it on a web-as-a-whole basis. Bump your font size down a setting or two, and start loading some common sites. Microsoft. CNN. Yahoo. This site, even. All become less legible, since they assume a starting point of 16px. And they assume because people don't, as a general rule, screw with the default font size.
Let's ignore Internet Explorer for a second. Browsers like Firebird and Safari allow a quick adjust. If, as a user, I visit a site that uses a text size I can't read, I can hit CTRL + '+' a few times until it's legible. Done, and my fonts are now bigger for every other site. The fact is that my browser allows me to compensate in different ways; I can even whip up a custom user style sheet to customize each site I care to, if I wish.
Which places the legibility issue in a grey area somewhere between designer and user, since both can combat the problem. The designer should take precautions to ensure his or her default font size is legible to a wide percentage of the population. But is it necessary to address users who need extra assistance, within the same style sheet everyone else uses? CSS offers choice; is there some reason we shouldn't be taking advantage of this?
The current standards movement seems to place an awful lot of responsibility on the designer. It's up to the designer to work around browser flaws by not using pixel-value text. It's up to the designer to consider people with perfect vision, low vision, and no vision. It's up to the designer to account for different monitor sizes and resolutions. It's up to the designer to make sure their layout doesn't break when fonts are at 100%, or 150%, or 200%.
Which, when you consider the history of the web, is the way it's always been, except that no one used to do it. And now that we are starting to, by way of alternate style sheets and relying on relative font sizing, it's becoming clear that while CSS offers answers, sometimes the answers aren't good enough for some users.
Yes, it's important for the designer to keep all these things in mind, and with a developed social conscience, cater to the largest audience possible. But, and here's the whole point of what I'm trying to say, when the designer does this to the best of his or her knowledge and ability, and it's still not enough, perhaps it stops being his or her responsibility.
Reader Comments
> If, as a user, I visit a site that uses a text size I can't read, I can hit CTRL + '+' a few times until it's legible.
…and then hit CTRL + '-' a few times when you go to the next site. And then CTRL + '+' a few times for the next site. And then back again. And so on.
The issue of avoiding the user's font size isn't about too small fonts. It's about the difference between font sizes on different websites. I have a good browser. I have a good font size. I don't like having to adjust the font size for every new website I visit just because lots of different designers have lots of different ideas on what the best font size is for me. I am in a far better position than them to decide what the best font size is for me, and it really doesn't drastically change depending on what site I am on.
> My target audience is not clueless newbie.
So you can assume that if they haven't changed the browser font size, then it's because the default is fine for them, not because they are incapable.
> But, and here's the whole point of what I'm trying to say, when the designer does this to the best of his or her knowledge and ability, and it's still not enough, perhaps it stops being his or her responsibility.
That's irrelevent. You aren't doing 'this' to the best of your knowledge or ability - you *know* the problem and you *know* how to fix it, and you *choose* not to for aesthetic reasons that don't apply across the board. That's your decision, but please don't hide behind "it's too hard".
Does anyone have any statistics on sight-impared users and browser choice? I'd like to know if they use browsers that allow for easier resizing of pixel sized text (such as Mozilla & Firebird) more than regular users.
> …and then hit CTRL + '-' a few times when you go to the
> next site. And then CTRL + '+' a few times for the next
> site. And then back again. And so on.
Or dig around and find the style-switcher mechanism, and change it upon each visit. Specific action is irrelevant; fact is, whether we're talking about font scaling or style sheet switching, both require action on the user's part.
> It's about the difference between font sizes on different
> websites.
Do the different point sizes across various magazines and books bug you too?
In both scenarios the designer has control over type size. The difference being that on the web, the user can override it. That alone is argument enough for me to continue designing how I see fit, and allowing you to adjust accordingly if you have a problem with it.
Someone will jump on me for being an arrogant designer at this point, but I think I've explained my position rather well.
> you *know* the problem
If I re-scale my fonts for someone, the new size becomes a problem to me. Why is this ignored?
> you *know* how to fix it
I did already. My fonts are scalable.
> you *choose* not to for aesthetic reasons that don't
> apply across the board
I choose not to because this isn't a commercial site, and at the end of the day, I read it too. The size is one I'm comfortable with on my 1600x1200 17" monitor with ultra-small pixels.
> That's your decision, but please don't hide behind "it's
> too hard".
I'm doing nothing of the sort.
Hi there Jim D. While we're on the subject of accessibility, I would like to access some content on your website, http://jimdabell.com . Oh wait, there isn't any.
It would at least be nice to read your name at the top but it's in cursive for some reason, and I can't quite make it out. Maybe if my vision was better I could.
I have some advice for you: People who live in cardboard boxes shouldn't give interior design advice. I've seen your incendiary posts on other sites before and I have a hard time believing you've ever done anything of any value to anyone on the web. So before you go messing with Dave here, perhaps you should learn more about the medium.
I find it odd that some people are upset with designers for changing font sizes for aesthetic reasons. The web is a gross beast already when it comes to design. What is your screen resolution? Screen size? Color depth? Browser? etc. I think it is reasonable that designers be "allowed" to adjust font sizes up or down a few pixels/points.
