A friend of mine pointed out the other day that certain elements on my web
site are too small. But in most of what I publish, fonts are at default size
or smaller, and my images are easy to see. I am viewing at 800x600 right now
by the way, because that's what I can comfortably see.
Times New Roman default pitch is what - 12px?
With people increasing their screen resolutions, is it possible for "default
size to ever become too small in the future? Will we be forced to "upscale"
our web pages to make them legible on larger resolutions (but like
childrens' books for those of us on smaller resolutions)?
If you know what I'm referring to, please explain. Any information is
appreciated. Thanks!
--
============================
- Dave http://members.cox.net/grundage/ 64  4191 
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 15:33:19 -0500, Dave <da**@yahoo.com> wrote: A friend of mine pointed out the other day that certain elements on my
web
site are too small. But in most of what I publish, fonts are at default
size
or smaller, and my images are easy to see. I am viewing at 800x600 right
now
by the way, because that's what I can comfortably see.
Times New Roman default pitch is what - 12px?
With people increasing their screen resolutions, is it possible for
"default
size to ever become too small in the future? Will we be forced to
"upscale"
our web pages to make them legible on larger resolutions (but like
childrens' books for those of us on smaller resolutions)?
If you know what I'm referring to, please explain. Any information is
appreciated. Thanks!
The user is responsible for their user agent. If it is not delivering
content in an appropriate manner, the user must correct it in the browser.
Now, AS WE ALL KNOW BY NOW font-size should be set, if at all, in
percentages. 100% equals the user's default size, which has either been
set to what's appropriate, or wasn't all that bad to begin with. So, if
what you say is true, you are sending text with font-size: 100% (or no
font-size alterations at all) and the size seems incorrect on the screen,
then the visitor is at fault, and likely the user finds this problem with
a lot of content on a lot of sites. They should adjust the browser text
size to their preferred size.
However, if, as I suspect, you use font-size: 12px then you are not
sending text at default size. That size varies from screen to browser to
user. The only reliable way is to use 100%. Larger for headings and such,
no smaller *at all* unless the content doesn't need to be read by the
visitor.
How's that?
Dave <da**@yahoo.com> wrote: A friend of mine pointed out the other day that certain elements on my web
site are too small.
Well, the URL in your .sig <http://members.cox.net/grundage/> uses px for
font sizes. Many of those font sizes are smaller than the minimum font size
enforced by my browser, and fonts sized in px (and pt) units are
inappropriate on the WWW (see http://css.nu/faq/ciwas-aFAQ.html#QA02).
Instead, leave the font size alone for normal body text, and specify
exceptions (e.g., larger fonts for headings, smaller fonts for legalese) as
a percentage of the normal font size. You could also specify these
exceptions using em units, but then you need to include
body { font-size: 100% }
as a workaround for a rather obnoxious bug in MSIE.
Times New Roman default pitch is what - 12px?
It could be anything, assuming a font named "Times New Roman" even exists.
With people increasing their screen resolutions, is it possible for "default
size to ever become too small in the future?
The user's normal font size will be legible. Your "default font size" may
or may not be legible on anyone else's system.
As Todd Fahrner wrote:
The font size chosen by the user as a comfortable default (1 em)
provides more truly useful information about the rendering
environment than all the resolution-sniffing, window-querying,
"open-this-wide" logic you can throw at the problem.
See also: http://www.htmlhelp.com/faq/html/des...ml#screen-size http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmat...lexdesign.html
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/
"The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese."
"Dave" <da**@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:iI6Xc.60395$wo.33707@okepread06... A friend of mine pointed out the other day that certain elements on my web
site are too small. But in most of what I publish, fonts are at default
size or smaller, and my images are easy to see. I am viewing at 800x600 right
now by the way, because that's what I can comfortably see.
Times New Roman default pitch is what - 12px?
With people increasing their screen resolutions, is it possible for
"default size to ever become too small in the future? Will we be forced to
"upscale" our web pages to make them legible on larger resolutions (but like
childrens' books for those of us on smaller resolutions)?
Browsers are programmed to take the screen resolution into account when
displaying content. Users can then adjust the default size to suit their own
preferences. There is no problem unless *you* define the font-size in terms
of pixels, points, or picas. Define them as ems or %s.
"Dave" <da**@yahoo.com> wrote: A friend of mine pointed out the other day that certain elements on my web
site are too small. But in most of what I publish, fonts are at default size
or smaller,
So some fonts are smaller than default and you wonder why some people
think they are too small?
and my images are easy to see. I am viewing at 800x600 right now
by the way, because that's what I can comfortably see.
Times New Roman default pitch is what - 12px?
12px, 14px, 16px or 20px depending on browser and OS.
16px for most users as that's the default in Windows IE.
But the user can alwsys configure a different default if they choose.
