Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 2007/09/07 10:31 (GMT+0100) Rick Lecoat apparently typed: On a side note, I can't help but notice that almost every site that has been cited as a reference for reasons why default text size should not be tampered with has a very minimal level of 'design styling'. For example: http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/2S/font.htm http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20020819.html http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/bigdefaults.html http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/essence.html Not everyone expects the same thing from the WWW, just as not every page is designed by a designer, just as not every page author places the same relative importance on appearance compared to content. Sometimes simplicity is the design, or part of the design. Those pages share one common purpose - conveying information - by people who believe the message is more important than the style. In every case, legibility will not be a problem for their visitors whose UA is reasonably configured. They would all convey the same message if styled as this: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/bigdefaultsb Now, I'm not going to dispute that these are very accessible sites from a type-size perspective. And, yes, they present their information without unnecessary distraction. But I can also guarantee that if I took a 'design' like that of any of those sites to a client, said client would be out the door and off to my competitors faster than I could say Accessibility. Their goals are message conveyance, not facilitating exit or entertaining visually. Navigation there is incidental or unnecessary. Distractions are definitely undesired. Since none are designs as the term is ordinarily used by designers, they aren't intended as and shouldn't be used as examples of design, unless the context is one of usability or accessibility discussion, or the client is a Joe Friday (just the facts, no nonsense) type. Maybe it's just coincidence. But none of those sites telling me that I can create perfectly nice-looking, commercially viable designs using default text sizes have actually put their design-money where their mouth is. That's inaccurate, though sites that profess and/or urge accessibility and/or usability commonly don't put their money where there mouth is either http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/access-lipservice . Simple examples: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Sites/dlviolin http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Sites/ksc/dancesrq.html http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Sites/ksc/ *That does not make the points they raise wrong*, but it means that it feels a bit like having my dress sense criticised by someone wearing a dirty t-shirt and torn sweat pants. I wouldn't equate clean and uncluttered pages to tattered and dirty clothes. Maybe more like criticizm for wearing inappropriate attire, like thongs or pasties, in places ordinary adults and children frequent, like shopping malls, or an evening gown to the beach, or work uniforms to a funeral. Design should fit purpose. Simple purpose, simple design. -- It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape. Chief Justice Joseph Story Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 10/9/07 (14:27) Felix said: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/access-lipservice . To be fair, Felix, I never said that the sites advocating default text sizes *should* be highly designed; I merely noted the irony that they were not, given that they were telling designers how to size type. The link above reminded me to raise one of your points again, because it struck me as counter-intuitive. No doubt I misinterpreted your reasoning, so perhaps you could help me out with a bit of clarification. The bit in question is this: Do you suppose most web authors are using little old computer displays to do their work 40 hours per week. Not likely, is it? No, as a group, they have fine equipment, typically using displays much larger than average, 21 or larger in many cases. So, their concept of how big is big enough is further skewed smaller than average. You appear to be saying that the larger screens used by designers tempt them to err on the smaller side when sizing type. But larger screens generally mean higher resolutions, with a given type size (say 14px) therefore appearing smaller on a bigger screen than it would on a smaller one. Eg. 12px type looks much bigger (physicallly) at 800x600 than it does at 1600x1200. Indeed, it's an argument that you have used yourself in favour of increasing type size; as screens evolve their native resolution increases and so the same (nominal) type specification looks progressively smaller with each generation of screen. All perfectly logical. *Except* that it seems to me that when something looks smaller, the natural tendency -- even for freaky, bizarre, bad-in-the-head designers -- is to make things larger to compensate. Surely, the logical follow-through of stating that designers use larger, higher-resolution screens than the average, should be that they are therefore more inclined to make their type larger? Yet you appear to argue the opposite. Can you clarify this point, because it's been bugging me. Cheers. -- Rick Lecoat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 2007/09/10 17:03 (GMT+0100) Rick Lecoat apparently typed: On 10/9/07 (14:27) Felix said: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/access-lipservice . To be fair, Felix, I never said that the sites advocating default text sizes *should* be highly designed; I merely noted the irony that they were not, given that they were telling designers how to size type. . The link above reminded me to raise one of your points again, because it struck me as counter-intuitive. No doubt I misinterpreted your reasoning, so perhaps you could help me out with a bit of clarification. The bit in question is this: Do you suppose most web authors are using little old computer displays to do their work 40 hours per week. Not likely, is it? No, as a group, they have fine equipment, typically using displays much larger than average, 21 or larger in many cases. So, their concept of how big is big enough is further skewed smaller than average. You appear to be saying that the larger screens used by designers tempt them to err on the smaller side when sizing type. But larger screens generally mean higher resolutions, with a given type size (say 14px) therefore appearing smaller on a bigger screen than it would on a smaller one. Eg. 12px type looks much bigger (physicallly) at 800x600 than it does at 1600x1200. Larger LCD screens do indeed tend to be accompanied by higher actual DPI, and thus smaller objects at any given px size. However, it is not a given that the more astute designers are using LCD displays. They do save desktop space. They do save energy. And they do currently dominate store shelf space. However, they don't play nice for those who wish to use them at their non-native resolution. Their native resolution usually is the highest resolution they offer. Higher is impossible. Picture quality is greatly reduced when run lower. In order to test a design properly one must test under a wide range of conditions. One of these conditions is widely considered to be screen resolution. A designer from such a class has to choose between using multiple displays of varying resolution (LCD), and using a single display equally capable of varying resolutions (CRT). I have to speculate that a lot of designers who aren't new to the business, maybe most, are still using CRTs, and avoiding a switch to LCD for this reason. Indeed, it's an argument that you have used yourself in favour of increasing type size; as screens evolve their native resolution increases and so the same (nominal) type specification looks progressively smaller with each generation of screen. All perfectly logical. *Except* that it seems to me that when something looks smaller, the natural tendency -- even for freaky, bizarre, bad-in-the-head designers -- is to make things larger to compensate. I think most resist Surely, the logical follow-through of stating that designers use larger, higher-resolution screens than the average, should be that they are therefore more inclined to make their type larger? Yet you appear to argue the opposite. I believe most designers at some level feel it necessary or at least desirable to at least think they see from the same perspective as average users. A part of doing that is using the resolution visitors most often use, in recent years, 1024x768, or as close as possible without making the whole OS UI seem gigantic to themselves. I hypothecate going beyond 1280x960/1024 is something most shy away from, and that fewer choose to go beyond 1600x1200, at least not if they don't have at least a nominal 21 (19 actual) CRT. The net result is a belief that the average designer who still uses a CRT is not running a real DPI materially higher, but instead is more likely to be running roughly the same or less, in effect, using his bigger display to make things easier on the eyes by being bigger. OTOH, those who are indeed running a higher real DPI, whether LCD or CRT, are probably quite comfortable with their choices, as with with things small generally, like other detail-oriented people. Can you clarify this point, because it's been bugging me. Cheers. Remember, most of the forgoing is conjecture and empirical observations. I've seen no scientifically acquired data to either support or contradict most of it. If you take a study of http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/dpi and http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Font/fonts-pt2px-tabled you might reach similar conclusions. You may also notice that desktop displays in stock in stores offer native resolutions that tend not to deviate very widely from the 90-96 range that doz defaults to assuming, while laptops sport considerably less, roughly equivalent to the difference between 120 DPI that they tend to have been set to by their manufacturers, and 96. -- It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 7 Sep 2007, at 00:39, Felix Miata wrote: On 2007/09/06 20:42 (GMT+0100) Tony Crockford apparently typed: so, what happens if a user has their default font set larger than the browser default in this case? Can't happen. Browser default == user default. :-p You *know* I meant manufacturer browser default... so what happens if a user has altered the browser default to a larger size. does body: 100% mean that all other measurements are then derived from the users, larger font setting? if so am I safe setting body: 100% and then setting text elements using ems? if i check in a range of sizes (IE smallest - IE largest) on a range of screens and the design doesn't break - is that okay? I'm sure it is. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 7/9/07 (07:50) Tony said: I've been using CSS for seven years or more and I'm trying to adopt best practice in a pragmatic way, which means I can't deliver my clients sites with excessively large fonts - they are trying to design interfaces that look attractive and create income for their business. I'm trying to ensure the sites they get are as accessible as possible, we have to meet somewhere in the middle. On a side note, I can't help but notice that almost every site that has been cited as a reference for reasons why default text size should not be tampered with has a very minimal level of 'design styling'. For example: http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/2S/font.htm http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20020819.html http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/bigdefaults.html http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/essence.html Now, I'm not going to dispute that these are very accessible sites from a type-size perspective. And, yes, they present their information without unnecessary distraction. But I can also guarantee that if I took a 'design' like that of any of those sites to a client, said client would be out the door and off to my competitors faster than I could say Accessibility. Maybe it's just coincidence. But none of those sites telling me that I can create perfectly nice-looking, commercially viable designs using default text sizes have actually put their design-money where their mouth is. *That does not make the points they raise wrong*, but it means that it feels a bit like having my dress sense criticised by someone wearing a dirty t-shirt and torn sweat pants. -- Rick Lecoat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 07-Sep-07, at 3:01 PM, Rick Lecoat wrote: On 7/9/07 (07:50) Tony said: I've been using CSS for seven years or more and I'm trying to adopt best practice in a pragmatic way, which means I can't deliver my clients sites with excessively large fonts - they are trying to design interfaces that look attractive and create income for their business. I'm trying to ensure the sites they get are as accessible as possible, we have to meet somewhere in the middle. I have been reluctant to add anything to this discussion, because I suspect I do not understand a lot of what is happening in terms of the usability studies; I also must admit that the DPI comparisons have confused me. The first point I'd like to bring up, is that, as a 'web-designer', one is often asked to create a website, not necessarily for the / users/ of the afore-mentioned site, but for the /client/. There are a number of ramifications that arise out of this situation, one of the first I suppose is that there is a divergence between what would be best for the users, and what one has been asked to do. I'm sure many of us have been in this situation - I may know that there is a large body of information that suggests that one /should/ design using default text-sizes as a base - but no amount of convincing is going to work with the client. Where there are significant amounts of money involved, I don't know whether I have the luxury - definitely not at present - to say 'I'm sorry, I can't work with you'. But none of those sites telling me that I can create perfectly nice- looking, commercially viable designs using default text sizes have actually put their design-money where their mouth is. Try the Chelsea Creek Studio: http://chelseacreekstudio.com/ I particularly like this one: http://chelseacreekstudio.com/ca/site/gustave/index.html It is possible, and I don't see why it shouldn't be possible to work with larger text-sizes and yet arrive at an aesthetic solution. In summary, to my somewhat incoherent soliloquy: - One cannot always design to accepted best practices (in this case, default text sizes), where ones autonomy is restricted - Designing using these best practices does not need to result in a 'minimal level of design styling', or an un-aesthetic solution Do forgive me if I have missed the point completely, I frequently do. Best, - Rahul. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 7/9/07 (11:50) Rahul said: Try the Chelsea Creek Studio: http://chelseacreekstudio.com/ I particularly like this one: http://chelseacreekstudio.com/ca/site/gustave/index.html Yes, both fine designs. (I was simply pulling my example sites from the list of those that had been proffered up-thread as information sources about default sizes being best). It is possible, and I don't see why it shouldn't be possible to work with larger text-sizes and yet arrive at an aesthetic solution. I agree that it should be (and clearly is) possible to create reasonably aesthetically pleasing [1] designs using default text sizes. I found it ironic, however, that the sites telling me to use default sizes failed so spectacularly to provide an aesthetically pleasing solution [2] themselves. Do forgive me if I have missed the point completely No, you hit it bang on I think. Thanks for your views! -- Rick Lecoat [1] A very subjective judgement call, of course. [2] Again, that's subjective. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 7 Sep 2007, at 00:03, Felix Miata wrote: Don't what? Don't understand your instruction? Don't believe your instruction? Don't let you try to instruct them? Don't look at the good example sites you offer them? ? ? ? yes to all of those. most real world clients I am aware of are being driven by different desires than accessibility. I have been an accessibility evangalist for many years, but the real world is a wrld compromise and conformity. they believe what they want to believe, the see what they see and what feels right to them is what they want. Do they understand that it's good business to treat customers right, which on the WWW means big, easy-to-read text? http://www.lighthouse.org/accessibility/top-10/ I have trouble reading that site. first off, with a window set to 1024x768 on my 30 dell on OS X this line: 6. The fastest growing market segment is Americans age 50+. In fact, every seven is over seven inches long, which makes it hard to scan - each word becomes discrete letters if you understand me... if I remove my reading glasses, the text is so large and contrasty that I get double vision blurring. my glasses correct my astigmatism. so in my case I want text that's readable with my glasses on, not text sized so large I can't scan it. I wonder how many of these studies took into account that most web users with poor vision, use some means of corrective device? body {font-size: medium !important;} That simplicity cannot work on sites where fonts are set on particular elements, or via class ids or names. Anything much beyond that one rule is beyond the capability of any besides web design professionals accustomed to routine use of CSS. I've been using CSS for seven years or more and I'm trying to adopt best practice in a pragmatic way, which means I can't deliver my clients sites with excessively large fonts - they are trying to design interfaces that look attractive and create income for their business. I'm trying to ensure the sites they get are as accessible as possible, we have to meet somewhere in the middle. and talking of UI, why are we fighting for 16px fonts in browsers when most UI text is much smaller? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On Fri, September 7, 2007 11:50 am, Rahul Gonsalves wrote: Try the Chelsea Creek Studio: http://chelseacreekstudio.com/ The text size may be OK but the lack of contast in the page header definitely fails accessibilty standards. Stuart *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 7/9/07 (07:50) Tony said: and talking of UI, why are we fighting for 16px fonts in browsers when most UI text is much smaller? I believe that the reasoning here draws a distinction between UI elements and 'content'. UI elements become familiar through their unchanging nature (every time I pull down the Image menu in photoshop it looks the same as last time, unless I've upgrade photoshop inbetween). Content, by contrast, is by nature unfamiliar. The more familiar the text in question, the less help the reader requires. -- Rick Lecoat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
Hi Rick, To restate my earlier point (hopefully with greater clarity): No matter what you do, people will look at a page and (probably) either say the type is too big or the type is too small. In either case they can adjust it accordingly, except that those who want to make it smaller (eg. those without accessibility issues) are *perhaps* less likely to know how to. And *perhaps* that's one argument for designing with smaller type as a baseline. I would like to point out that text in a web page is usually not there merely for a design purpose but for communicating some information. That said, it surely is more aggravating for a reader to first have to make a text readable before being able to access some information. This means, a bigger initial text size makes reading or scanning a page for information easier and is more polite towards the reader. Someone who prefers small text size will be able to read bigger text whereas someone who prefers bigger text will not be able to read small text. Cheers, jens -- Jens Brueckmann http://www.yalf.de *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
Jixor - Stephen I wrote: Sorry, the point I'm making is why use 100 and 102, is there any visible difference? Normally not, and 100% is the intended size. The reason for the slightly more than 100% for h5 is that whatever the size 102% is calculated from the h5 should end up _as large as or 1px larger_ than the paragraphs (or whatever) its heading. I would have thought the user would need to have a massive default font size to see any. However I have noticed myself that the way the browsers tend to size fonts can be quite strange. Sometimes a change of 5% in scaling can result in the same font ending up the same size however notably wider. Exactly. The particular layout it's used in don't have 100% font-size for all containers all the way down the chain, and the tip-over changes when sized down font-size on containers are subjected to resizing and used as base for font-size on text-carrying elements - sometimes splitting between 100% and 102%. My entire site is used as a test-bed. I have hundreds of those hardly ever noticeable effects baked in on my own site as part of continuous testing of browsers, in the knowledge that browsers don't handle minute differences exactly the same way. The differences _I_ can then observe, will not disturb or distract a visitor - unless that visitor (maybe a web designer) has particular interests in why something looks slightly different in two browsers under certain conditions. I have received a few comments about such subtle differences over the years, from fellow designers assuming I've gotten my values wrong. That's great, as they are either confirming my own observations, or informing me about something I haven't observed yet in a particular browser under certain conditions. All good to know while I try to expand my knowledge on how User Agents handle my work. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On Sep 5, 2007, at 10:09 PM, Dean Edridge wrote: By giving users: body{font-size:100%;} you are doing the best you can at your end, and It's up to them to ensure they have correctly configured their browser to suit their eyesight or preferences. I'd tend to agree with those that using the browser defaults as the base font size would be ideal. Unfortunately we're dealing with years of legacy web pages where the vast majority of fonts have been sized down already (in my own unscientific study, over 90% of the sites I sampled had the base p set to give an equivalent of 12-13 pixels.) The side-effect of this is that if you use 100%, the font-size on your site will be much larger than on every other site the viewer visits. It's not rocket science to see that if the New York Times (base body 84.5%), Google (base body 12px), and Yahoo (base body 84.5%) all use smaller base font sizes, using 100% will result in fonts that look much larger than normal. This is not a discussion of philosophy but of practicality. I want my visitors to be able to resize the text to fit their needs, but I also want my site to adhere to a widely accepted standard, which is *not* 16px. Tim Swan -- Timothy Swan Designer/Webmaster support InforME *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 6/9/07 (09:08) Jens said: I would like to point out that text in a web page is usually not there merely for a design purpose but for communicating some information. No arguments here. If the consensus amongst the visiting user-base is that the information is lost or hard to access on account of small text sizes then the design has certainly failed in its job. That said, it surely is more aggravating for a reader to first have to make a text readable before being able to access some information. This means, a bigger initial text size makes reading or scanning a page for information easier and is more polite towards the reader. Someone who prefers small text size will be able to read bigger text whereas someone who prefers bigger text will not be able to read small text. Again, a perfectly valid point. However, to mix my own argument into yours (if I may)... Someone who prefers small text size will be able to read bigger text... but may not know how to reduce it to their preferred size. Whereas someone who prefers bigger text will not be able to read small text... but is perhaps more likely to be aware of how to enlarge it to suit their needs. But now I'm repeating myself, so I think I'll shut up for a while (apart from a couple of other replies). Blimey, this turned into quite a thread. But then the font sizing thing always evokes passionate reactions I guess. -- Rick Lecoat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 5/9/07 (01:18) Felix said: I believe I've already explained up thread that they do, in _web_designers_as_a_group_ having a personal skew/bias/preference in favor of things small generally, part of the nature of the kind of detail-oriented people who gravitate into web design. You mentioned that before, along with the fact that you have no actual hard evidence of it but that the statement is born out of your own observations. Nevertheless, you want me to accept it as part of your argument. That's fine, I have no problem with that, and in fact I'm fairly sure that your point is true. When I made the observation that I do not believe that most people's default settings are *chosen* but just happen to be whatever came out of the box, that was also based upon my own observations and anecdotal evidence. However, you dismiss my opinion/personal experience with glib links to 'Proof By Assertion' and seemingly just refuse to even consider the notion. You make some good points in your posts, Felix, and in fact I find myself coming around to the 100% default camp (after all, I never started this thread with any axe to grind) but I find it difficult to give your arguments the credit that they are perhaps due whilst you won't permit others the same debating strategies that you employ yourself. -- Rick Lecoat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 2007/09/06 09:13 (GMT-0400) Timothy Swan apparently typed: I'd tend to agree with those that using the browser defaults as the base font size would be ideal. Unfortunately we're dealing with years of legacy web pages where the vast majority of fonts have been sized down already (in my own unscientific study, over 90% of the sites I sampled had the base p set to give an equivalent of 12-13 pixels.) I disagree. I think 90% applies to sites that size to any degree below 100%, with a significant enough portion sizing at 10px and 11px that the 12px-13px group is significantly less than 90%. More importantly, because of the dropping average display DPI, 12-13px isn't as big as it used to be. Do you think making text even smaller than yesteryear is the right thing for a modern, accessible, usable page to do? The side-effect of this is that if you use 100%, the font-size on your site will be much larger than on every other site the viewer visits. This is bad why? Larger, yes. Much larger, debatable. How do you know those sites aren't getting back button treatment, or unanswered complaints? It's not rocket science to see that if the New York Times (base body 84.5%), Google (base body 12px), and Yahoo (base body 84.5%) all use smaller base font sizes, using 100% will result in fonts that look much larger than normal. Maybe to most people, but what about to people who have discovered zoom and minimum font size? To them, those/most sites will typically have problems with overlapping or hidden text, along with nearly right or right sized text in containers constraining them to too narrow line lengths. This is not a discussion of philosophy but of practicality. I want my visitors to be able to resize the text to fit their needs, but I also want my site to adhere to a widely accepted standard, which is *not* 16px. That widely accepted standard is becoming one of broken pages, the result of zoom and minimum font size. Do you want yours classified among them, or differentiated among elite? -- It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape. Chief Justice Joseph Story Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
Blimey, this turned into quite a thread. But then the font sizing thing always evokes passionate reactions I guess. I do admit the first time I read your initial post I cringed and screamed AAARGGGHLXX! ;-) Someone who prefers small text size will be able to read bigger text... but may not know how to reduce it to their preferred size. Whereas someone who prefers bigger text will not be able to read small text... but is perhaps more likely to be aware of how to enlarge it to suit their needs. Irrespective of your assumption about who would be more capable of resizing text I think you somehow missed my point. I will try and make myself more comprehendible. Given that the primary aim of a web page is to communicate information - here in the form of text. Larger text allows everybody to access this information instantly, whereas smaller text establishes a barrier for those, who are not able to read small text. People who prefer smaller text might not like your page with large text, but they can instantly access your information. People who require larger text can not instantly access information on a page with small text size. In short, text size is a question of preference versus requirement. Cheers, jens -- Jens Brueckmann http://www.yalf.de *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 6/9/07 (16:41) Jens said: I do admit the first time I read your initial post I cringed and screamed AAARGGGHLXX! ;-) Yeah, fair enough, and I knew that many would share your reaction. But the question in the original post was one that I really had divided opinions about and wanted to hear other people's thoughts. the ensuing melee has perhaps not convinced me entirely either way, but has nudged me in one direction over another, so it's been valid (for me at least), and thank you to all who participated. Irrespective of your assumption about who would be more capable of resizing text I think you somehow missed my point. No, I understood you. I just wanted to try throwing it back with a bit of personal spin and see what you made of it. When you say: People who require larger text can not instantly access information on a page with small text size I don't particularly disagree with you. I would, however, be /very/ interested to find out how many of the people who require 'larger' text (eg. people who find the cited 'small-text' sites -- yahoo, NY Times, etc -- hard to read) already have their browsers set up to make the necessary corrections, either by