I don't see the big fuss about font sizes being too small – especially since most browsers can scale fonts. By the end of the day, I'm tired and my eyes are shot (CS student + web developer = all day on computer), I bump up my text a few sizes and I'm good to go. If that is too difficult for someone to do (or too annoying), then they can just disable stylesheets (real easy) or make their own stylesheet (takes some time) and every letter of every word will be set to their liking.
Not that I helped the discussion at all, but with Firebird in hand I don't really care what you do with your font sizes.
A quick tip: to quickly reset the font sizes to their original value you just do Ctrl-0. Those few milliseconds it takes to adjust font sizes just aren't a big deal, IMO.
> Does anyone have any statistics on sight-impared users and browser choice? I'd like to know if they use browsers that allow for easier resizing of pixel sized text (such as Mozilla & Firebird) more than regular users.
One of my colleagues, out of a department of about 40 people, has 20/15 vision but terrible acuity . He leaves his computer set at 800 X 600 (19 inch monitor) so that text and icons look much bigger, and does not seem to care about the resulting jaggies. He cannot read anything smaller than 9 pt, even laser-printed.
And Dave, I concur that the text in the second nav bar is hard (for me also) to read, and CNTRL + does not change it in Firebird/Win.
Isn't this really a technology issue, more than a design issue? Web technology, as it stands, simply does not allow for a user to view any and every website they may visit at "their" optimal font size automatically. Nor can every designer create a layout that will adjust perfectly to every possible font size and maintain what they believe "looks good".
As of today, it simply cannot be done. Yet we are all more than happy to argue that "my" preference is better (for this reason and that) than "your" preference. This argument will always exist so long as the technology remains as is.
As I see it, we have two choices:
1. Help develop ideas to remedy the problem from a technology standpoint…
2. Or continue to offer quick and easy ways to change font sizes on our websites.
Your gonna be hard pressed to convince everyone that "your" preference is the preferred preference. I think that has already been proven. Hey, at least we have choice.
> Do the different point sizes across various magazines and books bug you too?
When people pick up books and magazines, they generally hold them close enough to read comfortably, which is the real-world equivalent of sizing text manually upon entering a new site, except no additional action needs to be taken. In any case, the fixed size of the print medium is a limitation that simply doesn't apply to the web - the print designers have no option but to choose a particular size.
> That alone is argument enough for me to continue designing how I see fit, and allowing you to adjust accordingly if you have a problem with it.
But just because it's possible to work around it, it doesn't mean it's convenient. And isn't a large part of web design about making the interaction between the visitor and the website as fluid as possible?
> If I re-scale my fonts for someone, the new size becomes a problem to me.
I'm not advocating changing the font size on your page for anyone. I'm advocating *not* changing the font size. If you prefer a particular font size, then shouldn't you be setting this preference in your browser?
> > you *know* how to fix it
> I did already. My fonts are scalable.
I thought I made my position clear; the problem I am talking about is the mismatch between different websites - manually scaling fonts is not anywhere near ideal.
Peter, please feel free to carry on thinking of me as an arrogant newbie. I've always maintained that arguments should stand or fall of their own accord, not because anybody in particular is saying them. I have no wish to start a flamewar here attempting to defend myself; this article is about font sizing on the web, and I don't intend to pollute that. I'm not trying to "mess with Dave", merely voice my opinion on the topic of conversation. Any subsequent ad-hominem attacks will simply be ignored; if you think I'm wrong about something, attack the point, not the person, as Dave did. I'd appreciate a private email with links to other places where you think I've flamed somebody though.
Dave: Your text is too small :) But I see why you've done what you've done, and there's no denying that text on the web is /hard/. The problem is that browser makers set a too-large default size and then never encouraged anyone to change it. However that's a pain for people like me who set the size to something reasonable to begin with…
The situation would be improved if you could specify text sizes in physical units like cm, and rely on the browser/OS to convert from cm to pixels. You'd have to think a bit to make sure it would cascade nicely, but I think it should work.
Another solution would be more intelligent text resizing algorthims. It would be neat to set the minimum font size pref and havet all text scaled by the amount required to make the smallest type on the page equal to the minimum font size e.g. if I set a minimum size of 10px and the actual minimum font size computed is 5px, all the sizes get doubled. It's not clear how well that would work across pages though.
Yet another solution would be more powerful user stylesheets. With a user stylesheet, you rarely know about the document structure in advance, so it would be useful to be able to select on the attached css rules something like :::css-rule[font-size="80%"] {font-size=100%;} (that syntax sucks but you get the idea). Of course, that would be a pretty fundamental change in CSS…
Mozilla allows a minimum font size, which makes all arguments about adjusting your font sizes for each site bogus. I've set it at 13px which causes no problems and makes my family very happy.
The only responsibility you have as a webdesigner is making sure that all font sizes are properly set relative to each other.
> Web technology, as it stands, simply does not allow for a user to view any and every website they may visit at "their" optimal font size automatically.
Yes and no. Theoretically, yes, as users are free to pick a font size, and any web author who just leaves the font size alone will be giving them their optimal font size.
Practically, lots of people point out that users often don't have a clue about font sizes. However, this in and of itself doesn't mean that you should try and mess with the font size. 80%, 12pt, 15px, etc are arbitrary. There's no good reason to think that they are more appropriate for everyone than 100% - all you are doing is getting it wrong for the people who do know how to set their font size. Furthermore, if the default font size is *unacceptable* to a user, you can be sure they'll find out how to change it, so you'll never be faced with providing an unacceptable font size.
