Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-10 Thread Felix Miata
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:

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-10 Thread Rick Lecoat
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-10 Thread Felix Miata
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-07 Thread Tony Crockford
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-07 Thread Rick Lecoat
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-07 Thread Rahul Gonsalves
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-07 Thread Rick Lecoat
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-07 Thread Tony Crockford
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-07 Thread Stuart Foulstone
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-07 Thread Rick Lecoat
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-06 Thread Jens Brueckmann
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.

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-06 Thread Gunlaug Sørtun
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-06 Thread Timothy Swan
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-06 Thread Rick Lecoat
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-06 Thread Rick Lecoat
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-06 Thread Felix Miata
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-06 Thread Jens Brueckmann
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-06 Thread Rick Lecoat
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-06 Thread Tony Crockford
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-06 Thread Timothy Swan
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-06 Thread Rick Lecoat
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-06 Thread Stuart Foulstone
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-06 Thread Felix Miata
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-06 Thread Felix Miata
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-06 Thread Tony Crockford
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-06 Thread dwain
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-06 Thread Tony Crockford
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-06 Thread Gunlaug Sørtun
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-06 Thread dwain
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-06 Thread Felix Miata
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-06 Thread Felix Miata
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-05 Thread Felix Miata
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.

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-05 Thread Patrick H. Lauke
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-05 Thread Gunlaug Sørtun
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'

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-05 Thread Robert O'Rourke
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-05 Thread Rick Lecoat
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-05 Thread Rick Lecoat
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-05 Thread Hassan Schroeder
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-05 Thread Felix Miata
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-05 Thread Joseph Taylor
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-05 Thread Tony Crockford
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-05 Thread Hassan Schroeder
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:

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-05 Thread Felix Miata
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-05 Thread Rick Lecoat
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-05 Thread Tony Crockford
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-05 Thread Rimantas Liubertas
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,

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-05 Thread Felix Miata
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?

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-05 Thread Rick Lecoat
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-05 Thread Felix Miata
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-05 Thread Hassan Schroeder
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-05 Thread Felix Miata
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-05 Thread Tony Crockford
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-05 Thread Rick Lecoat
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-05 Thread Felix Miata
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-05 Thread Felix Miata
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-05 Thread Felix Miata
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-05 Thread David Laakso
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-05 Thread Felix Miata
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-05 Thread Dean Edridge
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/

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-05 Thread Dean Edridge
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-05 Thread Jixor - Stephen I
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-05 Thread Dean Edridge
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:

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-05 Thread Gunlaug Sørtun
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-05 Thread Jixor - Stephen I
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

Re: [WSG] Font sizing: top down or bottom up

2007-09-05 Thread Jixor - Stephen I
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