Re: [WSG] Font Sizes - Best practice
On 2/20/06 5:14 AM, Martin Heiden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I read a lot of threads about font-sizing lately, but I still did not catch the point of best practice yet. Not to beat an already beaten, kicked, poked, piddled-on very dead horse, but I didn't see an actual answer to this post. Is there a font-size best practice? Did a majority here agree on anything? (FWIW, I use 100.01% on the body, and size other things - if needed - with ems) -- Tom Livingston Senior Multimedia Artist Media Logic www.mlinc.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font Sizes - Best practice
I as well.
This is the default for my stylesheets
html {font-size:100.01%;}
body, table {font-size:1em; }
http://www.freexenon.com/2005/10/css-fonts-and-font-sizing.html
Jim
On 2/22/06, Tom Livingston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/20/06 5:14 AM, Martin Heiden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I read a lot of threads about font-sizing lately, but I still did
not catch the point of best practice yet.
Not to beat an already beaten, kicked, poked, piddled-on very dead horse,
but I didn't see an actual answer to this post. Is there a font-size best
practice? Did a majority here agree on anything?
(FWIW, I use 100.01% on the body, and size other things - if needed - with
ems)
--
__
Bugs are, by definition, necessary.
Just ask Microsoft!
www.co.sauk.wi.us (Work)
www.arionshome.com (Personal)
www.freexenon.com (Consulting)
__
Take Back the Web with Mozilla Fire Fox
http://www.getfirefox.com
Making a Commercial Case for Adopting Web Standards
http://www.maccaws.org/
Web Standards Project
http://www.webstandards.org/
Web Standards Group
http://www.webstandardsgroup.org/
Guild of Accessible Web Designers
http://www.gawds.org/
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] Font Sizes - Best practice
On 2/22/06 10:45 AM, James O'Neill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
html {font-size:100.01%;}
body, table {font-size:1em; }
Is there a benefit to the above, as opposed to just:
body{font:100.01% (font family)}
followed by whatever needed additional sizing, like
h2{font-size:1.2em;}
for example?
--
Tom Livingston
Senior Multimedia Artist
Media Logic
www.mlinc.com
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] Font Sizes - Best practice
Tom,
Body or HTML it doesn't really matter as it will cascade down to
everything else. I set the Percent on the Root Element and then the EM
on the Body just so that the EM font size is set as the default
everywhere vice the Percent.
Later on in what I refer to as the Core Style sheet I set every font
size that is not 1 EM to whatever I want it to be, as you have shown.
It might save you from setting all of the elements that you would like
to 1 EM, but the 100.01% will work fine. I just prefer everything to
be in EM's for consistency.
Jim
On 2/22/06, Tom Livingston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a benefit to the above, as opposed to just:
body{font:100.01% (font family)}
followed by whatever needed additional sizing, like
h2{font-size:1.2em;}
for example?
--
__
Bugs are, by definition, necessary.
Just ask Microsoft!
www.co.sauk.wi.us (Work)
www.arionshome.com (Personal)
www.freexenon.com (Consulting)
__
Take Back the Web with Mozilla Fire Fox
http://www.getfirefox.com
Making a Commercial Case for Adopting Web Standards
http://www.maccaws.org/
Web Standards Project
http://www.webstandards.org/
Web Standards Group
http://www.webstandardsgroup.org/
Guild of Accessible Web Designers
http://www.gawds.org/
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] Font Sizes - Best practice
Martin Heiden, starting a new thread, wrote Mon, 20 Feb 2006 11:14:13 +0100: I read a lot of threads about font-sizing lately, but I still did not catch the point of best practice yet. Among designers, I don't think you'll ever find a consensus on what it is. Among usability and accessibility experts, I'll think you'll find them pretty unanimous in saying in essence don't mess with user defaults. Don't expect all the latter to practice what they preach though. On the other hand, I don't know anyone who changed the default font-size in his/her browser, As Lachlan Hunt wrote shortly after you asked, how many have is irrelevant. There's not only the issue of not knowing how many have, but also of not knowing how many knowing that they could and how to do it wouldn't change anything anyway, or at least, not the same as the designer would. but lot's of people (mostly designers) who prefer smaller font-sizes. It may be a high proportion of web designers who do, little short of 100% it seems, but they constitute but a small fraction of people using the web. OTOH, I'll bet as a group they use larger than average computer displays to do their work, and also as a group, they don't have worse than average vision. Well, the question is: Which group of people is more important? Or I prefer to prefer those who have to use a site over those who simply own it. Generally there are far more of the former than the latter. better: Is there a way to please both groups? I don't think you can dichotomize into only two groups. I think you have to determine on your own what the right thing to do is based upon what you know and can readily learn, what you're trying to do, and who you're trying to do it for. We know some things, we have a gut feeling for some things, and we speculate about other things. As it happens, there have been published studies that show what web users prefer in size, and there's no