So, the end result is the choice between a) not messing with the font size and guaranteeing the optimal font size for the techie users, or b) messing with the font size and guaranteeing a sub-optimal font size for *at least* the techie users (and perhaps an *unacceptable* font size for others). I think it's clear that, while you may not be able to get the optimal font size, leaving it at the default is the closest you can get and the safest choice all 'round.
Minimum font size does not preserve the difference in font sizes within a document. The mechanism jgraham describes would fix this. In any case, I specifically don't set it as a precautionary measure - it's no good trying to do the right thing with font sizes if it turns out your browser is hiding errors from you.
> the text in the second nav bar is hard (for me also) to read,
> and CNTRL + does not change it in Firebird/Win.
Text performs a function. And sometimes, its function is to step out of the way, only to be there if needed. If those were critical sections of the site, I'd feel differently. They're not though.
> they generally hold them close enough to read
> comfortably
If we're considering the analogue method, you can do that with a screen too…
> And isn't a large part of web design about making the
> interaction between the visitor and the website as fluid
> as possible?
Yes. Isn't a large part of the web to project as good an image as possible? Yes. Different people have different priorities. Finding a balance is *tough*. I understand where you're coming from, here's an attempt to explain where designers are coming from:
Design is about proportion, rhythym, and flow. Issues like browser size, font size, and screen resolution are incredibly large bugbears for good design because of this. If I can scale one element, but not another, I can't accurately define a relationship between the two items, except hopefully within a fuzzy upper- and lower-limit. Likewise, if I don't know ahead of time what canvas size I'm working with, I can't properly define a relationship between figure (content) and ground (background) - this is why every designer prefers fixed-width over liquid (though that's also a legibility issue because of line-length, but I digress.)
> I thought I made my position clear; the problem I am
> talking about is the mismatch between different websites
> - manually scaling fonts is not anywhere near ideal.
Neither is relying on a user's default font size. Because here's what you have to change to make your scenario work: first, you have to make sure everyone in the world has adjusted their browser to taste. Second, you have to get every designer in the world on board with your thinking, and make sure they don't screw up the system. Third, you have to retro-fit the millions of pages that don't currently work this way.
If this is such an issue for you in particular, why not add a user style sheet, and leave it at that?
html, body {
font-size: 16px !important;
Sam's got it. This is a technological issue. If all browsers used something like Opera's scaling, then we wouldn't be arguing.
> In any case, I specifically don't set it as a precautionary
> measure - it's no good trying to do the right thing with font
> sizes if it turns out your browser is hiding errors from you.
Jim, really. There's your convenience right there. You've got as good of a method as I do in ensuring your fonts remain legible. Use it. Don't blame us.
I'm half afraid to post any comments here for fear someone will dig through my stylesheet and find that I set my font size in px.
It is impossible to please everyone when it comes to design, let alone typography and text-sizes. Even when implementing scalable text, you could offend someone who doesn't appreciate the range of text-sizes you use. (ie. when they set your smallest font to something they like, your largest pisses them off). If so inclined they should write their own stylesheets I say.
Like Dave said, there comes a point where it is the user's responsibility. You don't enter a room with sunglasses on and then ask to have all the lightbulbs changed or the roof removed.
It is okay to put the responsibility on the user, at least just make sure that if they are using IE they can resize the fonts. Not digging at you Lucian, just making a point. I find that if you use verdana 70% is equal to 11px.
When ever I come across a usability issue I go to the usability guru, Jakob Nielson:
From looking over this article again, it seems that he puts most of the responsibility on the user. For the designer he only says use at least a 10pt font. It's up to the user to adjust the size to their preference. He also says the browser should make changing the font size easy.
I generally don't specify a font-size so that the user's default size takes precedence. I only make some things relatively smaller (rarely) or larger as the design dictates. But using sematically correct code also helps. For example, the font size of an h1 tag is not defined by the designer. It's size is standard throughout html. Unless the designer overrides it, but that also does a good job of defeating the purpose of using the h1 tag.
There is no single right answer to this.
I'd agree that the second toolbar's text is small and I'm only at 1024x768 with normal vision with my glasses. And because it's images and not real text, it's not scalable. This is why I don't like images of text. I can't wait for SVG to be included in most browsers. I also dislike popup menus. I don't like it when you cross over them with the mouse (e.g. going from a browser toolbar or menu back to the content) and they popup when you don't want them to. They should have to be clicked like any other menu in an application. CSS already handles one event, hovering, why not clicking as well.
Dave, I think your argument is a Catch-22. We need to make the font smaller because people won't set a good default size in their browsers. People won't change the browser defaults, because too many web sites make the size smaller … :)
The way I see it, here's the problem with setting the base font size to e.g. 80%: you deliberately mess with the people who've set their browser defaults in accordance with their needs, just to accommodate the majority who doesn't care.
Remember that most of the people who have problems with tiny text aren't what we'd usually call "visually impaired". They aren't using screen magnifiers. They are simply people whose eye-sight is beginning to deteriorate with age. Think baby-boomers, for example.
If your target audience is mostly made up by eagle-eyed designers under 30, then by all means, make the text as small as you like. However, a site indended for the general public cannot make that kind of assumptions. There are more and more middle-aged and elderly users on the Web, and 11px is way too small for most of them. At the same time, many of them don't know how to change the browser defaults, or how to resize text on a web page.