setting a large minimum font size, or by clicking the 'Ignore font sizes set by page' box (that's just an IE thing I think). I think that information would be enlightening. The issue of whether an unchanged default setting, except when left as it is by deliberate choice, should be considered a 'user preference' in the context of most people have their preferred size set to 16px has not really been decided for me, but maybe it's like trying to prove a negative. Certainly plenty of others on this list are satisfied that it should be considered so in the absence of evidence to the contrary, and maybe I'll have to leave it at that. Or start saving up to commission a massive study. Nah. -- Rick Lecoat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 6 Sep 2007, at 17:39, Rick Lecoat wrote: The issue of whether an unchanged default setting, except when left as it is by deliberate choice, should be considered a 'user preference' in the context of most people have their preferred size set to 16px has not really been decided for me, but maybe it's like trying to prove a negative. default settings aren't user preferences, they are manufacturer preferences. only when a user changes those defaults do they become the preference of the user. surely? and I'm not just referring to browsers, I'm talking generally. I believe we're talking this thing round in circles, but if *most* users leave the defaults as they are and most designers have set the fonts on most sites smaller than the defaults then the norm for *most* users is smaller than default. we're in a catch 22 as I see it. if the browser manufacturers make the defaults smaller, then a lot of web sites break. If you don't adjust the font size at all it looks bigger than expected to *most* users - and if the client is looking at their site compared to everyone else they also expect it to look similar, not have massive fonts. perhaps the wise and good on his list would make it blindingly obvious which is the best and most pragmatic way to set font-size to conform to the norm - i.e. smaller than the default *without* messing up the minority of web users who have changed the defaults in their browser. which I think is the crux of the matter, since in the absence of hard evidence all our feelings on who has set what and what they think to the norm is pointless. I'd like a foolproof way of pleasing my client, without upsetting anyone. is there a way? ;) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On Sep 6, 2007, at 11:43 AM, Felix Miata wrote: How do you know those sites aren't getting back button treatment, or unanswered complaints? I work on a site that gets over a million page views per month. We set our base font size, using percentages, to be approximately 13 pixels. We had exactly 3 complaints last year, two of them from people who had IE text display set to Smaller. Yes, there may have been more people that would have liked it to be larger, but unless we hear from them I wouldn't know that. It's not rocket science to see that if the New York Times (base body 84.5%), Google (base body 12px), and Yahoo (base body 84.5%) all use smaller base font sizes, using 100% will result in fonts that look much larger than normal. Maybe to most people, but what about to people who have discovered zoom and minimum font size? To them, those/most sites will typically have problems with overlapping or hidden text, along with nearly right or right sized text in containers constraining them to too narrow line lengths. If the text containers are elastic and resize as the text is resized, this shouldn't be a major problem. You're arguing that people should use the browser defaults as the base; I'm arguing that long ago it was determined by *most* website designers that 16 pixels was too large (I'm *not* arguing whether that was the correct decision.) If you use 100% today, and people have already adjusted their browsers for adequate display (yes, usually adjusting the size up) your page will have freakishly large type. I *wish* there was a better standard, but there simply isn't, except in wishful thinking. Tim -- Timothy Swan Designer/Webmaster support InforME *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 6/9/07 (17:58) Tony said: we're in a catch 22 as I see it. if the browser manufacturers make the defaults smaller, then a lot of web sites break. If you don't adjust the font size at all it looks bigger than expected to *most* users - and if the client is looking at their site compared to everyone else they also expect it to look similar, not have massive fonts. perhaps the wise and good on his list would make it blindingly obvious which is the best and most pragmatic way to set font-size to conform to the norm - i.e. smaller than the default *without* messing up the minority of web users who have changed the defaults in their browser. which I think is the crux of the matter, since in the absence of hard evidence all our feelings on who has set what and what they think to the norm is pointless. I'd like a foolproof way of pleasing my client, without upsetting anyone. is there a way? Tony, next time I think I'll get you to write my original post. Clarity. I like clarity. ;-) -- Rick Lecoat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On Thu, September 6, 2007 2:13 pm, Timothy Swan wrote: On Sep 5, 2007, at 10:09 PM, Dean Edridge wrote: By giving users: body{font-size:100%;} you are doing the best you can at your end, and It's up to them to ensure they have correctly configured their browser to suit their eyesight or preferences. I'd tend to agree with those that using the browser defaults as the base font size would be ideal. Unfortunately we're dealing with years of legacy web pages where the vast majority of fonts have been sized down already (in my own unscientific study, over 90% of the sites I sampled had the base p set to give an equivalent of 12-13 pixels.) Probably the same 90% who are not designing Web standards compliant. This however is the Web Standards Group (not the Microsoft support group) and we shopuld be designing to those standards. It's not rocket science to see that if the New York Times (base body 84.5%), Google (base body 12px), and Yahoo (base body 84.5%) all use smaller base font sizes, using 100% will result in fonts that look much larger than normal. This is not a discussion of philosophy but of practicality. I want my visitors to be able to resize the text to fit their needs, but I also want my site to adhere to a widely accepted standard, which is *not* 16px. 12pt IS the widely accepted standard - it is the result of years of research into Human Computer Interaction costing multi-millions in usability testing investment by screen manufacturers and software development companies - that's why it's chosen as the default. Amother statistic that seems to be unavailable is the vast numbers of users who dont know how to change text size - and who subsequently go around muttering I wish those bleedin' idiots would make the text bigger. Tim Swan -- Timothy Swan Designer/Webmaster support InforME *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 2007/09/06 17:58 (GMT+0100) Tony Crockford apparently typed: If you don't adjust the font size at all it looks bigger than expected to *most* users This is only a problem if you choose to regard it as a problem. Neither is what users want and expect necessarily the same thing. Being part of a majority doesn't not necessarily make you or the majority right. - and if the client is looking at their site compared to everyone else they also expect it to look similar, not have massive fonts. You're the expert. Your clientele is a limited universe you can try to educate. You could offer it a look at some authoritative sites that both exhibit respect and recommend respect. -- It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape. Chief Justice Joseph Story Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 2007/09/06 13:08 (GMT-0400) Timothy Swan apparently typed: If the text containers are elastic and resize as the text is resized, this shouldn't be a major problem. The comparison was made to most other sites. Most other sites are neither standards compliant nor elastic. You're arguing that people should use the browser defaults as the base; I'm arguing that long ago Long ago is a point I've made upthread more than one, which seems to get ignored each time it was determined by *most* website designers Contrary to the determinations of the computer operating system designers and web browser designers. that 16 pixels was too large (I'm *not* arguing whether that was the correct decision.) Roughly a decade ago. In the meantime, the average size of a px has been decreasing, as a consequence of the average increase in display DPI. It may have been correct for the time, but it's gone stale, particularly since the variance has also grown. There were no touchscreens or handhelds or 11 WXGA laptops then, nor 30 LCDs. Then as now, you don't know how big 16px is except for the 16px right in front of your face. -- It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape. Chief Justice Joseph Story Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 6 Sep 2007, at 18:30, Felix Miata wrote: On 2007/09/06 17:58 (GMT+0100) Tony Crockford apparently typed: - and if the client is looking at their site compared to everyone else they also expect it to look similar, not have massive fonts. You're the expert. Your clientele is a limited universe you can try to educate. You could offer it a look at some authoritative sites that both exhibit respect and recommend respect. but sadly, in my world, they don't. The majority is what they want to *be* like. I'm still looking for a best practice solution to reducing font size to the *norm* and not causing problems when I do so. have you any suggestions on that front? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
Tony Crockford wrote: I'm still looking for a best practice solution to reducing font size to the *norm* and not causing problems when I do so. have you any suggestions on that front? in web design and the way the viewer can set font limits, i don't think there is a *norm*. setting your font size to 100% in the body and then using ems or percentages to shrink font size is what i would recommend. do a test page for your client and then show them how the user can control the fonts in their browser and maybe they will understand how unstable web design really is. don't forget to show them the test page at different resolutions as well. then you and your client can sit down and talk about what would be best for them. my 2 cents. dwain -- Dwain Alford http://www.alford-design-group.com The artist may use any form which his expression demands; for his inner impulse must find suitable expression. Kandinsky *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 6 Sep 2007, at 20:32, dwain wrote: Tony Crockford wrote: I'm still looking for a best practice solution to reducing font size to the *norm* and not causing problems when I do so. have you any suggestions on that front? in web design and the way the viewer can set font limits, i don't think there is a *norm*. setting your font size to 100% in the body and then using ems or percentages to shrink font size is what i would recommend. That's what I've been doing. what are the downsides of this approach? who do they affect? how are they affected. (I'm slightly hazy on the whole user set browser defaults thing, there seem to be a number of options including application preferences and user stylesheets. and a combination of minimum fonts, ignore all fonts and larger/smaller text settings in IE) so, what happens if a user has their default font set larger than the browser default in this case? conversely what happens if they have set their default smaller than the manufacturer shipped settings? Maybe Felix explained it, but I didn't understand it, can someone just make it simple, so I can judge the merit of this pragmatism? tia *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
Tony Crockford wrote: I'm still looking for a best practice solution to reducing font size to the *norm* and not causing problems when I do so. The most cross-browser reliable method is to declare 'font-size: 100%' as base, and size *down* _only_ on the text-carrying elements. This approach let all container-elements inherit the base directly, which means 100% = 1em = default = 'chosen or unchosen user preferences' everywhere but on text. This will in most cases make it a lot easier to size all elements to line up as intended relative to all others even when 'em', '%' and 'px' is used in the element-size mix, than if each of the container-elements rely on intermediate deviations from base font-size. An added advantage is that text doesn't get unintentionally and unnecessarily blown up in some browsers, because of how they apply 'minimum font size'. Call it browser-bugs or whatever, but too many sites break under the slightest stress simply because they adjust font-size _up_ from base (which usually is body) rather than down. Once your font-size issue is solved in a way that makes it technically able to take font-resizing well, then there's not much more you can do. The need for font-resizing and how to achieve it, is for the end user to decide on and solve, and your responsibility ends once you have made absolutely sure _your_ solution doesn't prevent _them_ from using _their_ software to resize. The only way to make sure your method is not causing any unsolvable problems at the user-end, is to test across browsers and browser-options until breaking-point and a bit beyond. You should ideally know more about how your solution behaves and how much stress it can take, than any end user. However, there's no way you can prevent a user from breaking your well-prepared solution by adding a particularly nasty user-stylesheet, so you can quietly limit your testing to the more ordinary, selectable, browser-options. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