correlation between the results of those studies and the text size on the average web site other than the average web site having smaller size text (typically 7.5-10pt) than the studies show users want (~12pt on average, larger among seniors). Here's my definition of user default-based (subject to adjustment for things I forget about): A-relative sizes only, either keywords, % or em, plus pt at 11.0 or above may be considered when a close correlation between onscreen and printed is highly desirable; subject to exceptions below B-text smaller than CSS small permitted only for: superscripts, subscripts, math equations, copyright notices, footers (except for contact information), captions for very small images, and very small blocks of fine print. In addition, pt may be specified at 8.0 or above when printed output is particularly important. C-text smaller than medium but no smaller than CSS small permitted only for: large blocks of fine print, navlists/menus, breadcrumbs, captions for small images, necessarily wide code blocks, very large tables of numerical data, selects, contact information in footers, headings for items in B above. In addition, pt may be specified for these items at 9.5pt or above when printed output is particularly important. D-notwithstanding B C, examples of particular text sizes may be whatever size the demonstration attempts to show, and incidental text in images not meant to be read may be considered as just a portion of the image instead of real text. E-high contrast color scheme suitable for people with common manifestations of color blindness. F-As font-family interplays heavily with font-size, a non-generic font-family may not be specified for main content paragraphs unless its x-height is common-web-font-average or more. This means none of the common Times families are large enough. Specifying no font-family at all for main content paragraphs is preferable. Specifying Times New Roman at 1em is roughly equivalent to .8em to someone whose default is Verdana. http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/tmp/test.html Here's what I know: 1-When you don't design user default-based, you're guaranteed to displease the unknowable non-zero number of those who have affirmatively adjusted their settings according to their preferences/requirements for pages that respect their settings. 2-When you don't design user default-based, you're virtually guaranteed to displease the unknowable non-zero number of those who find the hand they were dealt acceptable. This includes many in corporate environments where the sysadmins have preconfigured all systems to something other than factory settings, and many users of windoze systems set by the vendor or manufacturer to settings other than the traditional doze defaults of 96 DPI and 800x600. 3-When you don't design user default-based, the number and character of those who find your design perfectly acceptable will exclude the two groups above, and otherwise be a random and unknowable number that includes many who really don't care one way or another,
Re: [WSG] Font Sizes - Best practice
... I'll think you'll find them pretty unanimous in saying in essence don't mess with user defaults. Don't expect all the latter to practice what they preach though. ... Only these are browsers vendors defaults, not users. Can anyone point me to a study which shows: a) How many users do know that there exists a preference for a font size. b) How many of the do know how to use it and indeed do use it. c) How many have an idea what 'px' or 'pt' is, and have an idea how big is 16pt/px. Same goes for DPI settings. d) How many users prefer to play with settings instead of doing what they were going to do in the first place (getting info)? So far discussions on this topic are based only on our beliefs and assumptions (including mine). Usability is not about giving more means for control, it is about removing need for control. In my first car there was a handle which operated choke (thingy which lets to control the air intake of a carburetor and hence the richness of the fuel mixture.) That gave me more control, but not more usability. My new car does not have this - and yet it is more usable. My main task is to get from the point A to the point B, not to play with choke. So when I got that burden removed from me, I have more usable product. So, good design is about sensible defaults - too choose defaults in such a way that least possible people will feel a need to changes them. But yes, for those you should provide means to do just that. And once again there should be a reason that majority web pages go with font size about 12px. Coincidentally, 12-13px is my proffered font size... But that, of course, does not proof anything. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font Sizes - Best practice
Rimantas Liubertas: a) How many users do know that there exists a preference for a font size. b) How many of the do know how to use it and indeed do use it. c) How many have an idea what 'px' or 'pt' is, and have an idea how big is 16pt/px. Same goes for DPI settings. d) How many users prefer to play with settings instead of doing what they were going to do in the first place (getting info)? All good questions. I read somewhere recently that a seasoned usability tester observed one person changing the font size for the very first time. We may well conclude that the answer to the above questions are not many, however, I sense that they are largely rhetorical. In any case, they illustrate very well the reason(s) why it is better to have a font that's too big than one that's too small. Felix Miata wrote: Here's my definition of user default-based Thanks for the definition, particularly the examples you provide for when it is ok to use smaller text. kind regards Terrence Wood. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Font Sizes - Best practice