With people increasing their screen resolutions, is it possible for "default
size to ever become too small in the future? Will we be forced to "upscale"
our web pages to make them legible on larger resolutions (but like
childrens' books for those of us on smaller resolutions)?
If someone opts to use a larger resolution but also opts not adjust
they default font size then they can really only blame themselves.
Don't specify font sizes in pixels.
Don't specify the main body copy at a smaller size than default.
Steve
--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor
Steve Pugh <st***@pugh.net> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
[crossposted to, and followups set for, c.i.w.a.stylesheets]
Dave wrote: A friend of mine pointed out the other day that certain elements on my web
site are too small.
It's possible that his/her browser is configured incorrectly.
But in most of what I publish, fonts are at default size or smaller, and
my images are easy to see. I am viewing at 800x600 right now by the way,
because that's what I can comfortably see.
Times New Roman default pitch is what - 12px?
Who says they have Times New Roman installed *at all*? "World Wide Web
browser" does not imply "PC running the latest Microsoft Windows".
And default font size can be anywhere between, say, 6px and 60px, sometimes
even outside those ranges.
With people increasing their screen resolutions, is it possible for
"default size to ever become too small in the future?
The size of 1em will never become too small in the future. Anything else,
especially based in something like px units, makes assumptions about the
user's system that will likely be horribly wrong at some point.
--
Shawn K. Quinn
Dave wrote: in most of what I publish, fonts are at default size
or smaller, and my images are easy to see. I am viewing at 800x600 right now
by the way, because that's what I can comfortably see.
Times New Roman default pitch is what - 12px?
I see how much time you spent reading the group before jumping in. If
you had spent some time, you might have come across this:
<quote>
The font size chosen by the user as a comfortable default (1 em)
provides more truly useful information about the rendering environment
than all the resolution-sniffing, window-querying, "open-this-wide"
logic you can throw at the problem.
</quote>
With people increasing their screen resolutions, is it possible for "default
size to ever become too small in the future?
Only if you don't read the group and follow the advice so often suggested.
Will we be forced to "upscale"
our web pages to make them legible on larger resolutions (but like
childrens' books for those of us on smaller resolutions)?
Try font-size: 100%; (Note that MSIE/Win is buggy when fonts are set in
em units. Percentages are equivalent, and help work around the bugs.)
100% sets the font size to 100% of the size selected in the user's browser.
--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Neal <ne*****@yahoo.com> writes: Now, AS WE ALL KNOW BY NOW font-size should be set, if at all, in
percentages. 100% equals the user's default size, which has either
been set to what's appropriate, or wasn't all that bad to begin
with. So, if what you say is true, you are sending text with
font-size: 100% (or no font-size alterations at all) and the size
seems incorrect on the screen, then the visitor is at fault, and
likely the user finds this problem with a lot of content on a lot of
sites. They should adjust the browser text size to their preferred
size.
I've been thinking about this issue a bit.
The *vast* majority of sites on the web display text at a size below
the browser default size. And this is wrong and were we starting again
with the web we wouldn't do this. But it is the case now.
Ignore the sites that set their size in CSS pt/px which completely
ignores the browser default size, because there's nothing that can be
done about them apart from the minimum size setting that's appeared in
modern browsers, and just consider the ones that use em, %, or the old
<font size="2"> - in other words, sizes relative to the browser
default.
If I set my browser text size to the size that I find comfortable for
reading body text, then the vast majority of pages on the web will
appear too small [1]. If I set my browser text size to the size that I
find comfortable by going to a typical web page and adjusting the size
until its comfortable, I will have a default size that is actually
somewhat larger than my preferred size, but does have the advantage of
working on the majority of web sites I visit.
Neilsen (in http://useit.com/alertbox/991114.html) reckons that if 80%
of the major sites on the web make a certain design error [2], then it's
often easier on users to make the same error and have consistent
behaviour then to go for something technically better but likely to be
unfamiliar to users. Unless it's a *lot* better.
So:
If I set my _site's_ font size to 100%/1em, then those people who have
configured their browsers to display the majority of websites at a
comfortable size will find the text too large.
If I set my site's font size to slightly less than this (85%,
perhaps), then those people who have configured their browsers to
display the majority of websites at a comfortable size will find the
text also at their preferred size (give or take a point or so). People
who find this font size too small are also likely to find the vast
majority of websites too small (and will hopefully do something about
it).
There is the argument that it's better to have text too large than too
small. However, the RNIB site ( http://www.rnib.org.uk/) appears to
have a base text size of 80% for most elements, and that site was
heavily tested with partially-sighted users.
To get to the point - are we right to be recommending 100% as the base
font size? Yes, in principle we are. In practice I'm not so
sure. Provided relative units are used, something a little smaller
than 100% appears to be safe in practice.