Tony Crockford wrote: what are the downsides of this approach? the down side is the user controls your font sizes. in ie i usually use the medium setting then check the largest setting to make sure the design doesn't break. there are some who set 12 as their minimum and god knows what for a maximum font size. then others set a minimum of 9. these are just some of the joys of being a web developer/designer. who do they affect? how are they affected. everybody is effected and it depends on their font size settings in there browser. also screen resolution plays a part in font sizes as well. 800x600 fonts and images are huge while 1280x800 on my laptop seems normal to me now. i still run across sites that have small font sizes for their content. once you start increasing the font size to where you can read it the design usually falls apart, especially if the designer used table for layout. (I'm slightly hazy on the whole user set browser defaults thing, there seem to be a number of options including application preferences and user stylesheets. and a combination of minimum fonts, ignore all fonts and larger/smaller text settings in IE) so, what happens if a user has their default font set larger than the browser default in this case? then the fonts are larger. conversely what happens if they have set their default smaller than the manufacturer shipped settings? then the fonts are smaller. Maybe Felix explained it, but I didn't understand it, can someone just make it simple, so I can judge the merit of this pragmatism? i guess the best practice *norm* would be to set the font size in the body at 100% and scale up or down from there using css. you can make yourself sick if you worry about this too much. all you can do is decide on how you want your font size to look with respect to default browser settings and pray that someone out there doesn't set their font settings to 5 or worse yet 1; but then again, that's their choice and that was one of the hardest things for me to overcome; i can make it look good on my computer, but i have no control over the browser settings other viewers of my sites set for themselves. good luck, dwain -- Dwain Alford http://www.alford-design-group.com The artist may use any form which his expression demands; for his inner impulse must find suitable expression. Kandinsky *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 2007/09/06 20:16 (GMT+0100) Tony Crockford apparently typed: On 6 Sep 2007, at 18:30, Felix Miata wrote: You're the expert. Your clientele is a limited universe you can try to educate. You could offer it a look at some authoritative sites that both exhibit respect and recommend respect. but sadly, in my world, they don't. Don't what? Don't understand your instruction? Don't believe your instruction? Don't let you try to instruct them? Don't look at the good example sites you offer them? ? ? ? The majority is what they want to *be* like. The majority always gets it right, right? Inertia is easy to overcome, right? Do they understand that it's good business to treat customers right, which on the WWW means big, easy-to-read text? http://www.lighthouse.org/accessibility/top-10/ I'm still looking for a best practice solution to reducing font size to the *norm* and not causing problems when I do so. have you any suggestions on that front? If you want an answer based upon experience, it can't really come from here, because I only do 100% basing, and defensive training. The least intrusive method is building the site such that it can continue to nicely function no matter what size is set on body, which in essence is the functionally effective application of both different defaults than yours, and zooming. (It's also a byproduct of good liquid/fluid/flexible design.) By controlling the whole thing solely by the size set on body, users also get the benefit that a simple user stylesheet can return your site to using their default size. The whole stylesheet: body {font-size: medium !important;} That simplicity cannot work on sites where fonts are set on particular elements, or via class ids or names. Anything much beyond that one rule is beyond the capability of any besides web design professionals accustomed to routine use of CSS. -- It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape. Chief Justice Joseph Story Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 2007/09/06 20:42 (GMT+0100) Tony Crockford apparently typed: I'm slightly hazy on the whole user set browser defaults thing, there seem to be a number of options including application preferences and user stylesheets. and a combination of minimum fonts, ignore all fonts and larger/smaller text settings in IE The defaults are responsible for the size and family the browser uses when neither user nor site applies CSS to elements affected by those defaults, and presentational font markup is not employed on those elements. IE's font smallest/smaller/medium/larger/largest selector in effect is one (crude and defective) mechanism that sets its default (the other one is the system DPI selection in desktop settings). It's defective in that its setting is totally disregarded when px or absolute units are applied to size text via CSS. IE's two ignore fonts settings mean that the basic defaults are applied even when site and/or user CSS exists, plus when sites set sizes using px or absolute units. A minimum font size setting in simplistic terms means simply a size below which no text will be allowed to be rendered by the browser. Due to the manner of implementation by its programmers, Gecko browsers with a minimum font size applied will often render large portitions of a page not only larger than the minimum setting, but also larger than *its own* default size setting. The latter mostly happens when authors implement the Clagnut CSS font sizing method. http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/Clagnut/eonsSS.html User stylesheets in those rare cases they exist are generally employed to override particular site CSS, rather than to affect browser defaults. so, what happens if a user has their default font set larger than the browser default in this case? Can't happen. Browser default == user default. :-p conversely what happens if they have set their default smaller than the manufacturer shipped settings? Given the same size display and the same display resolution, all web page text that is sized based on the the browser default setting will be smaller than if the shipped settings had been retained. Maybe Felix explained it, but I didn't understand it, can someone just make it simple, so I can judge the merit of this pragmatism? Oh that it should be simple, but with power, comes complexity. -- It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape. Chief Justice Joseph Story Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
I started this as a post to CSS-discuss, but as I typed I realised that it might be a bit off-topic for that list and that WSG might be a better recipient. I know many people here also subscribe to CSS-D, so if you think it would be suitable matter for that list then say so and I'll perhaps post it there also. Apologies for the length of this post. -- -- -- In a thread on the CSS-Discuss list ('Accessibility + font sizing') David posted the following: If accessibility is important, don't specify a font size. Leave it up to the visitor to be using the font size they find preferable. This revisits a question that still really vexes me [1]. Certainly, if the focus of the site is maximum accessibility (example: a that site deals with disability issues) then David's advice is clearly correct, and it could be argued that it is correct for *any* site. However, this brings us back to the fact that for many people the browser default text size of 16px is too large and makes the page look ugly. I suspect (without evidence, I admit) that the reason more people don't complain about pages with enormous type is that so many pages have been designed to adjust the text size downward from the default -- for example, to the relatively common 12px. So, as a designer, I choose between two approaches: 1) 'Bottom up' approach: Design the site with smaller type (there are plenty of methods to pick from out there) and make sure that the text can be scaled upward (without breaking the page) by those people who need to do so, or 2) 'Top down' approach: Adopt the policy advocated by David (and others) of not specifying a type size at all (so the site renders using the visitor's default type size), and allow people who do not wish to see large type to scale downward using their browser controls. Many in the web design community seem in favour of the Top Down approach (no type size declared at all) but I'm not quite convinced yet and just wanted to rekindle the debate in an effort to garner some further insight for myself. The following points outline my qualms regarding the Top Down approach: 1. Large numbers of users have their browser set to default text size without even knowing it; most web users, I believe, have little idea that their browser even /has/ a default text size setting (The exception to this is probably those who *need* to change their text size for reasons of accessibility -- see below). The idea that a user's default text size is a matter of pro-active choice is therefore probably false unless the user is part of the exception noted above. This bring into question the advice of the W3C tips page http:// www.w3.org/QA/Tips/font-size#goodcss where it states: 1em (or 100%) is equivalent to setting the font size to the user's preference. The above statement makes the implicit assumption that 'Browser Default' equals 'User's Preference', an assumption that I can't help but question. 2. The majority of 'Accessibility users' (for want of a better term) will, by contrast -- assuming that they use browsers at all -- have their default settings tuned to their preferences, and will be reasonably aware of how such settings are altered. Many will have a large minimum font size specified, and/or be using IE's facility to ignore any font size settings specified by the page. 2. As I mentioned earlier, I think it likely that 'non-accessibility users' often *don't* see pages at default text sizes because the designer has specified something smaller via CSS [2]. Therefore, when they *do* visit a page with no type sizes specified (or that simply specifies font-size: 100%) they have no idea why the page looks overly large and clunky to them compared to the other pages they visit, nor do they know how to scale down the text -- they simply assume that it is designed to look that way (and, in a sense, it is). If the designer has assumed that people who like smaller type sizes will adjust their browser settings accordingly, he or she will probably be disappointed much of the time. 3. Nevertheless, it is undeniably true that some people (myself included) feel that 16px text is /slightly/ too large from a 'design aesthetic' viewpoint [3]. 4. This being the case, clearly /someone/ is going to be doing some resizing of text when they visit your page -- whether it is the person with perfect vision scaling things downward, or the person with accessibility issues scaling things up. Which way it goes all depends on where the designer pitches the 'baseline' -- Top down or Bottom Up. 5. If we use a Top Down approach then we ask people to scale downward if they want to; but many will not know how to. However... If we adopt a Bottom Up approach then we ask people to scale upward if they need to -- and many of those who need to will already have such scaling performed automatically by their *pro-actively chosen* browser settings. Even if that is not the case then they will probably be aware of how to increase text size
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 2007/09/05 13:51 (GMT+0100) Rick Lecoat apparently typed: In a thread on the CSS-Discuss list ('Accessibility + font sizing') David posted the following: If accessibility is important, don't specify a font size. Leave it up to the visitor to be using the font size they find preferable. This revisits a question that still really vexes me [1]. Certainly, if the focus of the site is maximum accessibility (example: a that site deals with disability issues) then David's advice is clearly correct, and it could be argued that it is correct for *any* site. However, this brings us back to the fact that for many people the browser default text size of 16px is too large Who made this a fact? Just because web designers, a group with the following characteristics (creating a bias among them) to distinguish it from an average member of the general public: 1-detail oriented (more comfortable than average with small things) 2-use large computer displays 3-leave their browsers set to the defaults that they believe most people use (untweaked to suit their own personal preferences) 4-young (have not yet reached age of deteriorating eyesight) think it so, doesn't make it so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion OTOH, reasons to believe the (presumably) 16px default default is either just right, or too small: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/defaultsize.html So, as a designer, I choose between two approaches: ... 1) 'Bottom up' approach: ... [sub-100% main content] 2) 'Top down' approach: ... [100% main content] This bring into question the advice of the W3C tips page http:// www.w3.org/QA/Tips/font-size#goodcss where it states: 1em (or 100%) is equivalent to setting the font size to the user's preference. The above statement makes the implicit assumption that 'Browser Default' equals 'User's Preference', an assumption that I can't help but question. ... It also makes the assumptions that: 1-user presumptively is the one in position to determine what works best, and that presuming otherwise can only randomly cause an improvement. 2-the effort that went into choosing, and continuing to choose, particular defaults by the browser suppliers who, within a small range of variance by minor suppliers, all have the same default defaults, and that those defaults are perfectly reasonable and close enough for most people (though not web designers) It's the right thing do do, because anything else is a anarchistic and rude. See also: http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/font-size http://www.informationarchitects.jp/100e2r?v=4 http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html http://www.lighthouse.org/accessibility/top-10/ http://css.nu/articles/font-analogy.html http://www.alistapart.com/articles/dao/ http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/fontsize.html http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/essence.html It isn't 1996 any more. Browser defaults are fine, and shouldn't be assumed otherwise: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/bigdefaults.html -- It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape. Chief Justice Joseph Story Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
Quoting Rick Lecoat [EMAIL PROTECTED]: In a thread on the CSS-Discuss list ('Accessibility + font sizing') David posted the following: If accessibility is important, don't specify a font size. Leave it up to the visitor to be using the font size they find preferable. This revisits a question that still really vexes me [1]. Certainly, if the focus of the site is maximum accessibility (example: a that site deals with disability issues) then David's advice is clearly correct, and it could be argued that it is correct for *any* site. What usually gets me with this conversation is: assuming users actually do actively change their font size to their preferred one, they'll still be visiting sites other than yours. If they indeed found that the majority of other sites out there have undersized the text, they would then have set the default sizes to be bigger on their browser. What happens then if your correct site is displayed on their browser? Would it not be overcompensating then? The principle is sound, but in practice it doesn't take into account the fact that the oh so hard done by users would already have coping strategies / settings in place to deal with their general web browsing, which could go counter to the assumed they'll have it set to their preferred size (since, assuming that they did set the size, it wouldn't be preferred, but enlarged to compensate for small font sizes generally employed). P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team http://streetteam.webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