Hi Terrance From: Terrence Wood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] All good questions. I read somewhere recently that a seasoned usability tester observed one person changing the font size for the very first time. I wrote about that here recently. I've run hundreds of usability sessions and that was the first time I'd ever seen a user resize text via the browser, completely unprompted. The same user also right clicked a link to open it in a new window. I have to admit, it was pretty amazing to see! When I wrote to the list about it, there were jokes about it being usability 'pr0n' - which went right over my head. Because, while I might be geeky enough to get excited about resizing text or right clicking a link, I never got into all of that! Having said that, there was some truth to it. So going back to Rimantas questions, my experience would be to answer for each: 'Very few (non-web developer users)'. But I don't have any stats on this, it's purely based on observation during usability evaluations. Hope that helps Rimantas? Rimantas Liubertas: a) How many users do know that there exists a preference for a font size. b) How many of the do know how to use it and indeed do use it. c) How many have an idea what 'px' or 'pt' is, and have an idea how big is 16pt/px. Same goes for DPI settings. d) How many users prefer to play with settings instead of doing what they were going to do in the first place (getting info)? All good questions. I read somewhere recently that a seasoned usability tester observed one person changing the font size for the very first time. We may well conclude that the answer to the above questions are not many, however, I sense that they are largely rhetorical. In any case, they illustrate very well the reason(s) why it is better to have a font that's too big than one that's too small. Lisa ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font Sizes - Best practice
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 02:02:35 +0200, Rimantas Liubertas wrote: ... c) How many have an idea what 'px' or 'pt' is, and have an idea how big is 16pt/px. Same goes for DPI settings. In an attempt to inject something factual into this debate, a quick calculation for my 15 1440 x 1050 laptop tells me that a 10px font size is the same size as (poorly cast) 6pt type on paper. 16px is 9.6pt. 1pt = 1/72. I just changed Windows xp to 120 dpi, but this does not appear to have altered the text size in Firefox, but has increased it 25% in IE - so I set IE to smaller to compensate. Cordially, David -- David Hucklesby, on 2/22/2006 http://www.hucklesby.com/ -- ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font Sizes - Best practice
Rimantas Liubertas wrote Thu, 23 Feb 2006 02:02:35 +0200: Only these are browsers vendors defaults, not users. The browsers/vendors defaults are the users default defaults, mostly 12pt, or px equivalents thereof when all other settings remain at defaults. Can anyone point me to a study which shows: Here's one that exemplifies others, and to which I've seen a total of 0 inconsistent therewith: http://psychology.wichita.edu/optimalweb/text.htm It says most users prefer 12pt, which just happens to be the same as what browsers default to, and is usually substantially larger than the 11px-12px preference of most web designers. And once again there should be a reason that majority web pages go with font size about 12px. There is. Most designers are detail oriented people using large displays. Such people are more comfortable than average with things small, and so get one application of smaller via their preference, compounded by the application of compensation for their large displays. If it wasn't a health hazard to do so they should all be forced to use 14 primary displays at 1400x1050. Also, they and the people who pay them play the that's what everybody else is doing so it must be OK game. Coincidentally, 12-13px is my proffered font size... What pt size does that correspond to on your main display? What size is your main display? What is your primary resolution? How old are your eyes? How good is your corrected vision? How close do you sit to your display? Do your parents or grandparents find using your web pages on your equipment and settings equally comfortable as you? I quit buying magazines and newspapers because I got too tired of the tiny print they use. The web doesn't by its nature, unlike print media, force me to accept uncomfortably small type like that. That's a huge inherent web strength. Designers wielding the power of CSS can attempt to make me hate their pages, and usually do. The result is usually me turning off author styles entirely, as zooming all too often makes a mess out a design that didn't account for the possibility that the vision, settings, and equipment of the user don't match that of the designer. I'm not alone in this. More users want 12pt than anything else, but designers don't want them to have it. To me, that's the antithesis of a best practice. -- Love your neighbor as yourself.Mark 12:31 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/auth ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font Sizes - Best practice