So, given that we always recommend 1em on this and other newsgroups,
and we must have very good reasons for doing this, why am I wrong -
why is 100% *in practice* the right size to use?
[1] Unless I also set my minimum size to the same one, but if I do
that it doesn't really matter *what* the page sets as font size, I
won't notice at all.
[2] Now, most websites don't have alt attributes, but they can be
added in without anyone who doesn't need them noticing, so that's not
the same sort of issue.
--
Chris
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Chris Morris wrote:
[...] To get to the point - are we right to be recommending 100% as the base
font size? Yes, in principle we are.
Right.
In practice I'm not so sure. Provided relative units are used,
something a little smaller than 100% appears to be safe in practice.
As you say, there's an argument in favour of making the same mistakes
as the majority of web authors make. So all link texts should read
"click here" ? No thanks. External links should consistently open in
a new window ? No thanks.
So, given that we always recommend 1em on this and other newsgroups,
and we must have very good reasons for doing this,
We are, to some extent, idealists. We don't like it when theory and
practice are out of alignment, and we try to persuade people to bring
them more closely into line. In the end, they'll do whatever they're
going to do... I don't really think they need any extra encouragement
from us.
why am I wrong -
why is 100% *in practice* the right size to use?
You're sort of proposing that the advice they get from us would be "do
it this way - it's wrong in principle, but most other authors do it
this (wrong) way, and it's what readers have grown to expect" - at
least, that's how I interpret what you're saying.
I'm unhappy with that, I have to say.
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> writes: On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Chris Morris wrote:
[...] To get to the point - are we right to be recommending 100% as the base
font size? Yes, in principle we are.
Right.
In practice I'm not so sure. Provided relative units are used,
something a little smaller than 100% appears to be safe in practice.
As you say, there's an argument in favour of making the same mistakes
as the majority of web authors make. So all link texts should read
"click here" ? No thanks. External links should consistently open in
a new window ? No thanks.
Well, Neilsen's caveat was that if it gave a large benefit to do it
the right way, it was still a good idea. In those cases the benefit is
clearly large enough (and the accessibility issue is much larger as
well). In the case of fonts, does it generally give that big an
improvement to make the font size larger? (Fitting less information on
the screen, fewer words/line at narrow window widths, etc mean that
larger font sizes can be to some extent harmful in some cases, as
well)
So, given that we always recommend 1em on this and other newsgroups,
and we must have very good reasons for doing this,
We are, to some extent, idealists. We don't like it when theory and
practice are out of alignment, and we try to persuade people to bring
them more closely into line. In the end, they'll do whatever they're
going to do... I don't really think they need any extra encouragement
from us.
True. But in *theory*, blue is an awful unvisited link colour,
especially as paired with red/purple as the visited - it's incredibly
tricky to get colours that are both nicely readable and have the blue
as the more prominent colour. Certainly not all browser defaults
manage it.
In practice we recommend blue for unvisited links because of user
familiarity, but if we were starting again with the web we'd use
something else. Likewise if we were starting again we'd have 1em as
the font size, but in practice doing something theoretically
non-optimal may be better for users.
(Some of our intranet pages have red for unvisited and a purple for
visited. In theory, this is a better colour set. In practice readers
are used to blue; I certainly get confused enough by these different
link colours)
why am I wrong -
why is 100% *in practice* the right size to use?
You're sort of proposing that the advice they get from us would be "do
it this way - it's wrong in principle, but most other authors do it
this (wrong) way, and it's what readers have grown to expect" - at
least, that's how I interpret what you're saying.
That's about it, yes.
I'm unhappy with that, I have to say.
I don't particularly like it, no, as a principle. But on the other
hand, the *aim* of setting 100% is to get the reader's preferred font
size. And the majority of sites use something closer to 80%. So the
preferred font size is likely to be set to cope with that (if it's
been set [2]) and so 100% will actually be ~1/0.8 of their preferred
font size - which isn't what we're _trying_ to set the size to.
It does feel completely wrong to advocate setting font size smaller
than the user's preferred size so that the text will be approximately
the user's preferred size. But on the other hand the alternative is to
advise that people use font sizes that are in practice too large for
most users (I've had complaints from users that 90% was too large,
none that it was too small [3]).
With the ability in modern browsers to set minimum font sizes, the
issue will probably get less important in future anyway, but it's
going to be some time before the market share is high enough.
[2] If it's not been, it's either fine anyway or they have trouble
with nearly every site on the web, in which case an extra 15-25% font
size probably won't be a lot of use.
[3] Though of course, they may not have been able to find the
complaints form because the link was too small...
--
Chris
Dave wrote: A friend of mine pointed out the other day that certain elements on
my web site are too small. But in most of what I publish, fonts are
at default size or smaller, and my images are easy to see. I am
viewing at 800x600 right now by the way, because that's what I can
comfortably see.
