Text size problem in Web pages

[PatentGuy]

Tom, WYSIWYG is just as meaningless for printed output. Well, maybe not to that extent as html, but still, what you see in the book greatly depends on the lightning conditions, viewing angle and distance, page curvature, even paper type, which is impossible to emulate on screen when making design.

OK, that is a nit pic. If I do a brochure and have a printer make copies, the copies are WYSIWYG. 14pt is 14pt. Sure, there will be differences. Paper expands when moist, blah blah blah. One printer's output may look slightly different than another printer's output. Sure, users can take a printed copy and magnify it, scan it, whatever. But, the output remains essentially as designed. For all PRACTICAL purposes, printed matter is WYSIWYG.

If you are going to argue that printed output is not WYSIWYG, then please stop using that acronym entirely for any output. There will always be some insignifcant differences when transforming an input to an output. An example of what is WYSIWYG from the Xara website is below. What you say happens to printed outputs can also be said for pdf documents.

So why should we talk about web readers as exception? There are defined standard viewing settings for all browsers. If someone, by some reson changes them, he is definitely aware that some sites may not look correct. Right?
So it's a metter of the users choice - he always can make it look exactly as it was exported by Xtreme (WYSIWYG).

Web browsers are different than other output devices. I am unaware of a standard for browser viewer settings. In the real world, all the major browsers render pages differently. Heck, even IE6 and IE7 render pages differently, and they are made by the same company! But, I am aware of the WC3's web accessibility initiative.

Also, based on the comments from posters on the forum, many people are confused by the WYSInotWYG on their browsers and are trying to figure out how to make it WYSIWYG. That is, they want to make it look exactly as it was exported by Xtreme, but they can't do it.

[steve.ledger]

In my opinion, because WYSIWYouG may not be WYSIWtheyG, doesn't make Xtremes HTML export any less WYSIWYG.

WYSIWYG has never mean't that you get exactly and precisely what you see.

In the words of WIKI:
WYSIWYG (pronounced /ˈwɪziwɪg/[1] or /ˈwɪzɪwɪg/[2]), is an acronym for What You See Is What You Get, used in computing to describe a system in which content displayed during editing appears very similar to the final output.

In this context (and there should be no other) Xtremes HTML output is infact very 'wiziwig'.

I think what is important about Xtremes HTML export features, is being lost in this discussion due to, like so many other discussions, the negative being given far too much currency.

Xaras goals with this feature appear to be aimed quite perfectly at their target.
Quite simply, if it's not suitable for your use, don't use it.

[covoxer]

OK, that is a nit pic.

Sure! But what you say about html not being WYSIWYG is a nit pic too. I have just exaggerated it a bit.

For all PRACTICAL purposes, printed matter is WYSIWYG.

But of course. We just have to define what is a PRACTICAL purpose. From my point of view, the practical browsing means using default browser settings. Most people do so. Others do know what they are doing. So, yes, for the PRACTICAL purposes, html design CAN be WYSIWYG. No?

If you are going to argue that printed output is not WYSIWYG, then please stop using that acronym entirely for any output.

Ha! There is no ABSOLUTE WYSIWYG, that's what I'm trying to say. This even theoretically impossible because visual perception is strictly individual. So this term is relative. You can say that something is WYSIWYG if it gives you functionality oriented on gaining visual similarity between your working environment representation of your design, and the resulting product. This can never be 100% correct, but if software does the best to allow you to get it as close as possible it is WYSIWYG. So we can talk that one tool is more WYSIWYG than the other because none of them is perfect.

Web browsers are different than other output devices.

That's exactly what I say. They give user more possibilities to change the outlook of the design. Nevertheless, they are able to reproduce design correctly if user wishes so. I'm talking about fully functional modern browsers here.

I am unaware of a standard for browser viewer settings.

Which settings are you talking about? For example, in Opera, you can override the style of the document setting "User mode" or "Accessibility layout" etc. But there is "Author mode" which is obvious to be standard. These settings (as example) can screw the design but such settings do always have standard value. But if you are talking about zoom for example, then it does not change the design of a page if it is correctly implemented that is. All major browsers that have zoom capability, implement it correctly. There is also quirky font size setting in IE, which again does not influence the outlook of the Xtreme generated pages. You can also change the browser window size, which again does not influence the design. Finally you can disable JavaScript or disable images. But these are also enabled by default. One disabling images will less likely to expect any page to show any graphics correctly. As well as one disabling scripts perfectly knows that he will lose a lot of effects on most sites.
So please tell me, which setting in your browser can mess Xtreme exported page and you are not aware of it's standard value?

But, I am aware of the WC3's web accessibility initiative.

Yes, this is very good point. But as you understand, accessibility ideology does not allow any kind of anything even close to WYSIWYG. These are incompatible concepts unfortunately. So one have to chose. Our choice is obvious - the source input is a Xara design, which is by all means WYSIWYG and have not a smallest hint for accessibility. So how one would expect it to be converted to perfectly accessible html?

Also, based on the comments from posters on the forum

Please note, that people that are happy with result does not post here much, they just use it. If one have some problem, or don't understand something, then he's looking for an answer or support, and so he posts here. That's why, most postings here are questions or feature requests. And that's good! This allows us to find most demanded features and even some unnoticed bugs or issues. So that we can improve our product most effectively.

That is, they want to make it look exactly as it was exported by Xtreme, but they can't do it.

As I say from the beginning, nothing is perfect WYSIWYG. As you probably know from publishing, some unexperienced users may be also disappointed being not able to print [RGB:0,255,0] with CMYK printer preserving it's outlook as on monitor. Correct?
But the fact is, that results that both author and reader can achieve with Xtreme export are much more WYSIWYG then with any other software.

Finally, we are talking here about the final representation, which, by means of WYSIWYG is more a feature of the browser than the editor. While, probably, the most important part of the WYSIWYG is ideology of the editor. So, for example, you can create a PS in the Notepad, and get perfect print, which will be just as WYSIWYG as a print made from Xtreme (as you say, you can measure it with a ruler), but the process of creating such a design is not WYSIWYG. So actually, in this case you don't see what you'll get. And Xtreme is definitely one of the most powerfull tools by this means. It's interactive editing tools, it's speed make for it. Don't you agree?