David Hucklesby wrote Wed, 22 Feb 2006 22:08:03 -0800: In an attempt to inject something factual into this debate, a quick calculation for my 15 1440 x 1050 laptop tells me that a 10px font size is the same size as (poorly cast) 6pt type on paper. 16px is 9.6pt. 1pt = 1/72. I just changed Windows xp to 120 dpi, but this does not appear to have altered the text size in Firefox, That's the expected result of a UA that uses px for user settings. FF does that in part because it offers the user finer grained control of size, particularly as resolution is increased. Changing screen resolution will change the physical size of FF's default, but changing DPI will not but has increased it 25% in IE That's the expected result of a UA that uses pt for user settings. Most apps size text in pt. Theoretically, pt is a real life physical size. When you adjust dpi you're theoretically trying to get a correct result in pt and every other physical size unit. Check here http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/PointsDemo.html and see whether FF or IE or both are doing a good job with the sizes now that you've changed to 120. According to http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/dpi.html you're now seeing about as close to accurate pt sizes as anyone ever gets windoze to do. - so I set IE to smaller to compensate. Why? -- Love your neighbor as yourself.Mark 12:31 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/auth ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font Sizes - Best practice
David, on Monday, February 20, 2006 at 21:47 wsg@webstandardsgroup.org wrote: On the subject of trying to please everyone I know that it is impossible to please everyone, but I'd like to find a method which makes the world better for at least one person without doing any harm to others ;-) (Have you read A theory of justice by John Rawls ;-)) regards Martin ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font Sizes - Best practice
Martin Heiden wrote: I know that it is impossible to please everyone, but I'd like to find a method which makes the world better for at least one person without doing any harm to others ;-) Touché! (Have you read A theory of justice by John Rawls ;-)) Actually, no. But I just googled and read a synopsis. Nice reference, thank you. I feel sure we agree. (Hopefully the link to Georg's article helped.) Cordially, David -- David Hucklesby, on 2/21/2006 http://www.hucklesby.com/ -- ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
[WSG] Font Sizes - Best practice
Hi! I read a lot of threads about font-sizing lately, but I still did not catch the point of best practice yet. I use to set the body font-size to 62.5% for getting 1em = 10px at default settings. (It's much easier for me and the browser to calculate round values...) Then I increase the font-size on the elements that contain text. (But usually just by the factor 1.2... yes, I'm feeling guilty...) So if a user sets another preferred font-size, my hole layout will adjust to that value, but of course the text won't be at the size, the user chose, but a bit smaller. He would be able to set a minimum font-size and the hole layout will adjust to his preference. On the other hand, I don't know anyone who changed the default font-size in his/her browser, but lot's of people (mostly designers) who prefer smaller font-sizes. Well, the question is: Which group of people is more important? Or better: Is there a way to please both groups? regards Martin @Felix: I sent you the mail in CC because I'm very interested in your thoughts about this topic. TIA for your contributions to the thread. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font Sizes - Best practice
Martin Heiden wrote: I read a lot of threads about font-sizing lately, but I still did not catch the point of best practice yet. I use to set the body font-size to 62.5% for getting 1em = 10px at default settings. Eek! Never rely on default settings, many users will change them. So if a user sets another preferred font-size, my hole layout will adjust to that value, Good. On the other hand, I don't know anyone who changed the default font-size in his/her browser I do, but that's irrelevant. The number of people you know, or anyone else knows for that matter, is insignificant compared with the number of people that use the Internet world wide. Consider this: the number of people that visit my relatively small site every single day would be more people than I've met in my entire life time, so it's hardly surprising that the people you know wouldn't even come close to being a good representative cross-section of the wider population. but lot's of people (mostly designers) who prefer smaller font-sizes. It's unfortunate that so many designers prefer small font sizes. They fail to realise that while they may think small fonts may look good from a design perspective and are easily readable on their massive, super-high resolution, 21 monitors, it actually looks really awful and is extremely difficult for many users to read. Not every user will understand how to increase the font size, let alone know how to configure a minimum size in their browser. Those that do know will be able to work around such bad author decisions, but those that don't will be left squinting at their screen, which is bad for ergonomics, usability and accessibility. IMHO, any smaller than 'small' (approx 82%) is too small for main body copy, though I know some that argue font sizes generally shouldn't be smaller than 'medium' (100%). It's ok for relatively unimportant legal mumbo jumbo (copyright notices, disclaimers, etc.) to go smaller than that, but not for main content. Well, the question is: Which group of people is more important? I'm hoping that's a rhetorical question! The users are more important. They're the ones visiting your site trying to read it and if they can't read it, they'll leave. Or better: Is there a way to please both groups? Yes. Don't use small fonts. Those that can't read small fonts will be happier with the larger fonts, those that can read small fonts will have no difficulty reading the larger font and if they find it too big, they can either decrease it or even just sit a little further back from their screen. You need to build for the lowest common denominator (within reason), and when it comes to font sizes, it's better to be slightly too big for some, than too small for others. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Font Sizes - Best practice