I think you're seeing this strictly from a designer's point of view, which is quite understandable. I think a good designer should be able to create a design that doesn't rely on font size. Isn't that one of the requirements for admission to the CSS Zen Garden?
(And please don't flame me because my current web site by default uses a fixed font size in pixels. I didn't know better at the time, and it will be dealt with in my upcoming redesign.)
Funny that you should just write about this as I had just got done reading a couple chapters of The Elements of Typographic Style (highly recommended). I am in the same beliefs that I try to make the font legible for the majority of my users and I use percentages to set the font-size so they should be scalable. If the user is unhappy then they can bump up the settings. You can't please everyone, and the ones you can't please would be better off pleasing themselve by making their own custom stylesheets.
particularly when it comes to the accessibility issue, it's a phrase that i use all too frequently, but: the onus is not just on the designer, but the user as well. if you KNOW that you need to have large fonts (due to partial sight loss or similar visual impairment), you as a user should choose the best tool for your situation. if you see that, out of all current browsers, IE doesn't let you resize text on certain sites (which use pixels), DON'T USE IT. (nonwithstanding the fact that people with visual impairments are more likely to use proper screen magnification software, rather than just setting text sizes to huge). to use another phrase of mine: you can't blame a screwdriver for being such a lousy hammer. use the right tools for you. to take it to the extreme, you could argue that all webpages should also be made available in audio format, as not all blind users may have a screenreader.
heck, by separating content from presentation i thought we had established that yes, as a designer i can still wallow in my predilection for small fonts, pastel colours, whatever…but that the content itself is available to anybody who wants to view it. user stylesheets, alternative stylesheets with switchers, etc are all a step in the right direction.
but yes, the users have to meet the designers halfway as well.
I'm pretty much on board here, I just have some requests to designers out there:
1. Don't use non-standard font-size changing as the only method (i.e. those little icons and menus people put in nav bars). If you really think the browser options are too technical, use the dual approach that Wired uses, where you can either do it on the page or in the browser.
2. When putting text in images or flash movies, make it bigger than you'd like the normal text size to be, since people can't change the size. I have 20/20 vision and a 19" monitor and I've seen dozens of sites that were still totally illegible. The second nav bar (with latest projects>>>) and blue subheads in the right column on this page are borderline examples that I can guarantee you my mother with her best glasses would struggle to read.
> So… why not px?
Because the people who really need font scaling /really/ need it, irrespective of which browser they use. These people won't be the x% of your visitors who never adjusted the font settings, they'll be the ones who did (or who got someone to do it for them; the number of computers configured by knowledgeable people outweighs the number configured by clueless people, even if most users are clueless).
Because some people have high resolution screens so the actual physical size of even 16px text is tiny, and IE won't resize the text for them.
Because all the people who are saying "people who really have vision problems use screen magnifcation" are wrong, or at least missing the point. There are plenty of people who can't read 10px text but can read 16px text. These people don't need screen magnfiers, they just need the text to be bigger when they select 'larger' from a menu or select a default size of 20px.
All these people need web designers to realise that the web isn't a desgn friendly medium and you have to give a *lot* relative to desgning for print. One thing you have to give is control over precise text sizes, so that people can actually read your site. A site that looks pretty may be initially attractive, but if you have to fiddle with browser settings to make the content legible, that's at least as off-putting as slightly larger than normal text.
This won't happen, of course. People will never get together and decide en-mass to always use 100% body text and scale other fonts on the page relative to that; it offers no benefit unless everyone (or nearly everyone) does it so anyone failing to do so breaks text on the internet for everyone. Since it's an intractable social problem, you can probably call it a technological problem. The technological problem is soluble (e.g. hardcode the default pixel size, let users scale all fonts relative to that so that 100% = 16px is always true but the user can set a scale factor that applies to all fonts on all pages; remove px as a font unit size (that's been rejected as an idea by the CSS WG, iirc); etc. ), but it's not easy and relies on people actually switching browsers to a more useful one (which is a social problem as difficult as the previous one).
Dave, my practical advice is to increase your main font size to 90%, since you'll never agree to increase it to 100%. In practical terms, that's a 1px increase for most people, but it will make a huge difference to the legibility of your site.
The funny thing is Dave, that your text is a bit on the small size. Yes, I know I can increase it, but I'm one of those nice folks who likes to look at a person's site exactly as they designed it. In Opera, my main browser, I don't want your graphics to pixelate. I prefer to read your site as it appears in my browser with no user alteration, and if that's a fellow designer's site I can say to myself that guy needs his type a little bigger, you'd think he'd realise. Maybe everyone's too polite to say so!
If I come across sites I can't read, frankly I just move on, I don't bother. Yours I can read, but in my opinion your type is too small. Let's not forget the obvious here. But I still read it, I *can* still read it, and your design decisions are your design decisions.
I should add to my previous comment, of course, that there will be people who can afford much higher-res screens than mine who will find my site unreadable, since I am an unashamed user of fixed pixel size. Doubtless they will think I design badly because of that. Still, what the hell, we all make our choices. And I think that's my point really.
"For example, the font size of an h1 tag is not defined by the designer. It's size is standard throughout html. Unless the designer overrides it, but that also does a good job of defeating the purpose of using the h1 tag."
