Felix Miata wrote: > On 2007/05/25 17:47 (GMT-0400) Philip Kiff apparently typed: > >> Felix Miata wrote: > >>> What matters is: >>> [...] >>> 5-that any deviation a designer makes from 100% is >>> arbitrary, as it's made from an entirely unknown starting point > >>> 100% of the visitor's choice equals respect for the visitor. > >> I'm not really convinced that this is an issue of "respect" for the >> users of one's site. > >> The reference that Kane provided to Owen Briggs's charts over at >> thenoodleincident.com I think demonstrates how the operating system >> manufacturers and browser companies are the ones who have been >> arbitrary about what 100% font size on the body element means. Here >> is a link to Owen Briggs's page discussing Sane CSS Typography: >> http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/typography/index.html > > That's the 2nd time in this thread that poison-pill anachronism has > been included. Its focus is on pixel perfection with tiny fonts that > provides at most marginal utility when applied to the much larger > pixel sizes necessary on modern high resolution/high PPI displays. It > only applied when the very overwhelming majority of browsers had 16px > defaults *and* most users were running sub-~72DPI displays. It > misleads the uninitiated into thinking mousetype is an OK standard > for web pages.
I included the 2nd link to the Briggs article because I thought that perhaps the first link might not have been understood since it went directly to the a page of Briggs's images. I realize that you have spent considerable time studying this issue, but your explanation of Briggs's technique seems misleading to me. Under Briggs's technique, the body font-size is set to 76% and then the p font-size is set to 1.0 em. All other elements are then sized with ems. This should not produce tiny fonts on most people's systems: that is the whole purpose of his going through the exercise of producing all the screenshots using different browsers and operating systems. Although the screenshots date back to 2002, they do include IE 6, and I doubt there are differences in font-size rendering between IE 6 and 7 that would make Briggs technique suddenly unusable. Briggs's method will produce pages where fonts appear similar to what they appear like if you use 12pt text as your base font-size. This is the size that is still used today by millions of websites. No doubt some people find that size too small, but that is still the norm on the web these days. I don't quite understand the issue with the different dpi displays. Won't that have the same affect on all browsers, regardless of what method is used to size fonts -- unless you use pixel sizes, of course? I would also add that the reason I found the Briggs method attractive was that there is a certain elegance to the code involved, and some other designers may have been attracted for the same reason. Under Briggs, your base site font text is 1.0 em. Headings, lists, and other elements can all be set in relation to that 1.0em base. Whenever you are working on the CSS file, you can immediately grasp what the relative size of any element will be in comparison to your base body text (2.5em = two and a half times). Also, you can upsize your entire website simply by changing the body font-size from 76% to a larger number. There is no need to go through and change each and every percentage or em value of your other elements since the whole site should scale with the body font-size setting. >> As Kane pointed out, and as Owen Briggs's screenshot studies >> demonstrate, the use of 76% as the body font size is "to create a >> more even base-line size across multiple browsers". This 76% figure >> is not therefore entirely arbitrary: > > The arbitrariness is an illusion induced by a mindset that all > browsers should make every web look like a clone of that page in > every other web browser. Modern browsers do a remarkable job of > providing the similarity among themselves that they do, which is due > in no small part to the standards bodies considerable efforts to > create sensible and achievable standards. Different, within reason, > should be a perfectly OK standard. I agree wholeheartedly. Different viewports and preferred sizes are perfectly OK. But if a designer finds a way to make sites appear almost identical across all major browsers and platforms at a screen resolution of 1024x768 on a 17" monitor with everything else set at default settings, and those sites are STILL scalable for other users, then shouldn't that be OK too? >> setting the body font size to 65%-76% or so is the size that > > 76% was a particular sweet spot for a particular period that has since > passed. Any deviation from 76% did and does move the result out of > that anachronistic sweet spot. > >> designers have come up with over the years that allows them the most >> freedom to produce designs that appear similar across different >> browsers and different operating platforms. > > That particular basis doesn't make it any less arbitrary with regard > to users. A designer does not know the particulars of particular > visitors' local environments, and has no basis to know anything other > than 100% basing could possibly be more usable or more accessible for > any environment outside the one he is currently situated in. > >> These levels don't come from any disrespect >> felt towards site visitors, but from a disrespect for the >> arbitrariness of different browser defaults and a desire to override >> the choices made by those browsers. > > 65%-80% produces a uniformity of substantially reduced accessibility > and usability that 100% basing does not do. Whether 65%-80% is > intended to disrespect visitors is irrelevant; only the fact that it > does is. Again, I would question the use of the term "disrespect" here. Respect is a human value and feeling, and it certainly does depend on notions of intent, and on human cultural constructs. That is why it is possible to disrespect someone without intending to. According to your view, the majority of websites out there "disrespect" their users. I don't think that most users feel this sense of disrespect the way you do. And I therefore don't see this as an issue of respect. That is not to say that *you* shouldn't feel disrespected -- that is something you have a right to feel whenever you feel it; but I think that you are incorrectly projecting your feeling of disrespect onto other users who don't necessarily respond that way to issues of font-size when browsing the web. I would instead use the term "annoy" to describe what you are talking about. If a website has font sizes that are too small for me to read then I feel annoyed. Likewise, if the font sizes are too large and I have to scroll around too much. If the font sizes are set in such as way that I can't even use the site, then I feel REALLY annoyed. A good website tries to annoy the fewest users possible, but they will all annoy someone. > It's unrealistic to strive for pixel perfection across all browsers, > so to use undersized fonts purely in the interest of achieving that > goal is fighting the inherent nature and strength of the web rather > than embracing it, besides disrespecting visitors. Yes, I actually agree with you here, and I personally am more interested in fluid, flexible designs rather than pixel-perfect designs. However, I've seen some pretty beautiful work done by pixel-perfect designers, and as far as I'm concerned, if they want to design against the grain of the web, then I'm happy to let them continue. I don't see any standard anywhere that should prevent them from doing so. All I ask is that they make their designs scalable so that they do not pose accessibility barriers. I think many of the best designers are acutely aware of the futility of expecting pixel perfect perfection across all browsers, but I am not sure that it is my place to tell them that they should not continue to strive for that. Nor do I see that as a question of "web standards". If their designing desires take them in that direction, then so be it. I look forward to seeing the beauty they create online. Those designs form one front of cutting edge web development. Not everyone has to be moving toward the same cutting edge. Some web designers are like the samurai, who perform devoted, meticulous services for their web overlords. But others are more like the ronin, the masterless samurai, who cut new paths and develop new ways of using their web blades, carving off a piece of the web for themselves, and taking pleasure in their craft while serving as their own masters. >> apparent arbitrariness of the 100% alternative. > > Because no designer knows the real world starting point outside his > local world, any deviation from 100% is inherently arbitrary. > > OTOH, the "100% Easy-2-Read Standard" is a standard worthy of > embracing to the fullest. > http://www.informationarchitects.jp/100e2r?v=4 Phil. ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
