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
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.
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
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'
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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,
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?
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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/
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
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
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:
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
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
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
35 matches
Mail list logo
