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:
> <http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/2S/font.htm>
> <http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20020819.html>
> <http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/bigdefaults.html>
> <http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/essence.html>

Not everyone expects the same thing from the WWW, just as not every page is
designed by a designer, just as not every page author places the same
relative importance on appearance compared to content. Sometimes simplicity
is the design, or part of the design.

Those pages share one common purpose - conveying information - by people who
believe the message is more important than the style. In every case,
legibility will not be a problem for their visitors whose UA is reasonably
configured. They would all convey the same message if styled as this:

> Now, I'm not going to dispute that these are very accessible sites from
> a type-size perspective. And, yes, they present their information
> without unnecessary distraction. But I can also guarantee that if I took
> a 'design' like that of any of those sites to a client, said client
> would be out the door and off to my competitors faster than I could say
> "Accessibility".

Their goals are message conveyance, not facilitating exit or entertaining
visually. Navigation there is incidental or unnecessary. Distractions are
definitely undesired. Since none are "designs" as the term is ordinarily used
by designers, they aren't intended as and shouldn't be used as examples of
"design", unless the context is one of usability or accessibility discussion,
or the client is a Joe Friday (just the facts, no nonsense) type.

> Maybe it's just coincidence. But none of those sites telling me that I
> can create perfectly nice-looking, commercially viable designs using
> default text sizes have actually put their design-money where their
> mouth is.

That's inaccurate, though sites that profess and/or urge accessibility and/or
usability commonly don't put their money where there mouth is either
http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/access-lipservice .

Simple examples:

> *That does not make the points they raise wrong*, but it means
> that it feels a bit like having my dress sense criticised by someone
> wearing a dirty t-shirt and torn sweat pants.

I wouldn't equate clean and uncluttered pages to tattered and dirty clothes.
Maybe more like criticizm for wearing inappropriate attire, like thongs or
pasties, in places ordinary adults and children frequent, like shopping
malls, or an evening gown to the beach, or work uniforms to a funeral. Design
should fit purpose. Simple purpose, simple design.
"It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs,
whether any free government can be permanent, where the
public worship of God, and the support of religion,
constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in
any assignable shape."
                             Chief Justice Joseph Story

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata  ***  http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/

List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm

Reply via email to