Times New Roman default pitch is what - 12px?
Just stop using any font-sizes, if in doubt. This will always fall-back
to the user's default font-size setting, which should be OK in 99% of
the cases (and in 1% can be blamed on misconfiguration on the user's
side). For footnotes, you might also use something like font-size: 90%
in the CSS.
--
Google Blogoscoped http://blog.outer-court.com
On 26 Aug 2004 12:22:22 +0100, Chris Morris <c.********@durham.ac.uk>
wrote: In the case of fonts, does it generally give that big an
improvement to make the font size larger? (Fitting less information on
the screen, fewer words/line at narrow window widths, etc mean that
larger font sizes can be to some extent harmful in some cases, as
well)
It's not a matter of making the font larger, it's a matter of making it
manipulatable by the user.
When you set font-size in points or pixels (which may or may not be
smaller than the ser can read) or at % less than 100 (which is likely to
be smaller than the user can read), you're gaining more content above the
fold, but at the cost of taking power and utility away from the user! I
can't support that. I want my content read.
If we use 100% for font-size, each user can resize in the browser. If we
use other measurements, some to many users lose that functionality. The
user is the one who knows what size text is legible, not me, so the user
requires the power to resize. Using % is the only way to offer that power
to the user. Using less than 100% means those users who cannot read below
100% of their set font size preference must reset the browser for my site.
I believe sites fall into a few categories here. Most sites are still
using pt or px and IE is screwed on the resize thing, so there's no sense
in worrying about those sites, they will appear the same no matter what is
done. Some sites use only ems or small-size %, they can pose problems
here, but they are a minority. Then there are sites following the 100%
rule, or which do not alter font-size at all. These will resize as users
expect.
Unless I've neglected something, there seems to be at best a tiny loss in
ability to read sites at large when the default size is adjusted to what
the user prefers.
True. But in *theory*, blue is an awful unvisited link colour,
especially as paired with red/purple as the visited - it's incredibly
tricky to get colours that are both nicely readable and have the blue
as the more prominent colour. Certainly not all browser defaults
manage it.
In practice we recommend blue for unvisited links because of user
familiarity, but if we were starting again with the web we'd use
something else. Likewise if we were starting again we'd have 1em as
the font size, but in practice doing something theoretically
non-optimal may be better for users.
The only two reasons I can think of for dramatically altering the color of
links is when there is insufficient contrast for readability, or the color
simply clashes with the design of the site. In either case a value close
enough to the usual color can be easily discovered which will work.
If we were starting over with the web - which, I must stress, we are not!
- we'd do best to ensure readability of each document by stressing that
100% is the user's preference, below that may not be readable, above that
is good for headings and such, and other measurements are not wise for web
use (but may be appropriate for intranets and other non-webpage use). Of
course, while we started over we'd make the browsers able to resize text
more precisely - maybe a type-in box in the settings where we can set
exactly the size we prefer for our default text.
(Some of our intranet pages have red for unvisited and a purple for
visited. In theory, this is a better colour set. In practice readers
are used to blue; I certainly get confused enough by these different
link colours)
In an intranet, since it's a closed, controlled environment, there's the
opportunity to do stuff like that and have it work. Any user who has
trouble knows where your office is to ask for help. Plus it's a captive
audience - they must use this intranet site for their job. These are two
major differences from the WWW.
I don't particularly like it, no, as a principle. But on the other
hand, the *aim* of setting 100% is to get the reader's preferred font
size. And the majority of sites use something closer to 80%. So the
preferred font size is likely to be set to cope with that (if it's
been set [2]) and so 100% will actually be ~1/0.8 of their preferred
font size - which isn't what we're _trying_ to set the size to.
Again, I can only say that the user has chosen that size, whether by
browser used or dettings altered. So I have to say I have little sympathy
for a set of users who wish the font was smaller.
It does feel completely wrong to advocate setting font size smaller
than the user's preferred size so that the text will be approximately
the user's preferred size. But on the other hand the alternative is to
advise that people use font sizes that are in practice too large for
most users (I've had complaints from users that 90% was too large,
none that it was too small [3]).
I've said it before - I'd rather annoy some users with big text than lose
some users with small text.
Big text is not as much of an issue. The aesthetics may not be optimal,
but if the page works and users can use it, the quality of the content
will help the user decide if the larger size (which happens to be what
they have actively or passively selected!!) is worth reading. If the size
is too small, the quality of the content cannot be discerned.
Ultimately, the "deeziner" crowd seems to think the purpose of a website
is to offer an attractive visual design, which it is not. The purpose of a
website is to deliver content to the visitor. That must take precedence
over any visual design issue.
In order to guarantee the visitor can read the content, we must give them
ultimate power in determining font-size. If they choose not to use that
power, that's sad. It's so easily done from a visible menu on all major
browsers. Serving body text at any size other than 100% disrupts the
sensibility and simplicity built into the way the WWW already works.
