On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 23:58:33 +0100, Andy Budd wrote: > We liked the big fonts size partly for accessibility, but also partly > because we were fed up with tiny designer sized fonts. I do wonder if > the size is a little to big, especially on lower screen resolutions. > However on large screen resolutions I think it works well. I guess if > you personally find it too big, you could always knock it down a > notch.
I realise this risks starting a religious war, but I guess I am feeling contentious ;) I like Andy's latest effort - the font size is a literal shock to the eye, but the more I look at it, the more I like it. The 'small font' school is attributed to 20-something designers who don't need specs yet (not me!) but I tend to small-and-tight myself. But when I stop and look at this sort of layout, I think back to some of the explanations I give to prospects of what a website can do for them: "One use is as a brochure for your business where you never run out of stock". I always like that simile, and it seems to sit well with the prospects too. Thinking about those brochures we are contemplating replacing, we see that they are always spaciously and nicely laid out. If the customer has to squint at them, they have failed. I think we should try and do that more with our websites. We have an infinite number of pages we can deliver to the customer, I think I will be trying to fill that space a little better in future - less is more :) warmly, Lea -- Lea de Groot Elysian Systems - http://elysiansystems.com/ Brisbane, Australia ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