Lachlan Hunt but lot's of people (mostly designers) who prefer smaller font-sizes. It's unfortunate that so many designers prefer small font sizes. They fail to realise that while they may think small fonts may look good from a design perspective and are easily readable on their massive, super-high resolution, 21 monitors, it actually looks really awful and is extremely difficult for many users to read. A far more fundamental group of people (which I already mentioned in my first email on this discussion) is of course that of the clients who pay for web design/development. Yes, we as developers can educate them, but when they see their competitor sites (and even big sites from the likes of IBM and co.) *all* setting a slightly smaller default font size, they expect the same on their site as well. A yes, but all those other sites are wrong and I do it the right way argument won't hold much weight in that situation, I'm afraid... Patrick Patrick H. Lauke Web Editor / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/
Re: [WSG] Font Sizes - Best practice
... Yes, we as developers can educate them, but when they see their competitor sites (and even big sites from the likes of IBM and co.) *all* setting a slightly smaller default font size, they expect the same on their site as well. A yes, but all those other sites are wrong and I do it the right way argument won't hold much weight in that situation, I'm afraid... And what if there is a reason for that (slightly smaller font size)? I prefer when font on monitor has roughly the same _angular_ size as font in books. And no, it is not 16px. So in this sense I do prefer smaller fonts. But, frankly, I am very tired of these assumption based discussions. Regards, Rimantas -- http://rimantas.com/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font Sizes - Best practice
Default font sizes also depend on the cultural background of the viewers/users. The default setting on Windows works out to be the same size as Times New Roman 10 pt when printed on Letter size paper. Australian's prefer default sizes of Times New Roman 12 pt when printed on A4 paper. I believe (preparing to be corrected quickly) that Europeans sizes are the same as the Australian default sizes. European type fonts (Nordic, etc) really need the larger 12 pt equivalent. I agree with Lachlan that designers with 19, 21, 20 Cinema Displays, etc do prefer smaller fonts that display well, especially on LCD screens at the smaller size but most users prefer font sizes to be similar to printed pages they are used too. This can change slightly with sans serif fonts as they are generally slightly larger when printed at the same point size. Sans serif fonts can also appear clearer on monitors because of the slightly larger than normal leading built into the font. So if you need to specify and design with font sizes different to the defaults I believe that you should make fonts no smaller than the 12 pt equivalent, unless using sans serif all caps or similar. User that need larger fonts or who have smaller monitors will then have no problem reading your web sites. I'll let you work out point to pixel to em sizes that appear similar. All this is just a suggestion and I have seen many effective web sites use small default text and large default text - it depends on the target audience. Regards, Steve On 20/02/2006, at 10:57 PM, Patrick Lauke wrote: Lachlan Hunt but lot's of people (mostly designers) who prefer smaller font-sizes. It's unfortunate that so many designers prefer small font sizes. They fail to realise that while they may think small fonts may look good from a design perspective and are easily readable on their massive, super-high resolution, 21 monitors, it actually looks really awful and is extremely difficult for many users to read. A far more fundamental group of people (which I already mentioned in my first email on this discussion) is of course that of the clients who pay for web design/development. Yes, we as developers can educate them, but when they see their competitor sites (and even big sites from the likes of IBM and co.) *all* setting a slightly smaller default font size, they expect the same on their site as well. A yes, but all those other sites are wrong and I do it the right way argument won't hold much weight in that situation, I'm afraid... Patrick Patrick H. Lauke Web Editor / University of Salford http://www.salford.ac.uk Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font Sizes - Best practice