Rick Lecoat wrote: This bring into question the advice of the W3C tips page http:// www.w3.org/QA/Tips/font-size#goodcss where it states: 1em (or 100%) is equivalent to setting the font size to the user's preference. The above statement makes the implicit assumption that 'Browser Default' equals 'User's Preference', an assumption that I can't help but question. Me too. However, any assumption made by a designer that 100% does *not* equals 'User Preference', is just as questionable. The majority of 'Accessibility users' (for want of a better term) will, by contrast -- assuming that they use browsers at all -- have their default settings tuned to their preferences, and will be reasonably aware of how such settings are altered. Many will have a large minimum font size specified, and/or be using IE's facility to ignore any font size settings specified by the page. Probably true. How many who know how to, and actively use, such browser options, is unknown. We do however know that the number of users who need to know and actively use such browser options, is growing with the number of elderly people on the web. This need is to a large degree caused by the general use of small text, which is based on designers' assumption that default size is too large. What we get is a perfect circle of compensations for imposed compensations, and the only somewhat reliable middle-ground is found at, or close to, 'font-size: 100%'. Accessibility is generally not improved by *not* declaring font-size anywhere, but by averaging it for the users we want to reach and letting size depend on readability and importance. Headlines should for instance be larger than paragraph-text in most cases, but _much larger_ doesn't necessarily help anyone. If the designer has assumed that people who like smaller type sizes will adjust their browser settings accordingly, he or she will probably be disappointed much of the time. Nevertheless, it is undeniably true that some people (myself included) feel that 16px text is /slightly/ too large from a 'design aesthetic' viewpoint [3]. My experience is that the average designer don't really _read_ stuff in his/hers own creations, so design aesthetic viewpoints don't mean much (to me) when it comes to what font-size to use. This being the case, clearly /someone/ is going to be doing some resizing of text when they visit your page -- whether it is the person with perfect vision scaling things downward, or the person with accessibility issues scaling things up. The most used rescaling seems to be permanent change of screen resolution to suit the smallest text each user wants to read. This means everything, on every web site, gets scaled to suit the user's preferences on his/her screen(s). This in turn affects how much real estate is available to designers, as browser-windows can't be larger than the actual screen and we know that few users like to scroll horizontally. Again: what we get is a perfect circle of compensations for imposed compensations... If I used that rescaling method, web sites would be left with around 600px window-width to display their stuff on on my screens. Since I don't, I can offer sites 3800px window-width if needed. My set-up and use of options are not representative though. Would a Bottom Up approach not have more chance of giving everybody what they want to see? Since that's what end-users has become used to by now because of all the compensations that have flooded the web over the last 15 years or so, you're probably (more or less) right. It is not an ideal solution though, but I can't think of a one size fits all solution other than that I personally tend to size close to average = 100% = defaults when I have a say on the issue (as you have probably already noticed over at [css-d] :-) ). regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
Middle out? I don't really worry about the font-size other than to leave the default on the body tag at 100%. From there I size fonts relatively up or down depending on the design, if it's my own design I never dip below 12px. As long as you don't use px for font-sizing in the CSS the site is accessible (within the context of font size) IMO. It may not be immediately accessible in its default state but if font-size is such a problem then the people who make browsers should consider it as much as we do (there's only so much we can do) and offer some accessibility controls on the toolbar, like IE7s zoom button. It may not be the best way but at least it's right there for the user to see as opposed to ctrl + or ctrl mousewheel. Don't get hung up on it, just take it into consideration when you design. Rob *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 5/9/07 (15:18) Patrick said: What usually gets me with this conversation is: assuming users actually do actively change their font size to their preferred one, they'll still be visiting sites other than yours. If they indeed found that the majority of other sites out there have undersized the text, they would then have set the default sizes to be bigger on their browser. What happens then if your correct site is displayed on their browser? Would it not be overcompensating then? The principle is sound, but in practice it doesn't take into account the fact that the oh so hard done by users would already have coping strategies / settings in place to deal with their general web browsing, which could go counter to the assumed they'll have it set to their preferred size (since, assuming that they did set the size, it wouldn't be preferred, but enlarged to compensate for small font sizes generally employed). Thanks for your reply, Patrick; You're right, it's a very 'chicken and egg' situation. In the ideal world every site would have content text set to a base size of 100%, and every user would have their browser tuned to their own preferred text size. But clearly that's not the world that we currently inhabit. How best to navigate this situation to achieve the great real-world results is what I hope this topic will help me work out. -- Rick Lecoat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 5/9/07 (15:21) Felix said: However, this brings us back to the fact that for many people the browser default text size of 16px is too large Who made this a fact? Okay, perhaps some sloppy writing on my part; I tried to be clear all through my original post that I was presenting my own ideas/enquiries, not handing down facts. Perhaps I should have written: However, this brings us back to the fact that for SOME people the browser default text size of 16px is too large ...'some' being myself, at least a few other (non-design) friends of mine, and anyone else who feels the same way. 'Many' is subjective, I grant you. (The 'proof by assertion' link was perhaps a little condescending?) 1-user presumptively is the one in position to determine what works best Yes they are in position to choose what works for them, but they appear not to do so. Anecdotal evidence from people who've conducted usability testing seems to indicate that the majority or web users are unaware that they are in a position to make any adjustments in this area. The possible exception, as I suggested, being those with accessibility 'issues' since they have more to gain by being acquainted with their browsers' text sizing capabilities. 2-the effort that went into choosing, and continuing to choose, particular defaults by the browser suppliers I have no hard information about how much investigation the browser vendors carried out prior to choosing the default text sizes. I'd like to know more about the process they went through, though, I imagine that it would be quite illuminating. If you do have any such info, please share. It's the right thing do do, because anything else is a anarchistic and rude. Anarchistic? Rude? Hmm. I'm just asking questions here. It's starting to get a bit confrontational. Just to bring it back to earth, the nub of the point I was trying to make is that simply this: If *somebody* is going to be doing some resizing of text when they view the page, doesn't it make more sense to design in such a way that the person more likely to want to resize is the person more likely to know how to? -- Rick Lecoat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: We do however know that the number of users who need to know and actively use such browser options, is growing with the number of elderly people on the web. Uh, we do? :-) I found this article http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/custom/modernlife/bal-ml.boomer17jun17,0,5613476.story regarding the increasing availability of large-print books, which says in part: According to Lighthouse International (a group that helps people deal with loss of vision), 17 percent of Americans 45 and older have some form of visual impairment. In 2010, all boomers will have reached that milestone birthday -- a group of about 20 million -- and most will be feeling the effects of presbyopia, the inability to focus on objects close up. (By the time we hit our 40s or 50s, the elasticity of the eye naturally decreases with age, and our close-up sight is affected.) OK, fine -- but reading a hand-held paperback book and reading a screen a couple of feet away seem very different to me, for lots of reasons. So my question is: do we *know* that this applies to reading text /on a computer screen/? Not guess, not believe, *know*. Personally, I find 16px text far too large for comfortable reading. And before anyone pulls out the dang whippersnappers card, I'm 60 years old and I've worn eyeglasses for most of 'em. :-) Citations of actual research would contribute more to the discussion than unsubstantiated opinion -- IMHO! -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-938-0567 === http://webtuitive.com dream. code. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 2007/09/05 09:19 (GMT-0700) Hassan Schroeder apparently typed: I found this article http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/custom/modernlife/bal-ml.boomer17jun17,0,5613476.story regarding the increasing availability of large-print books, which says in part: According to Lighthouse International (a group that helps people deal with loss of vision), 17 percent of Americans 45 and older have some form of visual impairment. In 2010, all boomers will have reached that milestone birthday -- a group of about 20 million -- and most will be feeling the effects of presbyopia, the inability to focus on objects close up. (By the time we hit our 40s or 50s, the elasticity of the eye naturally decreases with age, and our close-up sight is affected.) Lighthouse as more to say than just that: http://www.lighthouse.org/accessibility/ OK, fine -- but reading a hand-held paperback book and reading a screen a couple of feet away seem very different to me, for lots of reasons. So my question is: do we *know* that this applies to reading text /on a computer screen/? Not guess, not believe, *know*. Maybe something like this? http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/2S/font.htm And as additional answer to issue of aging boomers: http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/3W/fontSR.htm Personally, I find 16px text far too large for comfortable reading. That may well be, but you haven't said anything meaningful about how big that actually is. I find anything less than 24px too small for comfortable reading. To know how big 16px or 24px is requires knowing: 1-screen size 2-screen resolution 3-viewing distance Plus, there are factors besides size that affect reading comfort, such as contrast, leading, and line length. Had you written 12pt rather than 16px, one might assume that your system had a properly adjusted DPI and consequently that 12pt really meant 12pt, a physical size, and thus meaningful. Even so, without knowing your viewing distance, we still don't know the apparent size. This is why web pages need top down (100% based) contruction. And before anyone pulls out the dang whippersnappers card, I'm 60 years old and I've worn eyeglasses for most of 'em. :-) I'm less than that, and find 16px generally very uncomfortable or even impossible to read, depending on time of day and how tired my eyes are from squinting at mousetype, and how tired my back is from leaning forward to try to see enough to decide whether to hit my overworked zoom keys once more, or hit the back button or X the tab. Citations of actual research would contribute more to the discussion than unsubstantiated opinion -- IMHO! Here's where 16px (actually, 12pt) came from: http://blogs.msdn.com/fontblog/archive/2005/11/08/490490.aspx Note that it happened many many years ago when average screen DPI was much much lower than it is now. 16px isn't as big as it used to be. http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/bigdefaults.html Note also the empirical evidence that how most web pages style fonts is wrong: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html -- It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape. Chief Justice Joseph Story Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
This is a recurring topic that often gets some people going in many ways. Testing and research always presents biased results (when it comes to web data) and will continue to unless the first page people reach when they visit the web is a eyesight and usage survey. That'll never happen anytime soon. Example: a browser usage survey on a web development blog - offers no real data about the housewife on her new Dell searching homes to rent at the beach. In that instance it a situation like, Firefox? whats that? I click the little blue e to go online... That brings us back to the real reality we work and create in and the prospective audience were aiming for. Its chaotic, and while not nearly as chaotic as 10 years ago, its still the wild west out there. There is no question in my mind that setting font-size to 100% is a conscientious decision aimed at pleasing the largest number of people possible. A few years ago all my sites were fixed width at 750px. It can certainly be argued that people using 640x480 get a lessened experience, and this is true. Most sites I make now are fixed width at 960px. Yes, some people cannot see the full screen and I should be hung for such a travesty, but again, the real reality is that over 90% of the visitors to these sites use a resolution of at least 1024 x 768. Of course, steps are taken to make the lowest possible experience (plain text, one column) as complete and rewarding as possible. Can you make the text smaller? Yes, sure, why not (don't answer that). If you do, at least use flexible sizes, if someone does in fact resize the text, however infrequent. In MY real working world, 90% of my visitors still use IE6 at 1024 x 768 and use the browser full screen, and have the text-size set to Medium. This reality may not apply to other sites, but for MY site owners, it represents THEIR audience, and to me, that is the number 1 concern. Theres always the greater good to be considered...and hoped for, but the real reality offers no such ineffable standard. Joseph R. B. Taylor - Sites by Joe, LLC Keep it Clean, Simple Elegant (609) 335-3076 http://sitesbyjoe.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hassan Schroeder wrote: Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: We do however know that the number of users who need to know and actively use such browser options, is growing with the number of elderly people on the web. Uh, we do? :-) I found this article http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/custom/modernlife/bal-ml.boomer17jun17,0,5613476.story regarding the increasing availability of large-print books, which says in part: According to Lighthouse International (a group that helps people deal with loss of vision), 17 percent of Americans 45 and older have some form of visual impairment. In 2010, all boomers will have reached that milestone birthday -- a group of about 20 million -- and most will be feeling the effects of presbyopia, the inability to focus on objects close up. (By the time we hit our 40s or 50s, the elasticity of the eye naturally decreases with age, and our close-up sight is affected.) OK, fine -- but reading a hand-held paperback book and reading a screen a couple of feet away seem very different to me, for lots of reasons. So my question is: do we *know* that this applies to reading text /on a computer screen/? Not guess, not believe, *know*. Personally, I find 16px text far too large for comfortable reading. And before anyone pulls out the dang whippersnappers card, I'm 60 years old and I've worn eyeglasses for most of 'em. :-) Citations of actual research would contribute more to the discussion than unsubstantiated opinion -- IMHO! *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** begin:vcard fn:Joseph Taylor n:Taylor;Joseph org:Sites by Joe, LLC adr:;;408 Route 47 South;Cape May Court House;NJ;08210;USA email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] title:Designer / Developer tel;work:609-335-3076 tel;cell:609-335-3076 x-mozilla-html:TRUE url:http://sitesbyjoe.com version:2.1 end:vcard
