On 2007/08/07 20:38 (GMT+0100) Alastair Campbell apparently typed:
You could take Jacob Neilsons finding that small fonts were the most
popular 'mistake' as proof that people don't know how to change their
settings
Or you could take it as proof that web designers as a group have perfect
one out of every three people have bad eye sight...
this was one of the very few things I actually learnt at university
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 9/08/2007 2:27:29 pm
On 2007/08/07 20:38 (GMT+0100) Alastair Campbell apparently typed:
You could take Jacob Neilsons finding that small fonts were the
On 9 Aug 2007, at 07:27, Felix Miata wrote:
On 2007/08/07 20:38 (GMT+0100) Alastair Campbell apparently typed:
You could take Jacob Neilsons finding that small fonts were the most
popular 'mistake' as proof that people don't know how to change their
settings
Or you could take it as proof
Tony Crockford wrote:
However, I do agree we shouldn't be preventing users adjusting font
sizes.
Such a prevention is only relevant for IE-users who don't know how to
use their browsers to prevent such prevention from taking effect.
Actually, most pages break in IE because the designer think
On Tuesday 07 August 2007 20:37, Rick Lecoat wrote:
And I always wonder how many people, particularly the older generation
who (without wanting to generalise too much) may not be quite as tech-
savvy as their kids, actually have no idea that the default text size
can even be adjusted, and
Rob Kirton wrote:
I was informed that they had a far better idea in the pipeline. I'm
not holding my breath...
As others suggested, full page zoom is likely to be it, but I hope they
include Opera's fit-to-width option, or something to the same effect.
Otherwise it won't be any better than
The best on-screen text-size/font-type for readability by human beings has
been much researched ever since computer screens were invented - it's
nothing to do with the application (e.g. browser).
Computer screens may have steadily improved (and so has the research) but
human evolution doesn't
Alastair
No doubt it was full page zoom. However I would have thought it
sufficiently an important feature to dedicated a couple of buttons in the
chrome bar to it, maybe a simple + and - (my actual sugestion to them). I
realise that screen real estate is precious, however I think we all agree
On Aug 8, 2007, at 6:45 PM, Rob Kirton wrote:
However I would have thought it
sufficiently an important feature to dedicated a couple of buttons
in the
chrome bar to it, maybe a simple + and - (my actual sugestion to
them).
What makes you think that there won't be 'a couple of buttons' ?
Stuart Foulstone wrote:
Computer screens may have steadily improved (and so has the research) but
human evolution doesn't change so fast that HCI research becomes outdated
in 13 years as you suggest.
Was the decision on default font size actually based on research, or was
it just what they
At 23:09 (London time), on 3/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
The only reasonable current assumption is that the users' defaults are
exactly as they want and/or need them to be. Assuming otherwise with anything
other than medium, 1em or 100% in body flowing through to main content
unaltered could
On 7 Aug 2007, at 11:37, Rick Lecoat wrote:
However, I always get a nagging doubt whenever this issue is raised.
Because whilst the argument for leaving default text sizing at 100% of
the browser's default size, and for not making assumptions about the
user's settings, is a good one, it does
Hi Rick,
And I always wonder how many people, particularly the older generation
who (without wanting to generalise too much) may not be quite as tech-
savvy as their kids, actually have no idea that the default text size
can even be adjusted, and possibly look at browser-default text and
On Aug 7, 2007, at 4:01 AM, David Dorward wrote:
This would be the older generation who tend towards having poor
eyesight and needing larger font sizes?
I've never seen a designer make body text bigger then the vendor
default, only smaller and harder to read.
clearleft dot com comes
At 12:13 (London time), on 7/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
does Jakob Nielsen's research count as creditable research?
Absolutely, of course.
I would like to draw your attention to his Alertbox column, where he
repeatedly states that tiny text is one of the worst design mistakes.
To quote from
At 12:01 (London time), on 7/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
However, I always get a nagging doubt whenever this issue is raised.