I disagree. Nowhere in the W3C specs does it define the exact size of the H1 tag. It is merely the largest of the tags. I've yet to use a design that hasn't required changing the default size, along with the other H tags.
"Mozilla allows a minimum font size, which makes all arguments about adjusting your font sizes for each site bogus."
This is an outstanding feature. A forum I visit has a hardwired font size set by the programmers for the smallest size you select from a menu, when posting a reply. It's so small you cannot read it. (At least not on Windows XP which blurs the characters.) Eventually I realised I just had to set the minimum font size in the browser to something like 10px. Problem solved!
Regarding the main topic here, the problem seems quite simple to me. It all comes down to one browser - Internet Explorer (IE) on Windows. As we know, most if not all other browsers allow text sizes to be changed from the menus. Even IE on a Mac. Yet IE Windows does not. Experts like Nielsen and Zeldman have long campaigned for Microsoft to change this, but now we know development of IE6 has stopped, it will never happen.
The next point about IE is simple, yet often overlooked. The default text size when first installed along with Windows is "SMALLER"! This means a designer wishing to make their site look the same across all main browsers will find setting the font sizes in pixels solves the problem. Just add a style switcher to allow the fonts to be enlarged as well.
If you use ems, without first declaring a font size of 100% or less on the body tag, the result is text so small it's criminal. (If the user has IE set to "Smallest" you simply cannot read the text! While "Larger" and "Largest" are so big it's silly.) This is due to a bug in IE.
So if it weren't for IE, pixels would rarely be used for setting font sizes today. In the past they were most likely used when fixed layouts were seen as the way forward, when emulating print was the goal, but I digress.
All is not lost, because IE7 comes with the next version of Windows. This uses a new graphics system that allows the contents of ANY window to be smoothly enlarged. So a layout 300px wide with tiny text can be made larger and larger until the text suits the user. Like Opera's brilliant Zoom feature, it will also retain the layout structure, enlarging the images too.
So in 10 years time (chuckle) when IE7 is more common than IE6, we can use fixed fonts again to get the design WE want, knowing that users can alter the font size in their browsers if they wish, to get the size THEY want.
If users don't know how, well if they NEED to enlarge the fonts badly, they will find a way, ask around, look through the menus.
For now I would expect anyone with serious visual problems to rely on browsers like Mozilla and Opera.
I'd like to be able to use keywords (x-small, small, etc.) but it seems impossible to obtain whatever Verdana 11px and Arial 13px on IE6/Win actually are, consistently using keywords, which is a shame, as these are two of the most attractive fonts to use, in my view.
What I for one would find helpful is a chart which translates sizes of keywords, %, pt (and whatever else) with px, for common browser/platform combinations for common fonts. This could be compliled and then verified by people and then used as a central resource.
At the moment, there seems to be quite a lot of guesswork involved and 'hoping for the best'. At least a comparison chart would ensure that there is a degree of assurance.
Good grief, what a discussion. It's really not that difficult. Simon is on to it.
Use the browsers default font-size for main content and make minor adjustments for variations of text.
Also, if you use EM's for everything, you can get almost the same effect as Opera's zoom function in any browser. Even images can be resized this way.
For the record, I have my default font size set to 12px in Mozilla Firebird, and this site is unlegible upon arrival. I have to scale up twice to read the main content, and four times to read the right-hand column.
I wonder if anyone else adopts the same simple, infinitely "scalable" solution to viewing web sites with small or large font sizes? Sometimes, if I find the fonts a bit on the small side, I move a bit closer to the screen. If the fonts are rather large, I lean back!
(Compare behaviour with reading books & magazines - and no fiddling with browser controls ;-)
I have found this discussion to be very interesting indeed. Font-size issues have bedevilled web design since the World Wide Web became the best thing since sliced bread. I have found that there are basically three camps:
1. The visual designer - will ALWAYS set font sizes smaller than default, because big glyphs are ugly. Their unit of preference is the pixel.
2. The accessibility nut - will ALWAYS set font sizes at the default or larger, because small glyphs are difficult to read. Their unit of preference is the em.
3. The happy compromiser - will use mostly the default size, varying by plus or minus 20% for the most part. The units of preference of preference are the em and the percentage, but keywords are also used.
I fall into the third camp. I do not come from a design background and I am not an accessibility nut. My number one concern has always been that all of my users can read my content, but I am not afraid to reduce the glyph size by 20%. I have found the following works well on most system configurations:
1. Body text at browser default, in Georgia or Verdana.
2. Primary navigation at browser default, in Arial or similar sans-serif font.
3. Secondary navigation and incidental text (like copyright messages, etc.) in browser default -20%. That is the equivalent of 0.8em.
I personally believe that setting a font in pixels, or reducing its size by more than 20%, is unwise and unecessary. Because of resolution and monitor-size variations, the pixel is probably unsuitable for setting ANY text size.
A website should be perfectly readable WITHOUT the need for text-resizing by the user. It is incovenient for the user, and I believe it makes a site (and its designer) look unprofessional. I believe that the body text on Mezzoblue is a little too small, but I feel that the navigation text is FAR too small. I can read it, but my wife cannot - she is forced to resize the text when I want to show her something here.