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 5 Sep 2007, at 15:21, Felix Miata wrote: Who made this a fact? Just because web designers, a group with the following characteristics (creating a bias among them) to distinguish it from an average member of the general public: 1-detail oriented (more comfortable than average with small things) 2-use large computer displays 3-leave their browsers set to the defaults that they believe most people use (untweaked to suit their own personal preferences) 4-young (have not yet reached age of deteriorating eyesight) think it so, doesn't make it so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Proof_by_assertion right back at you. I'm 50 with imperfect vision, and still a web designer. (I do have a big screen with unchanged browser settings I'll grant you) A lot of the web designers I know are not young and most of them wear glasses. so proof by assertion works both ways. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
Felix Miata wrote: So my question is: do we *know* that this applies to reading text /on a computer screen/? Not guess, not believe, *know*. Maybe something like this? http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/2S/font.htm And as additional answer to issue of aging boomers: http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/3W/fontSR.htm Neither of which are apparently worth anything, if your contention below about assessing size is true :-) To know how big 16px or 24px is requires knowing: 1-screen size 2-screen resolution 3-viewing distance Plus, there are factors besides size that affect reading comfort, such as contrast, leading, and line length. At least, I didn't see any of that addressed on a quick read. Had you written 12pt rather than 16px, one might assume that your system had a properly adjusted DPI and consequently that 12pt really meant 12pt, a physical size, and thus meaningful. Even so, without knowing your viewing distance, we still don't know the apparent size. On my 1280x1024 19 (diagonal) flat panel display, 12pt and 16px are visually the same. The physical size on the screen is ~3.5mm (a bit more than 1/8) and my viewing distance is ~32 inches. But we don't have any of that for the studies you cite, so how much can they really be relied on? Note that it happened many many years ago when average screen DPI was much much lower than it is now. 16px isn't as big as it used to be. Uh-huh. And these studies were (apparently) published seven years ago, and hence likely done on low-res CRTs, for which, again, we have no data. In the absence of /current/ evidence, I'd say the jury's still out :-) -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-938-0567 === http://webtuitive.com dream. code. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 2007/09/05 19:28 (GMT+0100) Tony Crockford apparently typed: On 5 Sep 2007, at 15:21, Felix Miata wrote: Who made this a fact? Just because web designers, a group with the following characteristics (creating a bias among them) to distinguish it from an average member of the general public: 1-detail oriented (more comfortable than average with small things) 2-use large computer displays 3-leave their browsers set to the defaults that they believe most people use (untweaked to suit their own personal preferences) 4-young (have not yet reached age of deteriorating eyesight) think it so, doesn't make it so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Proof_by_assertion right back at you. The point of pointing that page was the repetition factor, that people eventually believe as fact anything sufficiently repeated, whether proven true or otherwise. In web development circles, the defaults are too big is a mantra that is not even close to a proven fact in the entire universe of web users and would be web users who don't use the web because they can't easily enough deal with the tiny text on most web pages. I'm 50 with imperfect vision, and still a web designer. (I do have a big screen with unchanged browser settings I'll grant you) Big screen is of no small consequence here. An average designer wouldn't intentionally continue to use a screen that's uncomfortably small. At some point ~6+hrs a day in front of it would force a correction that simply is not compelled among casual web users - either bigger screen, or different job. A lot of the web designers I know are not young and most of them wear glasses. Wearing glasses proves nothing. Some people who haven't even reached their teen years wear glasses. Even with glasses many over 40 have poor vision. How good the net corrected vision is is what matters. Elder simply means greater likelihood that corrected vision is poorer than average, and/or poorer than it used to be. so proof by assertion works both ways. I was not asserting all or exclusive, only average. I'm sure a scientific poll on any general web development/design list would prove that the average of all such characteristics among participants would show they AVERAGE as indicated, NOT that all without exception are that way. FewER people with poor eyesight take jobs demanding detail work in front of computer screens. FewER people than average with full time jobs in front of computer screens. It's a job comfort thing. YoungER people as a group are more comfortable and more familiar with computers and thus more likely to employ them heavily in their occupation than older people. There's already proof in the results - the web is overwhelmed by sites that set fonts smaller than the defaults - and the consequence that normal web users don't like it. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html -- It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape. Chief Justice Joseph Story Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 5/9/07 (20:15) Felix said: The point of pointing that page was the repetition factor, that people eventually believe as fact anything sufficiently repeated, whether proven true or otherwise. In web development circles, the defaults are too big is a mantra that is not even close to a proven fact That was, in part, why I started this thread; I felt (and still feel) that the notion of you MUST design for 100% of your users' default text size because that is their preferred text size was becoming a mantra. People sometimes repeated it dogmatically, without really thinking about it. Dogmatism worries me. The idea that maybe people are not *choosing* these defaults seems increasingly deemed to be a heresy, and anybody who dares to think gee, I actually prefer the look of this page with slightly smaller type risks being thoroughly pilloried as an artsy-fartsy-designer-type completely divorced from the real world. That worries me too, because it's dismissive. I'm not saying that the {font-size:100%} argument is wrong, but I am saying that treating it as dogma is probably not the thing to do. If we didn't keep asking questions and revisiting these things, then we'd probably still be creating table-based layouts, right? -- Rick Lecoat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 5 Sep 2007, at 20:15, Felix Miata wrote: There's already proof in the results - the web is overwhelmed by sites that set fonts smaller than the defaults - and the consequence that normal web users don't like it. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html Is it possible that the last few years of preaching about font sizes *has* made a difference? I don't remember the last time I visited a mainstream site and found the fonts smaller than normal. can you point to some popular sites (I mean mainstream popular sites) where the fonts are (a) non-resizable and (b) too small I think most of us *get it*. leave the default alone so as not to interfere with the minority of users that have adjusted their browser font size and then adjust to what seems to be the norm, or what the client asks for. (it's not 16px AFAICT) why is it, I ask in all honesty, that the comments pages of the BBC site aren't full of complaints that the fonts are unreadable? (they care about Accessibility too - http://www.bbc.co.uk/accessibility/) (FYI, my big screen is for usable screen space, not font size - I code in TextMate using a bitmap font at 9pt and the screen resolution is 2560x1600 and I'm viewing it from about arms length with my reading glasses on.) When was the last time normal users were asked about font sizes? How normal are Jacobs Alertbox subscribers and just how many of them responded to his quiz two years ago? *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
That was, in part, why I started this thread; I felt (and still feel) that the notion of you MUST design for 100% of your users' default text size because that is their preferred text size was becoming a mantra. And that is only an assumption. Default font size was chosen by browser vendors, not users. Not many know they can change it. Even less who know do it. People sometimes repeated it dogmatically, without really thinking about it. Dogmatism worries me. It should. ... On the other hand people can have their windmills to fight against if they don't hurt others in process. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 2007/09/05 11:42 (GMT-0700) Hassan Schroeder apparently typed: Felix Miata wrote: So my question is: do we *know* that this applies to reading text /on a computer screen/? Not guess, not believe, *know*. Maybe something like this? http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/2S/font.htm And as additional answer to issue of aging boomers: http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/3W/fontSR.htm Neither of which are apparently worth anything, if your contention below about assessing size is true :-) If you accept the assumption I make below, then quite the contrary. To know how big 16px or 24px is requires knowing: 1-screen size 2-screen resolution 3-viewing distance Plus, there are factors besides size that affect reading comfort, such as contrast, leading, and line length. At least, I didn't see any of that addressed on a quick read. Had you written 12pt rather than 16px, one might assume that your system had a properly adjusted DPI and consequently that 12pt really meant 12pt, a physical size, and thus meaningful. Even so, without knowing your viewing distance, we still don't know the apparent size. On my 1280x1024 19 (diagonal) flat panel display, 12pt and 16px are visually the same. The physical size on the screen is ~3.5mm (a bit more than 1/8) and my viewing distance is ~32 inches. A 1280x1024 19 display is ~86.3 DPI. If you are using a browser that floors at or is fixed to use an assumed 96 DPI (standard doz setting BTW), which more often than not is the reality, then 12pt should be rendering at about 17.8px. Some browsers will round 17.8 down to 17 (IE), while others will use 18 (Gecko). It's quite common for that 1px or 2px difference to be unnoticable unless seen in direct comparision, such as on http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Font/font-arial and http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Font/font-verdana. But we don't have any of that for the studies you cite, so how much can they really be relied on? Because of their source and apparent nature, it is reasonable to assume that when they wrote 12pt, they meant 12pt as a real size, not as a nominal size. If on the contrary they were actually using nominal sizes, then the truth is that the participants were probably, as was the norm in lowfi screen days of 6-12 years ago, seeing and happy with fonts that were larger in fact than the nominal sizes indicated. Note that it happened many many years ago when average screen DPI was much much lower than it is now. 16px isn't as big as it used to be. Uh-huh. And these studies were (apparently) published seven years ago, and hence likely done on low-res CRTs, for which, again, we have no data. The actual resolutions are unimportant, as long as the assumption that the pt sizes stated meant actual pt size rather than nomimal pt size is made, with the consequence that the validity of the study remains in effect. In the absence of /current/ evidence, I'd say the jury's still out :-) Current studies aren't required prior to demonstration that previous studies are no longer valid. Truth isn't converted by mere age into untruth. We do know that standard LCD displays on store shelves today seem to be targeted to working DPI as little removed as practical from the 96 default standard from M$. To that end, the larger displays have higher resolutions. e.g., 4:3 displays are uncommon in sizes other than 17 (more common, 96.4 DPI) and 19 (less common, 86.3 DPI). Smaller 15 displays are 1024x768 (85.3 DPI). Larger, 20 is 1400x1050 (less common, (87.5 DPI) or 1600x1050 (100.0 DPI). More common now are the widescreens, 19 at the bottom usually using 1440x900 (89.4 DPI) or 1680x1050 (104.3 DPI), bigger 22 using 1680x1050 (90.1 DPI) or 1920x1200 (102.9 DPI), bigger yet 24 1920x1200 (94.3 DPI), or giant 30 2560x1600 (100.6 DPI). In the laptop world, which has been outselling the desktop world for the past several years, manufacturers have taken to adjusting the default DPI upward to 120 before delivery when necessary to avoid reduced sales that result from the laptop (everything is so tiny) syndrome. A 14 @ 1280x800 (107.8 DPI; if 96, pt is undersize; if 120, pt is oversize), 15.4 @ 1280x800 (~98 DPI; quite close if DPI is 96), 16 @ 1440x900 (106.1 DPI), 16 @ 1680x1050 (123.8 DPI), 16 @ 1920x1200 (141.5 DPI), 17 @ 1680x1050 (116.5 DPI), or 17 @ 1920x1200 (133.2 DPI). Compare those to yesteryear's (lowfi) DPI values: screen size 13 14 16 18 800x600 76.971.462.5 1024x76891.480.071.1 The net result is IE's 12pt (16px) nominal default on average used to be a lot bigger than it is now. Nominal 12pt today is on average significantly smaller than the average 16px of 6-12 years ago (when the web developer defaults are too big mantra had its genesis). If those studies were using nominal sizes, then the same tests today would almost certainly be providing the participants physically smaller fonts.