Because whilst the argument for leaving default text sizing at 100% of
the browser's default size, and for not making assumptions about the
user's settings, is a
It's all starting to sound to me like the only way to deal with all
the ifs and maybes is to set up our own options - use the browser
default size as a base and provide a switch for the user to set their
own preferences for your site in case they haven't fathomed the
mysteries of their
On 2007/08/07 12:54 (GMT+0100) Rick Lecoat apparently typed:
I just wondered how accurate the idea
that 'type that is smaller than the user's specified browser default is
too small to for that user to read' really is? Because we don't know
that they /did/ specify it. The browser vendor
On 2007/08/07 04:28 (GMT-0700) Tee G. Peng apparently typed:
On Aug 7, 2007, at 4:01 AM, David Dorward wrote:
I've never seen a designer make body text bigger then the vendor
default, only smaller and harder to read.
clearleft dot com comes to mind.
That's a Clagnut-styled page. In a
On Tue, August 7, 2007 11:24 pm, Felix Miata wrote:
Given that most browsers in most environments nominally default to
12pt,
and
that more people prefer 12pt than any other
size, any proposition that a
site
should be styled
such that most text is not the user's default size is
Rick Lecoat wrote:
What I'm asking is: Do we /know/ that the majority of people have their
default text set according to their requirements, or is it possible that
a large number of those people (particularly those people who will most
benefit from an accessibly designed site) are simply
At 14:24 (London time), on 7/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Actually there is no material difference in nominal browser default sizes.
http://lists.css-discuss.org/mailman/private/css-d/2006-January/057975.html
Very interesting link, thanks Felix.
--
Rick Lecoat
At 15:28 (London time), on 7/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
A few years ago, I taught a basic HTML class to employees of a large
*high-tech* company. Out of hundreds of students, only a handful had
any idea they could change their default text, or -- note -- anything
else that involved *using* the
On 2007/08/07 07:28 (GMT-0700) Hassan Schroeder apparently typed:
Claiming that the average user has configured any browser to her/his
personal taste is simply wishful thinking.
For any designer to think he can do better than the web browser makers who
made the default defaults equal to what
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 12:01:04 +0100, David Dorward wrote:
This would be the older generation who tend towards having poor eyesight and
needing
larger font sizes?
Sorry, David,
Your comment makes me smile.
Being retired, I assist at a computer training lab where students of
all adult ages
Rick Lecoat wrote:
Do we /know/ that the majority of people have their
default text set according to their requirements, or is it ...
they don't know that there's any other way?
From lots of usability testing (including with people with visual
impairments), and training people (not on
Alastair
I contacted the Firefox development team prior to release 2 and suggested
exactly what you have suggested, i.e. give the users an obvious prompt to
re-size text i.e. in the default browser menu. It saves on both the users
having to discover and remeber specialist key strokes and also
Rob Kirton wrote:
I was informed that they had a far better idea in the pipeline. I'm
not holding my breath...
Perhaps they were hinting at the full page zoom.
See http://urltea.com/15zr?full-page-zoom
(from http://planet.mozilla.org/ )
.Matthew Cruickshank
http://docvert.org Convert
On 2007/08/08 10:04 (GMT+1200) Matthew Cruickshank apparently typed:
Rob Kirton wrote:
I contacted the Firefox development team prior to release 2 and suggested
exactly what you have suggested, i.e. give the users an obvious prompt to
re-size text i.e. in the default browser menu. It saves
Tee G. Peng wrote:
On Aug 3, 2007, at 8:19 PM, Philippe Wittenbergh wrote:
Unless my copy is sick, the default is 9px
Mine is 12px. I don't remember I ever altered the fontsize in Opera
(9.22), as I only use this browser for testing.
Monitor Screen resolution: 1680 x 1050.
According to
On 3 Aug 2007, at 20:14:59, Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Nick Fitzsimons wrote:
(Still falls foul of a minimum font-size set in the browser
preferences, though.)
I wouldn't say it falls foul. If a user has set a minimum size,
then a page should heed that. It still *respects* minimum font-size
On 4 Aug 2007, at 11:55:42, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
Tee G. Peng wrote:
On Aug 3, 2007, at 8:19 PM, Philippe Wittenbergh wrote:
Unless my copy is sick, the default is 9px
Mine is 12px. I don't remember I ever altered the fontsize in
Opera (9.22), as I only use this browser for testing.
Nick Fitzsimons wrote:
2. I trashed my Opera preferences and installed the latest version,
and it has a minimum font size of 13px, which ties in with what I
remember seeing previously.
