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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
66 matches
Mail list logo