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 5/9/07 (21:17) Rimantas said: That was, in part, why I started this thread; I felt (and still feel) that the notion of you MUST design for 100% of your users' default text size because that is their preferred text size was becoming a mantra. And that is only an assumption. Default font size was chosen by browser vendors, not users. Not many know they can change it. Even less who know do it. My point exactly. (Felix argues that the browser vendors arrived at their default size after long and careful research, but AFAIK said research remains hearsay). To restate my earlier point (hopefully with greater clarity): No matter what you do, people will look at a page and (probably) either say the type is too big or the type is too small. In either case they can adjust it accordingly, except that those who want to make it smaller (eg. those without accessibility issues) are *perhaps* less likely to know how to. And *perhaps* that's one argument for designing with smaller type as a baseline. I could be way off base of course, but that's why I want to thrash it out here, amongst the wisdom of my peers. -- Rick Lecoat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 2007/09/05 21:06 (GMT+0100) Tony Crockford apparently typed: I don't remember the last time I visited a mainstream site and found the fonts smaller than normal. can you point to some popular sites (I mean mainstream popular sites) where the fonts are (a) non-resizable and (b) too small BBC News seems to be still as described on http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/bbcSS.html (body is still 'font:normal 13px Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif, MS sans serif;'). I haven't done any more than a cursory update on http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/shame.html for quite some time but I'm sure some of the sites listed there still set their fonts in px and/or embed major content in Flash designed for 800x600 screens. -- It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape. Chief Justice Joseph Story Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
Felix Miata wrote: If you accept the assumption I make below, then quite the contrary. I'm not interested in accepting your assumptions -- I'm looking for valid evidence; that's the whole point. A 1280x1024 19 display is ~86.3 DPI. If you are using a browser that floors at or is fixed to use an assumed 96 DPI (standard doz setting BTW), which more often than not is the reality, then 12pt should be rendering at about 17.8px. Using FF2 on my SuSE 10 desktop, 12pt and 16px Arial upper case M characters render at *exactly* the same height. Measured, not just theorized. But we don't have any of that for the studies you cite, so how much can they really be relied on? Because of their source and apparent nature, it is reasonable to assume No it's not. It's only reasonable to assume if you want to try to twist the evidence to your way of thinking. One minute you say you need a whole laundry list of data points to analyze how big a particular font size is, and the next minute you say we can assume that a particular study (the conclusion of which favors your argument) is perfectly valid without all that. Right. -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-938-0567 === http://webtuitive.com dream. code. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 2007/09/05 23:17 (GMT+0300) Rimantas Liubertas apparently typed: That was, in part, why I started this thread; I felt (and still feel) that the notion of you MUST design for 100% of your users' default text size because that is their preferred text size was becoming a mantra. And that is only an assumption. Default font size was chosen by browser vendors, not users. Not many know they can change it. Even less who know do it. 1-How many is not many? 2-How many more would it take to be enough? 3-How many actually need to, regardless whether they know they can, or how to? 4-Why do you assume they have reason to? Maybe thinking in terms of an opposite proposition would be instructive. 1-I'd like to see (and expect never to find) a scientific study that shows either: a-complaints about web page text size being too big outnumber those about it being too small by normal average web users (not by web designers) b-author sizing to something less than 100% for primary content is preferred by normal average web users (not by web designers) c-most average web users (not web designers) find the defaults significantly different from ideal and would change them if they knew how 2-If vendors were getting significant numbers of complaints from genuine ordinary average web users, there is likelihood they would have changed them somewhere along the developmental way. Now with a GUI web over a decade old they are essentially unchanged in *nominal* size. During that same time, the *physical* size of those same nominally sized defaults has been shrinking significantly. 3-Fonts smaller than ideal have a different functional impact than fonts larger than ideal. Too big far less often equates to unusable and/or painful than does the converse. When I arrive on a site with too big fonts (as often happens to me due to styling as described on http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/Clagnut/eonsSS ) I usually don't find enough discomfort to bother with resizing smaller, while when I arrive on the more usual site with too small fonts, I usually do one of three things: 1-close the tab; 2-hit back button; 3-zoom text larger. 4-Not all web users are morons to whom the implicit meaning of Personal Computer (PC) is lost. Personal means under and subject to the control and personalization of the computers they own and/or use. That most don't go beyond setting of desktop wallpaper and screensaver in personalizing is no reason to assume that any change you make that affects what they see is likely to be better for them than if you didn't. That you like smaller fonts than the defaults is no reason to assume they do too. I don't believe a web nearly 3 years beyond Firefox 1.0 and Safari 1.0 is still so overwhelmed with users who are so totally unclued that they can personalize their personal computer's web browsers that those who are clued can be still be disregarded as insufficient justification to respect anyone's preferences, whether actively or passively determined. -- It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape. Chief Justice Joseph Story Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 5 Sep 2007, at 22:04, Felix Miata wrote: On 2007/09/05 21:06 (GMT+0100) Tony Crockford apparently typed: I don't remember the last time I visited a mainstream site and found the fonts smaller than normal. can you point to some popular sites (I mean mainstream popular sites) where the fonts are (a) non-resizable and (b) too small BBC News seems to be still as described on http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ SS/bbcSS.html (body is still 'font:normal 13px Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif, MS sans serif;'). Which brings me back to the question: Who says it's too small? which you don't seem to be able to answer in an objective way. I'm suggesting that normal users don't find the BBC site too small, or they would have complained and the BBC, being responsible and interested, would have done something about it. ;o) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 5/9/07 (22:43) Felix said: 4-Not all web users are morons to whom the implicit meaning of Personal Computer (PC) is lost. Personal means under and subject to the control and personalization of the computers they own and/or use. That most don't go beyond setting of desktop wallpaper and screensaver in personalizing is no reason to assume that any change you make that affects what they see is likely to be better for them than if you didn't. That you like smaller fonts than the defaults is no reason to assume they do too. There is a very wide gulf between a) saying that many (perhaps even the majority) of web users are unaware that changing the default text size is an option and b) saying those people are morons. Conversely, not being a moron does /not/ imply that the person has changed their defaults. I can think of a large number people just within my (non-IT professional) friends and family who would have no idea about tinkering with their browser settings in that way. Are they morons? Of course not. But the fact remains that they have never adjusted their defaults. That you like smaller fonts than the defaults is no reason to assume they do too. Correct. Nor is it a reason to assume that they do not. -- Rick Lecoat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 2007/09/05 14:40 (GMT-0700) Hassan Schroeder apparently typed: Felix Miata wrote: If you accept the assumption I make below, then quite the contrary. I'm not interested in accepting your assumptions -- I'm looking for valid evidence; that's the whole point. There are only two possible presumptions regarding the indicated pt sizes that can be made from their study. Either the pt sizes specified were meant literally, in which case the data and results remain perfectly valid today, or they were meant nominally. If they were meant nominally, because the actual average DPI of that time was inaccurately set to in excess of reality, the results indicate people preferred fonts that were in fact larger than the pt sizes that were indicated in the study's results. IOW, with the arguably easier to make assumption, those test subjects actually preferred larger than 12pt. A 1280x1024 19 display is ~86.3 DPI. If you are using a browser that floors at or is fixed to use an assumed 96 DPI (standard doz setting BTW), which more often than not is the reality, then 12pt should be rendering at about 17.8px. I wasn't clear, and I got the math backwards. With the default floor in effect, nominal 12pt will render at 16px, as it always will when a browser is functioning as if display DPI was in fact 96. However, 12pt is merely nominal when actual display DPI is less than the 96 DPI that Firefox assumes, not an accurate 12pt as when 12pt is printed. 86/96 times 16 is 14.333, which rounded by FF will render at 14px when both 12pt is called for and it is permitted to use the actual display DPI of 86. Using FF2 on my SuSE 10 desktop, 12pt and 16px Arial upper case M characters render at *exactly* the same height. Measured, not just theorized. Indeed. You are running a sub-96 DPI display. Without changing the hidden Firefox pref layout.css.dpi from -1 to 0, and assuming a reasonably but not necessarily accurately configured X, Firefox on your system assumes 96 DPI, which makes 12pt nominal exactly equal to 16px, which makes the actual size of nominal 12pt larger than 1/6, the actual height of a printed 12pt character box. If you visit with Firefox http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Font/font-arial with 1280x1024 on 19 you'll see a match between 12pt and 16px. However, if you permit Firefox to use an accurate DPI for your display by setting layout.css.dpi to 86 (or possibly by setting it to 0, depending on your X configuration), then you'd see something like http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/Fnt/font-arial-L086DPI.gif (12pt smaller than 16px; ~14px; SUSE 10.2). If your SUSE was running on a 16 1680x1050 laptop, and X was configured to use an accurate DPI, then you'd see something like http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/Fnt/font-arial-L124DPI.gif (12pt much larger than 16px; ~20px; SUSE 10.2). But we don't have any of that for the studies you cite, so how much can they really be relied on? Because of their source and apparent nature, it is reasonable to assume No it's not. It's only reasonable to assume if you want to try to twist the evidence to your way of thinking. One minute you say you need a whole laundry list of data points to analyze how big a particular font size is, and the next minute you say we can assume that a particular study (the conclusion of which favors your argument) is perfectly valid without all that. The laundry list was about conveying apparent physical size in a discussion about size. A pixel has no physical size meaning without a context that can translate it into a physical size. At the very least, doing that requires knowledge of both screen size and resolution, or the combination of the two that is normally presented as DPI. If we make the easy presumption that the scientific study was flawed by presenting nominal pt rather than real pt, then the results it presents understates the participants' size preference. If we make the perfectly plausible other presumption, that pt means real pt, then there's nothing yet shown in this thread to invalidate the study results. -- It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape. Chief Justice Joseph Story Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 2007/09/05 22:49 (GMT+0100) Tony Crockford apparently typed: On 5 Sep 2007, at 22:04, Felix Miata wrote: BBC News seems to be still as described on http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ SS/bbcSS.html (body is still 'font:normal 13px Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif, MS sans serif;'). Which brings me back to the question: Who says it's too small? which you don't seem to be able to answer in an objective way. I think I have, but here goes another way: 1-I've provided links to places indicating normal ordinary people complaining about too small web page text 2-I've noted apparent absence of places, outside a web developer/designer context, with people complaining about too large web page text 3-I've indicated in other threads direct contact with people indicating as in 1 above 4-I've indicated in other threads virtual absence of contact with people indicating as in 2 above 5-I've provided links to scientific studies that show what size normal ordinary web users prefer 6-I've indicated, and been agreed with, that only a user is in position to determine best/right/ideal size, and that presumptively, whether actively or passively, users have made such a determination; from which it follows that content smaller than 100% must necessarily be smaller than the user's choice - aka too small 7-I've provided links to sites of entities that are in some way qualified as having usability and/or accessibility expertise recommending user defaults be respected with 100% of user defaults based design 8-I've a web site loaded with comments on web font issues Without funds to sponsor a qualified and independent testing institution doing more objective study, I'm not sure what else anyone could do. I'm suggesting that normal users don't find the BBC site too small, or they would have complained and the BBC, being responsible and interested, would have done something about it. In an ideal world big business might actually act on non-paying customer complaints, or non-paying customers might actually bother to complain enough to get noticed. Then again, the BBC is apparently pretty big. http://news.bbc.co.uk/ and http://www.bbc.co.uk/ use considerably different CSS. -- It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape. Chief Justice Joseph Story Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 2007/09/06 00:21 (GMT+0100) Rick Lecoat apparently typed: But the fact remains that they have never adjusted their defaults. It also remains undetermined how many would if they both knew they could and knew how to do it. That you like smaller fonts than the defaults is no reason to assume they do too. Correct. Nor is it a reason to assume that they do not. I believe I've already explained up thread that they do, in _web_designers_as_a_group_ having a personal skew/bias/preference in favor of things small generally, part of the nature of the kind of detail-oriented people who gravitate into web design. -- It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape. Chief Justice Joseph Story Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