I know this will be an unpopular, but I must saddle some of the blame for this issue on the Mac. In the world of visual design, the Mac is very popular. Unfortunately, most of the users are viewing the web pages with Windows-equipped PCs, and fonts look different.
I'll conclude this longer-than-it-should-be tome with this: The average user will NOT alter the default settings of their system, so designers should create their masterpieces with that in mind. Users should not have to change anything, but they should have the option of changing. That means default font-sizes, and relative units are probably the way to go.
> I disagree. Nowhere in the W3C specs does it define the exact size of the H1 tag. It is merely the largest of the tags.
I would argue that the size of the element is irrelevant. What is significant is their importance, and where they appear in a document. H1 is intended to be a higher level than H2 - that is all that really matters, isn't it?
> The default text size when first installed along with Windows is "SMALLER"!>>
Er…when I installed Win XP Pro last week, the default IE text size was set to medium.
DAVE - For some reason, your "remember me" feature isn't remembering me. I'm getting an inferiority complex.
design for your AUDIENCE: when i visit a photographer's portfolio site i want to be intrigued by the presentation and the consideration of user-defined font sizes should take a back seat. a simple yet slick flash interface (with all the graphically goodness) is an ideal tool for this kind of thing IMO. however, when im reading a content-based site like metafilter then i want a presentation completely different, something that's easy to read, navigate, and adjustable. two completely different arenas of browsing that require a different set of questions when planning the design.
to further the book, magazine analogy, you see this all over the place: think about the difference between NYT newspaper and Shift.
anyone thinking that consistent font-sizing on the web (or any other medium for that matter) as a practical idea is just deluding themselves. even if this were reality what has been accomplished? well, we'd certainly be one step closer to the drab colorless of uniformity. hurray.
Thanks to shows like CSI, we have to face the fact that a lot of people believe that we use the same technology as seen on TV that takes a 3px-by-3px capture from security video to print out a 8 X 10 print. The guy I carpool with was commenting that it makes no sense that meteorologists can't predict weather very well "considering all the technology we have now." I can't imagine the difficultly I'd have with computers if I didn't get to work with them every day.
Take a look at the Mozilla or IE browser window and ask yourself where the zoom option is. If you don't see it, it doesn't exist. Sure I explore drop-downs in every program, but most people don't. I think it's perfectly fair to put that responsibility on the user, but it's not exactly been shoved in their face. It's hidden in a drop-down menu along with lots of stuff.
Business 101 is: don't piss off your target audience. Make it easy to purchase. Mozilla.org (love it) now reflects that understanding of removing barriers. Even my customer can call long-distance to reach me, but I won't give them any reason to hesitate so I provide a toll-free. It's that simple.
My GM runs 1280x768 on a 19" monitor with the IE font size set for smallest. We have some content styled with Arial 0.8em and the text is illegible on his screen. Even when we've discussed it, he knows he can control the font size. His argument is that at almost every other site he visits is very legible, yet this one is not, and that he "can't be the only one." What do I tell him? Is it my fault? The customer is King… they may not be right, but they're the king.
I believe the responsibility of striking the right balance rests squarely on the designer, until a friendly 'zoom' button appears on the toolbar of all web-browsers.
Simon, Justin - I see what you're saying, and I'd like to agree. Given your arguments, why should I NOT use px to size my fonts?
Basically you've just argued against relying on font scaling. I tend to think you're right, that most users don't know it exists, and won't use it. So. If font scaling is out of the picture, and we know there are too many problems with precise control over relative font sizes, then why not use px?
IE doesn't scale px, of course. But go back to the premise that we're not relying on font scaling, since the size has to be perfect from the start. So… why not px?
(Simon - I've noticed the 'remember me' is broken, but I haven't bothered looking into it yet.)
> Basically you've just argued against relying on font scaling. I tend to think you're right, that most users don't know it exists, and won't use it.
I think that that is largely untrue. Most people I know that have any vision problems seem to know it's there. Then again, if I had any vision problems I would use Firebird exclusively.
This topic is like lemon on a wound at the moment since I'm trying to make a decision and fighting with these same issues.
When teaching seniors, I've observed that almost all of them were not aware of the feature, but someone else had changed the setting on their behalf.
So basicially I'm saying that, although you can't rely on scaling, it's not appropriate to take features away from those who need and use them. So to answer your question, I think the best practice is to use the default size, and stick to minor variations for enhancement, without taking control away from the user - hence, no using px.
IMHO: I think browser-makers need to have a easy zoom tool on the primary toolbar - like the zoom in MS Word perhaps.
I'm with Eric on this: if accessibility is important, use Wired's approach. Set up one stylesheet with elements that will be common to the tiny-type and giant-type versions, and other stylesheets that handle the aspects specific to each. Don't want to rely on Javascript? Use PHP for styleswitching.
Although I don't find this site hard to read, I also don't quite understand the fetish for tiny type. It's not like we're trying to conserve paper here. And I don't think that larger type looks bad.
Let's look at this from the perspective of my work website. This must look the same on Netscape 4, 7 and IE6. Mozilla and Opera are catered for as well because I want to.
Firstly, there is a problem with small fonts - Netscape 4 makes them smaller! But the main body text is the same across all these browsers - but ONLY by using pixels.
Say I change to ems. I tried this and gave up. The text was different sizes across various browsers. So how do I square that with the client? It completely ruins the look of each page. Why can't they all look the same?