people that use the Internet world wide. Consider this: the number of people that visit my relatively small site every single day would be more people than I've met in my entire life time, so it's hardly... This could be read in two ways. You have a hugely popular site, or you need to get out more. I am hoping for your sake it it the former ;) IMHO, any smaller than 'small' (approx 82%) is too small for main body copy, though I know some that argue font sizes generally shouldn't be smaller than 'medium' (100%). It's ok for relatively unimportant legal mumbo jumbo (copyright notices, disclaimers, etc.) to go smaller than that, but not for main content. I'd agree, and use a similar principle. However, some would say that that there is no excuse for reducing ANY content below 100%. Could it not be argued that the unimportant legal content is sometimes more important to some users than the general content on the page? :) There are many developers, myself included, who would love to use 100% font-size where possible. However, life is often about compromise. Web designers/developers do what they can to please users, clients, managers, parent-in-laws and the family dog (often my harshest critic). A general request to all... the discussion is great, the information useful. However, this topic has a habit of moving into strongly held views and extremes. Please keep calm and civil. Although not as enjoyable, gentle persuasion is often more effective than clubbing. Russ Gentle-persuasion-free-styler ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font Sizes - Best practice
Russ Gentle-persuasion-free-styler riding a mad Shetland pony ;) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- Med venlig hilsen/Best regards Kim Kruse - http://www.mouseriders.dk ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font Sizes - Best practice
On 2/20/06, Martin Heiden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On the other hand, I don't know anyone who changed the default font-size in his/her browser, but lot's of people (mostly designers) who prefer smaller font-sizes. Well, the question is: Which group of people is more important? Or better: Is there a way to please both groups? Designers might know what looks good but that doesn't mean they know what is effective and/or profitable. If you are making a site that is intended to make money and it will have a lot of body copy, it won't hurt the client any if the default font size is somewhere around 14-16px (in ems, but you get what I mean). Most users might say that the site is unusually big but very comfortable on the eyes, and that's not a bad thing. I've never heard anyone complain about the text being 100% of the default. In the end there's no reason to please other designers but you do have to balance pleasing the client and the users. You can try to assure the client that default text size will not hurt their business, but there are no promises that they will listen. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font Sizes - Best practice
Hi, on Monday, February 20, 2006 at 12:57 wsg@webstandardsgroup.org wrote: A far more fundamental group of people (which I already mentioned in my first email on this discussion) is of course that of the clients who pay for web design/development. That's one point. The other problem that I face frequently is, that I try to build websites that look good at at least 800x600px and flow to more or less 1000px width at default font-size. I set the max-width for maintaining the readability of the main content. At the small resolution, I'll get problems to fit the content to the layout if I don't reduce the font-size (at least in navigation or extra columns). But ok, let me make a first start for best practices regarding font-sizes: - Don't reduce the main font-size to less than 80% of the default font-size. Try to keep it at 100%. - Let the layout grow/shrink with the font-size or ensure that there is enough space to enlarge the font-size to 150%. Any corrections/additions? regards Martin ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font Sizes - Best practice
Christian Montoya wrote: Most users might say that the site is unusually big but very comfortable on the eyes, and that's not a bad thing. However, with many clients, it won't even get to live stage unless their wishes for smaller font size is implemented. In the end there's no reason to please other designers but you do have to balance pleasing the client and the users. You can try to assure the client that default text size will not hurt their business, but there are no promises that they will listen. Yup, exactly... -- 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 __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font Sizes - Best practice
Lachlan Hunt wrote Mon, 20 Feb 2006 22:32:22 +1100: IMHO, any smaller than 'small' (approx 82%) is too small for main body copy Title the following 'The meaning of small'. It's simply a collection of facts and observations about CSS small. The CSS2 spec recommended a 1.2 factor between adjacent sizes. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/fonts.html#font-size-props Working backwards from a 100% default, this would theoretically have worked out to 83.3% for small. The 2.1 spec differed, and explicitly pointed this out: implementation experience has demonstrated that a fixed ratio between adjacent absolute-size keywords is problematic, and this specification does NOT recommend such a fixed ratio http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/fonts.html#font-size-props Current browser implementations of CSS absolute/keyword sizes appear to be based upon Todd Fahrner's never completed Toward a standard font size interval system. http://style.cleverchimp.com/font_size_intervals/altintervals.html http://lxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/layout/style/nsStyleUtil.cpp#128 I've proposed a change for CSS3 for which no apparent interest has ever been shown: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/css/W3C/css3-34new.html http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/css/W3C/css3-34discuss.