There is typography and there is the science of typography: they are not necessarily the same. Sooner rather than later one of you is going to actually have to break down and commit to something on the screen. Preferably something of your own making that proves a point (or at least attempts to make a point). Go ahead. Put a page or some pages on the Web. Prove your form of whatever form of control you happen to believe everyone else should adhere to on the screen. You can thrash all this stuff out in writing from now until forever: that is a useful and meaningful exercise, but only if accompanied by an example you've made that the majority agree proves your point. Best, ~dL -- http://chelseacreekstudio.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
On 2007/09/05 22:00 (GMT+0100) Rick Lecoat apparently typed: (Felix argues that the browser vendors arrived at their default size after long and careful research, but AFAIK said research remains hearsay). Bits of it are scattered about on the web, including Mozilla's bugzilla. A scour of http://blogs.msdn.com/fontblog/ might turn up something somewhat comprehensive. Earlier I provided a component of it: http://blogs.msdn.com/fontblog/archive/2005/11/08/490490.aspx To restate my earlier point (hopefully with greater clarity): No matter what you do, people will look at a page and (probably) either say the type is too big or the type is too small. There's another possibility: it's just fine. In either case they can adjust it accordingly, except that those who want to make it smaller (eg. those without accessibility issues) are *perhaps* less likely to know how to. And *perhaps* that's one argument for designing with smaller type as a baseline. Other food for thought: http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/essence.html http://www.dev-archive.net/articles/font-analogy.html http://www.lighthouse.org/accessibility/boomers/ http://www.cameratim.com/personal/soapbox/morons-in-webspace -- It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape. Chief Justice Joseph Story Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
Personally, I find 16px text far too large for comfortable reading. That's fine. Using firefox? go to: tools - options - content - Default font: size 14 or even smaller if it suits you. -- Dean Edridge http://www.zealmedia.co.nz/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
Assuming that viewers of your site have not changed the settings on their software to suit their eyesight or their general preferences is wrong. By giving users: body{font-size:100%;} you are doing the best you can at your end, and It's up to them to ensure they have correctly configured their browser to suit their eyesight or preferences. I have my laptop set at 1024x768. With Firefox I have the font size set at 16px. That means that when I view a web page, I am saying to firefox: Show me this web page, and show the main text at 16 pixels and scale the other text (h1, h2, h3, h4) around this base font-size setting. Setting this in your css sheet: body{font-size:100%;} h1 {font-size: 145%;} h2 {font-size: 132%;} h3 {font-size: 125%;} h4 {font-size: 115%;} h5 {font-size: 102%;} h6 {font-size: 100%;} p, ul, ol, blockquote, pre {font-size:100%;} ensures that this is possible. note: I think the code suggested was originally from: Gunlaug Sørtun http://www.gunlaug.no -- Dean Edridge http://www.zealmedia.co.nz/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
Wouldn't all those heading sizes would look fairly similar, especially 102%? Dean Edridge wrote: Assuming that viewers of your site have not changed the settings on their software to suit their eyesight or their general preferences is wrong. By giving users: body{font-size:100%;} you are doing the best you can at your end, and It's up to them to ensure they have correctly configured their browser to suit their eyesight or preferences. I have my laptop set at 1024x768. With Firefox I have the font size set at 16px. That means that when I view a web page, I am saying to firefox: Show me this web page, and show the main text at 16 pixels and scale the other text (h1, h2, h3, h4) around this base font-size setting. Setting this in your css sheet: body{font-size:100%;} h1 {font-size: 145%;} h2 {font-size: 132%;} h3 {font-size: 125%;} h4 {font-size: 115%;} h5 {font-size: 102%;} h6 {font-size: 100%;} p, ul, ol, blockquote, pre {font-size:100%;} ensures that this is possible. note: I think the code suggested was originally from: Gunlaug Sørtun http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
Jixor - Stephen I wrote: Wouldn't all those heading sizes would look fairly similar, especially 102%? Dean Edridge wrote: Assuming that viewers of your site have not changed the settings on their software to suit their eyesight or their general preferences is wrong. By giving users: body{font-size:100%;} you are doing the best you can at your end, and It's up to them to ensure they have correctly configured their browser to suit their eyesight or preferences. I have my laptop set at 1024x768. With Firefox I have the font size set at 16px. That means that when I view a web page, I am saying to firefox: Show me this web page, and show the main text at 16 pixels and scale the other text (h1, h2, h3, h4) around this base font-size setting. Setting this in your css sheet: body{font-size:100%;} h1 {font-size: 145%;} h2 {font-size: 132%;} h3 {font-size: 125%;} h4 {font-size: 115%;} h5 {font-size: 108%;} h6 {font-size: 100%;} p, ul, ol, blockquote, pre {font-size:100%;} ensures that this is possible. note: I think the code suggested was originally from: Gunlaug Sørtun http://www.gunlaug.no The heading sizes aren't that important, you can change these to what ever you like (I just changed the h5 to 108%). They were put there as an example. It's the main font-size (body{font-size:100%;}) that is important. On my wide screen desktop monitor (1440pixels x 900pixels) I have the default font-size in firefox set to 18pixels. Having this set ensures that all well designed sites scale well and look great on my large screen. // Here's where I get a bit off topic and start talking about the liquid web in general. If anyone's using a large monitor (by my definition larger than 1024x768) you should never change the resolution of the screen down to suit badly designed websites or other poorly thought out software. Instead, change the settings of your OS to suit the screen size. If you are using XP, do this: Right click on the desktop click - appearance - Font-size and select large Fonts - click apply. This does not change the font-size for all programs though, you will have to change these individually. And if you come across sites that are only 760pixels wide and only take up half the screen. That's not your problem, they are poorly designed sites. All website designs should fit in to one of the following categories: Liquid-layout Fluid-layout Vector-layout It's not impossible, just look at Trademe [1] biggest site in New Zealand and no horizontal scrollbars till under 800x600 resolution And there's simple liquid layouts such as the php.net site [2] and w3.org [3] [1] http://www.trademe.co.nz/ [2] http://www.php.net/ [3] http://www.w3.org/ -- Dean Edridge http://www.zealmedia.co.nz/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
Jixor - Stephen I wrote: Wouldn't all those heading sizes would look fairly similar, especially 102%? Indeed, but those are the sizes I found suitable for my own site, and I have only *suggested* (over at css-d) those values for use on other sites - as part of a method for inheriting font-sizes down the entire chain of containers in a web page. Designers should of course choose the values that suits their particular designs, and that was made clear in the thread that suggestion is copied from. regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
I would strongly recommend against ever using large fonts unless required for a vision impairment. Even on a laptop with higher dpi than a desktop monitor. Just because you may have a higher resolution applications generally don't scale in that manor. Some applications will even refuse to start unless you change back to small fonts. Also of course if you have a higher resolution you also have a larger screen so the dpi will be quite similar to a smaller screen (on desktops). Dean Edridge wrote: Jixor - Stephen I wrote: Wouldn't all those heading sizes would look fairly similar, especially 102%? Dean Edridge wrote: Assuming that viewers of your site have not changed the settings on their software to suit their eyesight or their general preferences is wrong. By giving users: body{font-size:100%;} you are doing the best you can at your end, and It's up to them to ensure they have correctly configured their browser to suit their eyesight or preferences. I have my laptop set at 1024x768. With Firefox I have the font size set at 16px. That means that when I view a web page, I am saying to firefox: Show me this web page, and show the main text at 16 pixels and scale the other text (h1, h2, h3, h4) around this base font-size setting. Setting this in your css sheet: body{font-size:100%;} h1 {font-size: 145%;} h2 {font-size: 132%;} h3 {font-size: 125%;} h4 {font-size: 115%;} h5 {font-size: 108%;} h6 {font-size: 100%;} p, ul, ol, blockquote, pre {font-size:100%;} ensures that this is possible. note: I think the code suggested was originally from: Gunlaug Sørtun http://www.gunlaug.no The heading sizes aren't that important, you can change these to what ever you like (I just changed the h5 to 108%). They were put there as an example. It's the main font-size (body{font-size:100%;}) that is important. On my wide screen desktop monitor (1440pixels x 900pixels) I have the default font-size in firefox set to 18pixels. Having this set ensures that all well designed sites scale well and look great on my large screen. // Here's where I get a bit off topic and start talking about the liquid web in general. If anyone's using a large monitor (by my definition larger than 1024x768) you should never change the resolution of the screen down to suit badly designed websites or other poorly thought out software. Instead, change the settings of your OS to suit the screen size. If you are using XP, do this: Right click on the desktop click - appearance - Font-size and select large Fonts - click apply. This does not change the font-size for all programs though, you will have to change these individually. And if you come across sites that are only 760pixels wide and only take up half the screen. That's not your problem, they are poorly designed sites. All website designs should fit in to one of the following categories: Liquid-layout Fluid-layout Vector-layout It's not impossible, just look at Trademe [1] biggest site in New Zealand and no horizontal scrollbars till under 800x600 resolution And there's simple liquid layouts such as the php.net site [2] and w3.org [3] [1] http://www.trademe.co.nz/ [2] http://www.php.net/ [3] http://www.w3.org/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up
Sorry, the point I'm making is why use 100 and 102, is there any visible difference? I would have thought the user would need to have a massive default font size to see any. However I have noticed myself that the way the browsers tend to size fonts can be quite strange. Sometimes a change of 5% in scaling can result in the same font ending up the same size however notably wider. Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: Jixor - Stephen I wrote: Wouldn't all those heading sizes would look fairly similar, especially 102%? Indeed, but those are the sizes I found suitable for my own site, and I have only *suggested* (over at css-d) those values for use on other sites - as part of a method for inheriting font-sizes down the entire chain of containers in a web page. Designers should of course choose the values that suits their particular designs, and that was made clear in the thread that suggestion is copied from. regards Georg *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***