Chris Morris wrote: Ignore the sites that set their size in CSS pt/px which completely
ignores the browser default size, because there's nothing that can be
done about them apart from the minimum size setting that's appeared
in modern browsers,
But, to borrow your phrase, "the vast majority of sites" do not set
their font size in flexible units.
and just consider the ones that use em, %, or the old <font size="2">
- in other words, sizes relative to the browser default.
Ok, I'll accept that for the sake of the argument.
If I set my browser text size to the size that I find comfortable for
reading body text, then the vast majority of pages on the web will
appear too small [1].
Really? Or do you mean, the vast majority of web sites that override the
user's chosen size, but use % or em to override it? Those aren't the
same thing. I don't think I'm being pedantic. I set my font-size set to
what I find comfortable, but I do not notice any difference whatsoever
on the www at large. I suspect that if I increase my preferred size, I
would not notice any improvement.
If I set my site's font size to slightly less than this (85%,
perhaps),
"Perhaps" is the key word. 85% is merely a guess. Moreover, I doubt that
many people change that font size, so how do you know that most people
are happy with font-size: 85%?
No matter what you use for font size, it will be a guess, unless you use
100%. From a practical point of view -- not just for the sake of an
ideal -- I see no reason to use anything but 100%.
--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Neal <ne*****@yahoo.com> wrote: In an intranet, since it's a closed, controlled environment, there's the
opportunity to do stuff like that and have it work. Any user who has
trouble knows where your office is to ask for help. Plus it's a captive
audience - they must use this intranet site for their job. These are two
major differences from the WWW.
In my experience, intranets aren't as controlled an environment as some
designers think. My previous employer found out the hard way that not all
employees had access to the "correct" OS/browser, and were unable to use
some new intraweb sites that were rolled out with much fanfare. One was
required for benefits open enrollment, and there were no paper forms or
backup processes; you *had* to use the new intraweb process. Benefits open
enrollment was a mess that year.
And poor usability on an intranet costs real employee productivity, in
addition to the intangible issues (e.g., morale). And poor accessibility
may be more of an issue on an intranet, anywhere that disability access
laws protect employees more strongly than they protect the general public.
If anything, good WWW design principles are even more important on an
intranet.
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/
"There are three kinds of people: those who can count and those who can't."
Neal <ne*****@yahoo.com> writes: On 26 Aug 2004 12:22:22 +0100, Chris Morris <c.********@durham.ac.uk>
wrote: In the case of fonts, does it generally give that big an
improvement to make the font size larger? (Fitting less information on
the screen, fewer words/line at narrow window widths, etc mean that
larger font sizes can be to some extent harmful in some cases, as
well)
It's not a matter of making the font larger, it's a matter of making
it manipulatable by the user.
Except that font-size: 90% is just as resizable as font-size:
100%. Just in case I wasn't clear earlier, I am *not* in any way
suggesting px/pt is a good unit for WWW font-sizing.
When you set font-size in points or pixels (which may or may not be
smaller than the ser can read) or at % less than 100 (which is likely
to be smaller than the user can read), you're gaining more content
Hold on. I don't think that's true. Quite a lot of sites set a font
size smaller than the browser default. I don't think small amounts
less than 100% (80% and above, say) are likely to be unreadable.
above the fold, but at the cost of taking power and utility away from
the user! I can't support that. I want my content read.
font-size: 90% takes no power away from the user.
If we use 100% for font-size, each user can resize in the browser. If
we use other measurements, some to many users lose that
functionality. The user is the one who knows what size text is
legible, not me, so the user requires the power to resize. Using % is
the only way to offer that power to the user. Using less than 100%
means those users who cannot read below 100% of their set font size
preference must reset the browser for my site.
Hmm. I find it difficult to believe that users set their default font
size to the absolute minimum they can read. If they did, they would
have to do a lot of resetting their browser as they moved about the
web because lots of sites use a smaller size.
I believe sites fall into a few categories here. Most sites are still
using pt or px and IE is screwed on the resize thing, so there's no
sense in worrying about those sites, they will appear the same no
matter what is done.
Agreed in IE - Opera and Mozilla, OTOH, can rescale text set in px/pt
as if it were the equivalent (for whatever is the equivalent for that
browser) em value. So this may play a part in it.
And it is worth noting that sites that scale this way tend to set
10-13 px, or about 65-85% of the out-of-the-box settings of common
browsers. I'll come back to this below.
Some sites use only ems or small-size %, they can pose problems
here, but they are a minority.
Don't forget all the sites that set size using <font>. They're also
relative-size. And generally small.
Unless I've neglected something, there seems to be at best a tiny loss
in ability to read sites at large when the default size is adjusted to
what the user prefers.