So I added a styleswitcher. This offers a Larger Text and a Low Vision option (with larger text in yellow on black or red). Of course this is mainly aimed at IE users who cannot resize fonts set in pixels.
I'd love to use ems and will test again in these for my home site in the future. I just hate going to a site (usually about accessibility) where the text is really big Verdana, caused by ems in the stylesheet. It just looks so wrong to me.
I don't know what the solution is. Browsers will always offer a variety of controls and settings. I hear Safari uses a different base font size to everyone else. Agh! Then there's the difference in line-height between Moz and IE…
I have to agree with Eric in a previous post. The words in images (latest projects) on this site are a tad too small. Even though I can read it out, I can imagine quite a few people can't for a variety of reasons. Its mainly beause it can't be scaled, unless you have a zoom in tool which Opera provides.
Back to topic, I have been building sites for many years but I have only recently (last couple of years) started taking standards seriously. The problem occurs with people like me (and for any new starters) is the mixed messages we get - assessibility vs designability.
Should designs be the firstmost importance, or the users assessibility? From what I gather, Websites are for conveying information, so should design matter at all? It is after all, not a magazine.
In the end, the way to make it most assessible is not to design it at all and leave it to the basic, cause you never know when you will be doing something wrong - javascript, colour schemes, hyperlink underlines, font size, images as words etc…
Websites used to be very easy to create (or teach) for everyone, even homeusers. Now its so much more complicated and restrictive.
> This must look the same on Netscape 4, 7 and IE6
There's the critical error.
Just to emphasise that last point, it's not that you shouldn't try to acheieve identical cross browser designs on the web, it's that you *can't*. In 10 minutes of userr-stylesheet hacking, I can turn Dave's sites to a Neilsen eqsue minimalist style : http://zeus.jesus.cam.ac.uk/~jg307/mozilla/Screenshot-dave.png Sure, most people won't do that. But it's an extreme example of a general point. If you want sites to be identical to all users, send pdf files not html files.
The basic point is that the font on this website is really small, especially with those long blocks of text (such as the body of this post). Can you not increase it just a little bit? It's not a life and death issue as your IE users can always paste into word or something, but still.
I offer no solution, just a short rant.
This is a problem with browsers. Fonts in px should scale in IE. They don't. It sucks. However, we are the ones burdened with finding the fix. If IE wasn't the most popular browser, I wouldn't care.
As far as accessibility goes, this is just like having to specify default values for every field in a form (a requirement of the AAA). The reasoning there is that some decrepit, hardly used browsers won't display the field if there isn't a default value. Complying to this is an extreme pain when designing web applications, such that it isn't even practical. In a complex web application, especially when editing data, specifying default values for fields that are empty presents more of an accessibility problem than a solution.
The above two paragraphs are somehow related. However, I can't comprehend much right now, so you'll have to make whatever connections yourself. I'm going to take some Robatussin. Wish I'd have gotten a flu shot…
The real stinkers are the 'trendy' Flash sites with 5-6px pixel fonts, Flash menu (with zoom) disabled. Lemmings.
Q. Why did the art director cross the road?
A. To get a smaller font.
ALL I ASK is that people take out the LINE-HEIGHT in their stylesheets.
Then I can ALT t-o-e-z and the lines don't run into each other.
I KNOW I can go Mozilla, but I don't want to. And I feel I should not be driven there.
Obviously the last rule needs to be applied to some block-level wrapper, no span! A div works fine for example.
My technical proposal: Take advantage of the fact that css size keywords won't go below 9x and scale up from there. Needs a wrapper div or span that wraps the whole content.
Poor IE users are still able to scale and 'power users' are not forced to view unstyled html at 16px by default.
/* The basic elements:
** We take advantage of keyword scaling- browsers won't go below 9px
** More at http://www.w3.org/2003/07/30-font-size
** http://style.cleverchimp.com/font_size_intervals/altintervals.html
body {
/* first for IE 4/5.0 */
font-size: xx-small;
/* end for IE 4/5.0 */
voice-family: ""}""; voice-family:inherit;
/* now the real one */
/* protect opera */
/* scale back up to a sane default */
#some-wrapper-divorspan {
Gabriel Wicke


text:
Ms Tgs 08 Keynote
Recon is not "full, entire game like Halo 3"
Speaking to Eurogamer, Bungie PR boss Brian Jarrard has confirmed that Halo 3 Recon isn't a full game, as many had hoped yesterday. "It's hard to put a number on it," he said when asked how long the campaign would be. "It's going to represent hours of new campaign gameplay, but it's not a full, […]
Ms Tgs 08 Keynote headlines
Recon is last Halo trilogy project, says Bungie
Speaking to GI in Tokyo, Bungie PR director Brian Jarrard said that Halo 3 Recon would signal an end to Bungie's work on the current Halo trilogy. "I don't think so," he said when asked if we can expect more from the developer on the series. "We've already put a couple of map packs out, […]
TGS08 - All the news from the Microsoft keynote
Microsoft just conducted a good keynote at Tokyo Game Show, dropping confirmation of the launch date of New Xbox Experience, announcing Tekken 6 for 360 and showing the first proper trailer of Halo 3 Recon, the new Bungie game. The hardcore write news at 3.00am. Which is why you can find every story from the […]
Halo 3 Recon - first screens and movie posted
Update: Bungie's just posted the movie from the press conference: get it here. Thanks, Johnny Cullen. Bungie's just released the first screens of Halo 3 Recon, just announced at Tokyo Game Show. The images are taken from the movie just show in the Microsoft keynote at the show. After the break.
