Robert Koberg wrote:
>
> >
> > Consider using the unit pixel (px) instead of the unit point (pt) for font
> > sizes, as this (I believe) ensures the closest possible similarity
> > x-platform regarding font sizes.
>
> this is extremely wrong. An inch on a mac screen contains far less pixels
> (72?) than a windows pc screen (96?).
Where did you read this from? Mac and Windows have different default
gamma correction settings, but dpi is a property of screens, not a
software property (and both OS assume 72 dpi)
> > Consider providing styles for the body text, Times is unsuitable IMHO.
>
> Times is the default style. But yes, verdana is the best font for screen
> use. Serif fonts(fonts with tails, like Times New Roman) are not built
> for the screen.
Agreed. Tahoma (the windows default font for everything in the windows
like menubars and others) is another choice, but not sure about
availability on non-win32 systems.
> >
> > Consider limiting the width of the body text, for ergonomic reasons.
> >
>
> the user can do this by themselves by resizing the browser. What if they
> want narrower columns than you allow?
I agree.
> > Consider removing underlines from links in the sidebar and path (like you
> > have in the tabs), IMHO they are obviously links, and are easier to read
> > without the decoration, leave them on in the body text.
>
> The only thing I have to say on this is that most people know when you see a
> colored, underlined word or phrase that if clicked will take them somewhere
> else. But I would be open to usability studies :)
Exactly, let's keep the visual semantics coherent.
--
Stefano Mazzocchi One must still have chaos in oneself to be
able to give birth to a dancing star.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Friedrich Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