Is the default size set in the browser the one the user prefers as is,
or the one that gets the right result for them with the sites they
view. I suspect the latter.
I don't particularly like it, no, as a principle. But on the other
hand, the *aim* of setting 100% is to get the reader's preferred font
size. And the majority of sites use something closer to 80%. So the
preferred font size is likely to be set to cope with that (if it's
been set [2]) and so 100% will actually be ~1/0.8 of their preferred
font size - which isn't what we're _trying_ to set the size to.
Again, I can only say that the user has chosen that size, whether by
browser used or dettings altered. So I have to say I have little
sympathy for a set of users who wish the font was smaller.
Okay. Now those are two separate cases.
Choice by browser used:
- Either they don't know how to set font size, or they don't need to
know because the browser default works for them. The majority of
pages on the web will be displayed at ~80% of their browser default
size [because of the px/pt to em ratio on an out-of-the-box
browser]. These users, probably a (large?) majority, have no idea
even that browser settings can be altered [1]. When they come across a
site that uses 100% font size, it gets displayed considerably
larger than normal.
[1] We see enough people asking on this newsgroup who apparently
didn't know this before they turned up, and these are web developers
with enough general technical knowledge to find a newsreader too. What
hope does the average user have?
Choice by setting alteration:
Older browsers, including IE:
- The resizing won't work on the majority of pages. The mean (and
quite probably median) size on those that do will be less than
their *set* preference. Probably therefore their preference is set
larger than their actual preferred size.
Newer browsers:
- These have a 'minimum font size' setting. I needn't worry about
setting font-size unreadably small because if the user has properly
configured their browser settings, I can't. Tiny minority of users,
though, at the moment.
Browsers that ignore page font size settings entirely:
- Don't need to worry about these. I could set font-size: 1% and they
wouldn't notice.
It does feel completely wrong to advocate setting font size smaller
than the user's preferred size so that the text will be approximately
the user's preferred size. But on the other hand the alternative is to
advise that people use font sizes that are in practice too large for
most users (I've had complaints from users that 90% was too large,
none that it was too small [3]).
I've said it before - I'd rather annoy some users with big text than
lose some users with small text.
Oh, agreed. I'm not advocating making a huge reduction in size below
100%, though.
Big text is not as much of an issue. The aesthetics may not be
optimal, but if the page works and users can use it, the quality of
the content will help the user decide if the larger size (which
happens to be what they have actively or passively selected!!) is
worth reading. If the size is too small, the quality of the content
cannot be discerned.
I'm not talking about large drops in font-size here. As I said
earlier, the RNIB (who have an obvious interest in making sure their
site is readable by people with visual disabilities) have picked 80%
as their base size. I assume if this was causing problems for their
readers, they wouldn't be doing it.
Ultimately, the "deeziner" crowd seems to think the purpose of a
website is to offer an attractive visual design, which it is not. The
purpose of a website is to deliver content to the visitor. That must
take precedence over any visual design issue.
True. I'm not suggesting changes that would (IMO) prevent content
being delivered, and I'm not suggesting them with the aim of making
the visual design look nice.
The aim of setting font-size: 100% is so that the text displays at the
users preferred size. I would argue that the majority of users who do
set a font size will set it to the size that makes *the sites they
use* have their preferred font size, which means that they've probably
set their browser default font size larger than their preferred font
size.
And, incidentally, can't the visual design be in some sense part of
the content? It identifies which site you're on, provides
semi-subliminal content of the sort that makes providing alt
attributes for semi-decorative photographs tricky, etc.
In order to guarantee the visitor can read the content, we must give
them ultimate power in determining font-size. If they choose not to
use that power, that's sad. It's so easily done from a visible menu on
all major browsers.
True. It *is* moderately concealed in Internet Explorer and Mozilla,
though. If you know that your browser can do text resizing, then it's
quite easy to find it in the menus. If you *don't* know that your
browser can do text resizing, it's not immediately obvious that it
can.
Serving body text at any size other than 100% disrupts the
sensibility and simplicity built into the way the WWW already works.
Now, this I think is the point I'm trying to make - it's *not* the way
the WWW already works. A tiny minority of sites have font-size: 100%;
even fewer have that as their minimum size. I can't think of a major
site [1] that does even the first (feel free to point a few out).
The original sensibility is already disrupted, and has been for
years. The thing that fixes it will be the mass adoption of browsers
with minimum font size settings.
[1] I mean a major general interest site - I know w3c.org does, for
example (though they use font-size: small for quite a few bits)
--
Chris
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Darin McGrew wrote: Neal <ne*****@yahoo.com> wrote: In an intranet, since it's a closed, controlled environment, there's the
opportunity to do stuff like that and have it work. Any user who has
trouble knows where your office is to ask for help. Plus it's a captive
audience - they must use this intranet site for their job. These are two
major differences from the WWW.
