Bill Brown wrote:
> 1. If we can expect a user to know how to set their own default font
> size, can we (should we) expect them to know how to resize the font
> on a given page?
What the user knows is unknown to us, and what s/he does with what s/he
knows or doesn't know, is also unknown.
What the end-user _can_ do is - or at least should be - relatively well
known by all web designers, since that's pretty much limited to what
software and hardware allows for.
> 2. How do we handle fonts for which the same size is not the same
> size?
For now you can't, really. The 'font-size-adjust' property has pretty
limited support across browser-land.
> 3. What do YOU say to a client who asks you to make the default font
> size smaller?
You can say: "OK, but it may not work as you want at the visitor's end,
no matter what". If the client insists; just do it.
> 4. Is a font adjustment widget on a website an acceptable interim
> solution...that is until the day when the entire web development
> community agrees to to conform and make all websites with identical
> font sizes? 5. Are we correct in assuming that all users will always
> use a computer or a browser that allows them to adjust this? A
> browser on the same computer...dedicated to the same user? The
> university's computer center I worked in while in Africa springs to
> mind.
All browsers/OSes _can_ and _will_ affect font-size and a number of
other factors related to web design. What we don't/can't know is to what
degree and what - if any - the user intentionally or unintentionally
does set/reset/modify.
> I'm curious to know the thoughts of others on this. Certainly I can't
> be the only one who bemoans the fact that every design I envision
> (or that a client requests) must be built to look awesome even when
> the user has 32px Courier New as the default font?
Naa, it just has to work "well enough for comfort". Whether yours and
the end-user's "comfort zones" are close enough to make it look
"awesome", is of less importance as long as it "works".
The latest accessibility guidelines tells us to make sure our creations
"work for the end-user" when subjected to user-options like 200%
font-resizing. I think they mean "200% above default", so the smaller
the declared font-size actually is, the more resizing it'll have to take
before it "stops working for the end-user".
FWIW: I don't see any _real_ problems here, but that may be because I
have a philosophy that aims everything towards a flexible end-result
design-wise.
In most cases the "design" main job is to deliver "contents" and aid
"functionality", and if a design can't "flex" enough to do its job
reasonably well then the design is somewhat flawed, IMO.
Modifying a design to the point where it does its job reasonably well
under a certain amount of stress, makes sense in most cases. If a client
really, really, wants an "easily broken" design, then all we can do is
to make sure they know that that's what they'll end up serving their
visitors.
regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
