On 2009/07/04 10:13 (GMT+0100) Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis composed: > On 2/7/09 17:07, Felix Miata wrote:
>> Zoom, minimum text size and magnifiers are defense mechanisms. The basic >> problem is the pervasive offense - not respecting users' font size choices by >> incorporating them at 100% for the bulk of content. Thus, an even better way >> to address presbyopia is to design to make defenses unnecessary in the first >> place. > I'm dubious about the rhetoric here: That you call it rhetoric doesn't make it so. Too small text is #1 user complaint: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html W3 recommends 100%: http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/font-size As do others, e.g.: http://tobyinkster.co.uk/article/web-fonts/ http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/fontsize.html http://informationarchitects.jp/100e2r/?v=4 http://fm.no-ip.com/auth/bigdefaults.html http://www.cameratim.com/personal/soapbox/morons-in-webspace#hard-to-read-fonts > * Why should we treat browser default font size settings, which many > users seem not to realise that they can change, Whether individuals know how or how many actually change anything is irrelevant. You as designer aren't there, so you can't possibly know that what they have isn't acceptable or even perfect, much less improve their experience by deviating from the default. Note that many who "don't know they can" or "don't know how" often reduce the overall quality of their computing/web experience by reducing resolution as a means to making web page objects bigger. > as "users' font size choices"? Any presumption other than that users have either 1-made an affirmative choice to change 2-found the vendor supplied choice acceptable is a presumption that chaos is preferable to respect. Visitors are overwhelmingly using _personal computers_. Personal computers are expected to be *personalized* by the person using it, and not just by changing desktop wallpaper or mouse pointer. Personal computers are not made by morons, but by humans who have preselected defaults designed to make the majority of users happy with most things just as they found them, ready to use as received. To think that an eagle-eyed web page designer biased by her giant tax-deductible worktool display can impose some other size in order to make things better for the majority is a preposterous supposition. Average users have average eyes and average equipment and actually read the web pages rather than just looking to see that the pages "look good". > If users want to force a font size everywhere, they can and > that is indisputably a user choice. Users should not routinely need to force an override, which is what the current state of the web and its near universal use of sub-default text does. Defenses (e.g. forcing via minimum size) characteristically have drawbacks, which in these cases typically means overlapping or hidden text, and/or inappropriate line lengths, and/or horizontal scrolling. > * Why should we characterize user acceptance with reservations of > publisher styles for the page, the web, or their entire system as a > "defensive" measure? I think this language reinforces the popular > (mis)conception that publisher styles are the natural presentation of > the publisher's content, rather than a skin the user should be able to > reject or use with modifications. Why not see this as a partnership > rather than a battle? Do you not know that web browsers did not always have minimum size or zoom functions? It's true! These features were requested of UA suppliers by users, as defensive measures, because web site authors, who were given CSS with which to totally disregard visitor preferences (px, pt), and more power to shrink the preferences (unlimited em & % instead of just size=-2 & size=-1), used the power of CSS to transform most of the web into imitation magazine pages full of hard to read (undersized WRT defaults) text. As long as designers insist that defaults are wrong by applying sub-100% sizing to body or primary content containers, users will need to battle (defend against) to undo designer imposition (offense). A partnership needs partners with something in common for the partnership to function reliably. The em unit as common frame of reference allows the designer to presumptively please every visitor. > * Like font size, typeface and colors can radically affect the > legibility of text and can be overridden by settings in popular > browsers. Would you describe publisher typeface and color suggestions as > an "offence" against user choice? If no, then why not? Font size is the accessibility and usability foundation. If a designer can't get that foundation right, everything else is effectively built on sand. Color & typeface without regard to type size are a big fancy wedding with bride and groom picked at random by the wedding planners without regard to bride or groom. The relatively recent trend of #333 or lighter text on a white or less contrasty background is no small problem, but it pales in comparison to the basic issue of text size. I don't consider typeface such a big deal. There are very few universally installed fonts. Sure they vary in apparent size, but generally as long as those selected are used at the user's selected size, reasonable legibility is a given. As to designer "control" over typeface, we should remember CSS is designed to be a suggestive only. Too bad for users that designers almost universally overwhelm with their "suggestions", making them difficult to impossible to reasonably override. -- No Jesus - No peace , Know Jesus - Know Peace Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *******************************************************************