In my experience, intranets aren't as controlled an environment as some
designers think.
Indeed. But even if all the terminals were identical and set up
identically, and all the browsers identical and set up with identical
preferences, the employees would still be different from each other.
My previous employer found out the hard way that not all
employees had access to the "correct" OS/browser, and were unable to use
some new intraweb sites that were rolled out with much fanfare.
Yes, some of the service personnel who come out to us on service calls
have been heard bitching mightily that their service web site is
configured specifically for the terminals that they have back at the
office, and are piss-poor on the notebook/laptop computers that they
carry with them. Which of course not only makes their job harder, but
creates a poor impression with the customer.
And poor usability on an intranet costs real employee productivity,
in addition to the intangible issues (e.g., morale). And poor
accessibility may be more of an issue on an intranet, anywhere that
disability access laws protect employees more strongly than they
protect the general public.
Yup... I think it's fair to say that the legislation which protects
employees against discrimination here in the UK is stronger and
better-exercised than the legislation which is meant to protect the
general public.
If anything, good WWW design principles are even more important on
an intranet.
Amen to that.
In message <op**************@news.individual.net>, Neal
<ne*****@yahoo.com> writes
[snip]
Ultimately, the "deeziner" crowd seems to think the purpose of a
website is to offer an attractive visual design, which it is not. The
purpose of a website is to deliver content to the visitor. That must
take precedence over any visual design issue.
But that's not how the Marketing Department see it ........;-)
[snip]
--
Jake
Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> writes: Chris Morris wrote: If I set my site's font size to slightly less than this (85%,
perhaps),
I was picking 85% as an example. 80% to 95% would have done equally
well.
"Perhaps" is the key word. 85% is merely a guess. Moreover, I doubt that
many people change that font size, so how do you know that most people
are happy with font-size: 85%?
I don't. I can only go on user feedback. I look after quite a few
sites, some of which I didn't write the original styles for. I've only
had 'too large' complaints on the font-size: 100% (and even font-size:
90%) ones.
The only 'too small' complaint was on a px based stylesheet, which had
set quite small px values at that.
No matter what you use for font size, it will be a guess, unless you use
100%. From a practical point of view -- not just for the sake of an
ideal -- I see no reason to use anything but 100%.
I think 100% is almost as much a guess about the user as anything
else, though. On a site where the 'target audience' [1] could
reasonably be expected to have adjusted their browser settings to set
1em to their preferred size, yes, it's a good guess.
100% will *only* give the user's preferred size if the user has set
1.0em to be their preferred size. I don't think most users have, so
100% is as much a guess as anything else. And probably, for the
majority of users, a wrong guess.
[As an aside, the WAI recommendations put relative units as 'should'
but don't recommend keeping the browser default font-size even in
'may']
[1] Sarcasm intended.
--
Chris
On 26 Aug 2004 18:15:56 +0100, Chris Morris <c.********@durham.ac.uk>
wrote: Neal <ne*****@yahoo.com> writes: On 26 Aug 2004 12:22:22 +0100, Chris Morris <c.********@durham.ac.uk>
wrote: > In the case of fonts, does it generally give that big an
> improvement to make the font size larger? (Fitting less information on
> the screen, fewer words/line at narrow window widths, etc mean that
> larger font sizes can be to some extent harmful in some cases, as
> well)
It's not a matter of making the font larger, it's a matter of making
it manipulatable by the user.
Except that font-size: 90% is just as resizable as font-size:
100%. Just in case I wasn't clear earlier, I am *not* in any way
suggesting px/pt is a good unit for WWW font-sizing.
Yes, it can be resized. Point is, once the user has set his preference,
100% doesn't ever have to be resized. Set it and forget it.
When you set font-size in points or pixels (which may or may not be
smaller than the ser can read) or at % less than 100 (which is likely
to be smaller than the user can read), you're gaining more content
Hold on. I don't think that's true. Quite a lot of sites set a font
size smaller than the browser default. I don't think small amounts
less than 100% (80% and above, say) are likely to be unreadable.
If the user wants more info above the fold, he will set his default size
to the smaller range of his ability to read. If the user does not care
about info over the fold, he won't mind.
If we accept 100% as what the user wants, and we accept that if
above-the-fold content is important to the user he will set his preference
to favor that, then we must assume that sizes below 100% will either
require resizing to be read (more work for the user) and that a size of
100% will only put too much info below the fold for users who haven't
shown any concern about it in the first place.
font-size: 90% takes no power away from the user.
Set it and forget it. Clicking up to Large for your site is more work than
should be expected of a user who has taken the time already to set this
for their preference.
Hmm. I find it difficult to believe that users set their default font
size to the absolute minimum they can read. If they did, they would
have to do a lot of resetting their browser as they moved about the
web because lots of sites use a smaller size.