Microsoft showcases Halo 3 Recon in Tokyo
Update: The first images and the press conference movie have just been posted. Microsoft has just showcased the Halo expansion revealed by Bungie at Tokyo Game Show 2008. The game is a prologue to the events in Halo 3, and tells the story from an all-new perspective: an ODST recon marine. A trailer was shown […]
NXE dated for November 19
Microsoft just confirmed that New Xbox Experience will launch globally on November 19. The Xbox 360 UI update will be in released in 24 countries and localized in 19 languages The news comes out of Microsoft's TGS keynote, which is ongoing.
Xbox Live membership hits 14 million
Microsoft just confirmed that Xbox Live membership has now hit 14 million. Xbox Live boss John Schappert confirmed the figure in his TGS keynote. Also confirmed tonight was the release of New Xbox Experience for November 19. For all the news from the keynote, hit this.
Metal Slug 7 coming to XBLA
Microsoft just announced that Metal Slug 7 will be running and gunning onto XBLA. The game will be loaded with "new missions, new weapons, colossal new bosses, new game modes, and new Slugs to pilot." No release date, though. More as it comes. By Nathan Grayson
King of Fighters '98 confirmed for XBLA
Microsoft has confirmed that The King of Fighters '98 Ultimate Match will release on XBLA next spring. The game will include new characters and game modes.
Tekken 6 confirmed for 360
Mega-news from Microsoft's TGS keynote: Tekken 6 will release on 360 next autumn. It's not clear whether or not the game will also release on PS3, but this announcement will send shockwaves through the Japanese industry: Tekken and PlayStation are like cookies and cream. The news comes out of Microsoft's TGS keynote. Update: Looks like […]
Ninety-Nine Nights 2 confirmed for 360
Microsoft just confirmed that Ninety-Nine Nights 2 will release on Xbox 360. No release date was given for the game. The news comes out of Microsoft's TGS keynote, which is ongoing.
Star Ocean: The Last Hope gets date
Microsoft just confirmed that Star Ocean: The Last Hope will release on February 19 in Japan and March 3 in America for 360. It's coming out in Europe as well, but no date was set. The news comes out of Microsoft's TGS keynote, which is ongoing.
Ms Tgs 08 Keynote latest


text:
Atellica NEPH 630 System Launch Event
Marburg, October 23–25, 2017
Vila Vita Rosenpark
Anneliese-Pohl-Allee 7-17
35037 Marburg
Welcome Hotel Marburg
Pilgrimstein 29
35037 Marburg
A number of rooms has been blocked for our event. Please note that hotel accommodation outside October 23 - 25, 2017, must be confirmed individually and cannot be guaranteed. Due to limited capacity, customer registrations will be handled with priority.
Meeting Venue:
Congresscenter Marburg
Anneliese-Pohl-Allee 3
35037 Marburg
Meeting room: Vila Alentejo
Directions and Travel
Directions by car:
From the B3, take the Marburg - Bahnhofstraße exit and then continue toward the Innenstadt (town centre). After approx. 500 metres (1640 feet), turn right into Rosenstraße. You will find the Congresszentrum Marburg as well as the hotel VILA VITA Rosenpark on this street.
Coming from Giessen, please beware of two fixed radar speed controls directly when entering the Marburg area and immediately before the exit Marburg - Bahnhofstraße exit. Please drive carefully and note the maximum speed of 100 kilometres per hour.
Hotel guests and conference participants staying at the hotel VILA VITA Rosenpark are welcome to park in the hotel's underground car park. Conference guests attending the Congresszentrum Marburg have access to the multi-story car park in Furthstraße.
Directions by train:
Please refer to the Deutsche Bahn website. The main train station in Marburg is Marburg HBF. It is within walking distance of the VILA VITA Rosenpark and our event venue.
Directions by plane:
The Congresszentrum Marburg is situated 90 kilometres (55.9 miles) from Frankfurt am Main airport (FRA), with a travel time of approx. 60–90 minutes.
Airport Taxi:
A sufficient number of taxis are available around the clock at both terminals of the Frankfurt airport. You may contact the hotel reception for a taxi back to the airport. Please note that not all taxis accept credit card payment in Germany—be prepared to pay cash. Travel time to/from Marburg is approx. 60–90 minutes, depending on traffic.
Airport Shuttle Service:
Organization of airport shuttles will be planned subject to early received flight data. More information will be sent to you in a separate communication.
Costs and Payment
Please note that the countries are responsible for obtaining all required compliance approvals/SpoDoM.
All costs related to hotel and conference packages for internal participants as well as customers will be cross-charged to your cost center after the event.
Overview of approx. costs that will be cross-charged to your cost center:
Business Package/Day € 52 (half day) / € 62 (full day)
Includes lunch, coffee breaks, and lecture rooms
Hotel Accommodation € 132
Single room/night at the VILA VITA Rosenpark
Travel Costs
Flights/individual transportation
Costs covered by Global Marketing—please include in your SpoDoM submission:
All costs for speakers and venue
Dinner October 24, 2017 € 120