On a brand-new, never-run Windows XP SP 2 install (gotta love
Parallels): download and run Opera, minimum
On 4 Aug 2007, at 17:08:37, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
Just to check since there may also be another, so far pretty
undocumented, variable at play here:
- does anyone know if this 'minimum font size' value changes/differs
with screen-DPI in Opera?
It is a bit problematic if a browser has
On 2007/08/04 17:59 (GMT+0100) Nick Fitzsimons apparently typed:
On 4 Aug 2007, at 17:08:37, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
Just to check since there may also be another, so far pretty
undocumented, variable at play here:
- does anyone know if this 'minimum font size' value changes/differs
with
Tee G. Peng wrote:
I got an impression that setting 100.1% fontsize in body tag is a
better approach and have been doing so for many sites. Also, with the
100.1% in the body, I usually declare .85em (.95 for my site as I
love big fontsize :) ) for paragraph and lists. I also find that I
get a
On Fri, August 3, 2007 11:36 am, Rick Lecoat wrote:
At 10:13 (London time), on 3/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Client sent me this link, kind of suggesting that 62.5% is the better
approach because his client isn't happy that now the heading texts
are too small and the paragraph texts are too big
At 12:41 (London time), on 3/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Note also that it doesn't actually work
.../ snip /
IE ignores fractional components of percentages - or, as another way of
looking at it, only uses the first two decimal places of em based sizes -
which means that any subsequent use of
At 10:13 (London time), on 3/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I got an impression that setting 100.1% fontsize in body tag is a
better approach and have been doing so for many sites. Also, with the
100.1% in the body, I usually declare .85em (.95 for my site as I
love big fontsize :) ) for
On 3 Aug 2007, at 16:08:55, Rick Lecoat wrote:
At 12:41 (London time), on 3/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Note also that it doesn't actually work
.../ snip /
IE ignores fractional components of percentages - or, as another
way of
looking at it, only uses the first two decimal places of
Nick Fitzsimons wrote:
On 3 Aug 2007, at 16:08:55, Rick Lecoat wrote:
When dealing with this the other year, I came up with this solution
requiring an additional div, which happened to be there anyway:
body {
font-size: 125%; /* bump it up to 20px, assuming browser starts at
16px */
}
On 2007/08/03 21:14 (GMT+0100) Patrick H. Lauke apparently typed:
Nick Fitzsimons wrote:
On 3 Aug 2007, at 16:08:55, Rick Lecoat wrote:
When dealing with this the other year, I came up with this solution
requiring an additional div, which happened to be there anyway:
body {
At 20:14 (London time), on 3/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
(Still falls foul of a minimum font-size set in the browser preferences,
though.)
I wouldn't say it falls foul. If a user has set a minimum size, then a
page should heed that. It still *respects* minimum font-size settings.
Well,
On 2007/08/03 16:16 (GMT-0400) Rick Lecoat apparently typed:
So, in calculating your 'readable' text size as a proportion of the
(admittedly overlarge) default size, you make yourself vulnerable should
the user have already made their own compensation for the overly large
default size.
The
Hi Thanks for all the insightful feedback.
I have a very limited freedom on this particular project. A previous
version was done quite messy and it seemed time were waste quite a
lot, so I was brought in to fix, clean up the code, but the end-
client wanted the fontsize stays the same. The
Felix Miata wrote:
(Still falls foul of a minimum font-size set in the browser preferences,
though.)
I wouldn't say it falls foul. If a user has set a minimum size, then a
page should heed that. It still *respects* minimum font-size settings.
http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/Clagnut/eonsSS.html
Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
Ah, a misunderstanding of terminology. I thought minimum font-size
settings referred to things like Firefox's preference setting for
disallowing fonts, even when resized by the user, to fall below a
certain fixed size...while in this case y'all seem to mean the default
On Aug 4, 2007, at 10:45 AM, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
Back to Tee's problem with 'body {font-size: 62.5%}' etc in Opera/
Mac. It may be caused by the preset value for 'minimum font size'
in that browser/OS.
If someone can check the preset value for 'minimum font size' in an
unaltered
On Aug 3, 2007, at 8:19 PM, Philippe Wittenbergh wrote:
On Aug 4, 2007, at 10:45 AM, Gunlaug Sørtun wrote:
Back to Tee's problem with 'body {font-size: 62.5%}' etc in Opera/
Mac. It may be caused by the preset value for 'minimum font size'
in that browser/OS.
If someone can check the
49 matches
Mail list logo