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2005Nov/0044.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2005Nov/0052.html If implemented in Gecko it might be implemented via this bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=187256 In current Gecko versions, small has the following meanings: DefaultSize % px 9px 100 9 10px90 9 11px90.910 12px83.310 13px92.312 14px85.712 15px86.713 16px81.213 17px or above 89, subject to rounding, which is of smaller impact as default size is increased http://lxr.mozilla.org/seamonkey/source/layout/style/nsStyleUtil.cpp#117 http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Moz/absolute-sizes-M.html In IE6, small has the following meanings at the default 96 DPI: DefaultSize % px pt smallest91.711 smaller 92.312 medium 81.213.00-13.99 9.375-10.124 larger 84.216 largest 90.519 http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/IE/pt2px096IE6.html http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/IE/absolute-sizes-IE6.html In IE6, small has the following meanings at 120 DPI (large fonts): DefaultSize % px pt smallest86.713 smaller 88.215 medium 85.017.00-17.99 9.875-10.474 larger 87.020 largest 85.223 http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/IE/pt2px120IE6.html http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/IE/absolute-sizes-IE6.html In Opera 9p2 Win, small has the following meanings installed at the default 96 DPI: DefaultSize % px pt 16px81.213.00-13.99 9.380-10.129 http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/O/pt2px096O.html In Konqueror 3.5, small has the following meanings @ 1024x768: DefaultSize DPI % px pt 12pt96 87.914.00-14.99 10.500-11.124 12pt108 89.216.00-16.99 10.667-11.333 12pt120 90.218.00-18.99 10.800-11.399 http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/K/pt2px096K.html http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/K/pt2px108K.html http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/K/pt2px120K.html Now all the above listed sizes for small are nominal, that is, font-size is a CSS property. Actual size however, requires a minimum of two dimensions in order to be visible, exactly two on a computer display. Therefore, the ubiquitous 13px/81.2% size for CSS small is actually 81.2% of each of the dimensions height and width, and so in fact the true _size_ is .812^2 or 66% of the default. As applied to the ubiquitous 16px/12pt default, we see a character box for medium has about 128 discreet px, 16 high by 8 wide, while for small, nominally 6.5 wide by 13 high, about 84.5, 66% of the default. -- Love your neighbor as yourself.Mark 12:31 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/auth ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font Sizes - Best practice
Martin Heiden wrote: I use to set the body font-size to 62.5% for getting 1em = 10px at default settings. ... Martin, you may like to consider the effect of defining a small font size on the BODY element. Georg Sørtun did some experiments that illustrate the problem: http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_03_04.html FWIW - I installed Clear Type on my laptop recently. These fonts are anti-aliased, and I'm amazed how much easier they are to read. I think perhaps the reason you see so many sites that use tiny text is the design comes from a Photoshop layout that uses anti-aliased fonts. Take a look at a web page under the screen magnifier sometime - it amazes me that 10px fonts can be read at all! (Accessories Accessibility Magnifier) An additional effect from using a 120 dpi setting (needed for Clear Type) is that IE and Opera show text 125% larger than Gecko browsers. So I simply set IE and Opera to smaller fonts to match. Even with IE set to smaller text, I notice that some sites still break at the new dpi setting. Little wonder that most people leave their settings as they come from the store. On the subject of trying to please everyone, I wonder if you are familiar with the story of the man, the boy, and the donkey? : http://www.bartleby.com/17/1/62.html Cordially, David -- David Hucklesby, on 2/20/2006 http://www.hucklesby.com/ -- ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font Sizes - Best practice
russ - maxdesign wrote: people that use the Internet world wide. Consider this: the number of people that visit my relatively small site every single day would be more people than I've met in my entire life time, so it's hardly... This could be read in two ways. You have a hugely popular site, or you need to get out more. I am hoping for your sake it it the former ;) I hadn't thought of it that way. :-) ... It's ok for relatively unimportant legal mumbo jumbo (copyright notices, disclaimers, etc.) to go smaller than that, but not for main content. Could it not be argued that the unimportant legal content is sometimes more important to some users than the general content on the page? :) I'm sure there are some that think such notices should be shown in large bold letters, read and agreed to by every user prior to getting access to the rest of the site. They do exactly that on DVDs and Videos, often on porn sites where the user must agree to being over 18, etc. But from the average user's perspective, it's the main content that's most important. -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font Sizes - Best practice
Lachlan Hunt wrote: russ - maxdesign wrote: Could it not be argued that the unimportant legal content is sometimes more important to some users than the general content on the page? :) I'm sure there are some that think such notices should be shown in large bold letters, read and agreed to by every user prior to getting access to the rest of the site. They do exactly that on DVDs and Videos, often on porn sites where the user must agree to being over 18, etc. Russ I think you need to do some research on porn site best practices here and report back to the list :) Mike never visited a porn site so wouldn't know ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font Sizes - Best practice
Mike Brown wrote: Russ I think you need to do some research on porn site best practices here and report back to the list :) Mike never visited a porn site so wouldn't know sarcasm class=tuiYeah, right/sarcasm :-p ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Font Sizes
YoYoEtc wrote: Just wanted to make a comment - criticism perhaps - of the size of the print/text I see on some web sites I have visited. Honestly, I am not old and I almost need a magnifying glass to see some of it. Sometimes it seems that the designer has tried to cram as much as is humanly possible on to one screen - and these appear to be experienced designers. Initially, I thought perhaps it was because I was using a four-year old monitor. Well, I bought a new computer just four months ago, along with a new 19-inch monitor - and nothing has changed! Is it a new trend to try to make fonts as microscopic as possible? To me, that would be against any feasible standard of good usability. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * There's a good lesson there: use relative font sizes, so people's user defined style sheets don't break your page. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Font Sizes
My monitor is set for 1042x768. I understand what you are saying about fonts taken from an elementary schoolbook. Those can be even more annoying. I am referring to fonts that appear to be perhaps a 6 or 7 point size on screen. Honestly, you can hardly read some of them. What is ctrl+scrollwheel? I have a Logitech mouse with a scrollwheel in the middle (which I rarely use - was raised in DOS times with old fashined mouse grin) At 03:45 PM 5/9/2004, Rimantas Liubertas wrote: Y Initially, I thought perhaps it was because I was using a four-year old Y monitor. Well, I bought a new computer just four months ago, along with a Y new 19-inch monitor - and nothing has changed! The size of the font on the screen depends more on resolution you've set for your monitor, than on its size. Y Is it a new trend to try to make fonts as microscopic as possible? To me, Y that would be against any feasible standard of good usability. Frankly, I've tired of all this endless dancing around font sizes long ago. I'm am using Firefox and ctrl+scrollwheel takes all the fuss away. Usability depends on many things too. Talk about line length, line height, font outline, colors etc. Still I like smaller fonts more than those making text to look like it's been taken from the elementary schoolbook. All said represents my position as the web user, not developer. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Font Sizes
Is Firefox yet another browser? In designing sites, are there other browsers I need to take into consideration other than Internet Explorer, Netscape, Mozilla, Opera and WebTV? At 03:45 PM 5/9/2004, Rimantas Liubertas wrote: Frankly, I've tired of all this endless dancing around font sizes long ago. I'm am using Firefox and ctrl+scrollwheel takes all the fuss away. Usability depends on many things too. Talk about line length, line height, font outline, colors etc. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re[2]: [WSG] Font Sizes
Hello YoYoEtc, Sunday, May 9, 2004, 11:00:49 PM, you wrote: ... Y What is ctrl+scrollwheel? I have a Logitech mouse with a scrollwheel in the Y middle (which I rarely use - was raised in DOS times with old fashined Y mouse grin) Well this is just an very effective way to increase-decrease font size if I don't like the default one. Press CTRL and turn the wheel. I am a big fun of keyboard, but scrollwheel (for scrolling) is so convenient :) I am aware most users are not aware they can change font size. Well, that's sad. Regards, Rimantas * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Font Sizes
So this means I only need to proof it in one of Firefox, Mozilla or Netscape, not all three. Is that correct? At 04:19 PM 5/9/2004, Felix Miata wrote: Firefox, Mozilla and Netscape are all the same Gecko rendering engine. Netscape 6/7 are simply older versions. -- ** Tina * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
Re: [WSG] Font Sizes
I wouldn't bother testing in WebTV at all. It has a tiny market share and pretty limited functionality. Jake Quoting YoYoEtc [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Is Firefox yet another browser? In designing sites, are there other browsers I need to take into consideration other than Internet Explorer, Netscape, Mozilla, Opera and WebTV? At 03:45 PM 5/9/2004, Rimantas Liubertas wrote: Frankly, I've tired of all this endless dancing around font sizes long ago. I'm am using Firefox and ctrl+scrollwheel takes all the fuss away. Usability depends on many things too. Talk about line length, line height, font outline, colors etc. * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help * * The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help *