Most sites cannot be resized anyhow, so you're talking about a minority of
sites where font-size: small or font-size: 85% are used.
Unless I've neglected something, there seems to be at best a tiny loss
in ability to read sites at large when the default size is adjusted to
what the user prefers.
Is the default size set in the browser the one the user prefers as is,
or the one that gets the right result for them with the sites they
view. I suspect the latter.
So should we change default to 80%? How will we do that? The fact that
authors use sizes smaller than the default is a concept error on their
part. Either I am a lemming following the fold, making text too small, or
I do what makes sense.
If the smartest kids in your school have grades below A, do we redefine
what an A is? No. A is mastery of the content. Redefining a grade based on
how smart this group of kids are makes the grade meaningless.
Similarly, if we say "Set fonts to small because many sites do so", we're
saying that 100% is not the default size, as it is designed to be! If I
satisfy the standard, and another does not, I don't want to take the same
grade as them. They are the ones not holding to the standard, and they are
the ones who are in error, and they are the ones whose sites are breaking
the WWW.
I've said it before - I'd rather annoy some users with big text than
lose some users with small text.
Oh, agreed. I'm not advocating making a huge reduction in size below
100%, though.
Do you KNOW where the line is? For certain? Is it 95%? 90%? 85%?
I know 100% will work for sure.
I'm not talking about large drops in font-size here. As I said
earlier, the RNIB (who have an obvious interest in making sure their
site is readable by people with visual disabilities) have picked 80%
as their base size. I assume if this was causing problems for their
readers, they wouldn't be doing it.
Let's say I can read down to 12pt on my screen. If that is 80%, 100% is
15pt. Not terribly larger, and still a comfortable read.
If I set 12pt as 100%, your 80% text is 9.6pt. That's easily illegible.
Rather than guess at what your user has set, why not send 100% and
whatever they have chosen will be legible?
The aim of setting font-size: 100% is so that the text displays at the
users preferred size. I would argue that the majority of users who do
set a font size will set it to the size that makes *the sites they
use* have their preferred font size, which means that they've probably
set their browser default font size larger than their preferred font
size.
Worst-case scenario - assuming your 80% is standard practice, my 100% size
is 1.2 larger than what they set. It poses no legibility problems.
If you feel you can set 80% and be ok, go ahead. But I would rather ensure
the content was legible than take a chance that my guess is wrong.
And, incidentally, can't the visual design be in some sense part of
the content? It identifies which site you're on, provides
semi-subliminal content of the sort that makes providing alt
attributes for semi-decorative photographs tricky, etc.
All important, yet all subordinate to the written word. If the site cannot
be used in a no-CSS, no-image, no-Javascript, no-Flash, etc. environment -
just the isolated HTML document and nothing else - the site is not geared
toward accessibility for all possible users. Anything we add - CSS, Js,
images, Flash - cannot deteriorate the accessibility, and must be optional
for the page to work.
Nobody searches Google for the graphic design. They search for content.
Content is king.
In order to guarantee the visitor can read the content, we must give
them ultimate power in determining font-size. If they choose not to
use that power, that's sad. It's so easily done from a visible menu on
all major browsers.
True. It *is* moderately concealed in Internet Explorer and Mozilla,
though. If you know that your browser can do text resizing, then it's
quite easy to find it in the menus. If you *don't* know that your
browser can do text resizing, it's not immediately obvious that it
can.
But if most sites are too small to read, a user will either give up (no
use accomodating them) or seek out how to adjust it. If they find it and
set it, we should respect that.
Serving body text at any size other than 100% disrupts the
sensibility and simplicity built into the way the WWW already works.
Now, this I think is the point I'm trying to make - it's *not* the way
the WWW already works. A tiny minority of sites have font-size: 100%;
even fewer have that as their minimum size. I can't think of a major
site [1] that does even the first (feel free to point a few out).
Hmmph. Big sites screw all sorts of things up. Hardly compelling to use
them as an example of appropriate practice.
The original sensibility is already disrupted, and has been for
years. The thing that fixes it will be the mass adoption of browsers
with minimum font size settings.
That would solve the issue, but even better would be embracing the
designed-in common sense of how it should work.
Am I Don Quixote? Perhaps. But if seeing text 3 measly point sizes larger
than they like makes some users run away from my content, I blame my
content, not my font-size:100%;.
"Neal" <ne*****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:op**************@news.individual.net...
Ultimately, the "deeziner" crowd seems to think the purpose of a website
is to offer an attractive visual design, which it is not. The purpose of a
website is to deliver content to the visitor. That must take precedence
over any visual design issue.
That confuses the medium with the communication. My web site (where "my" is
meant in the abstract sense, not necessarily referring to me), like my
brochures, my print advertisements, my television commercials, my banners at
the footbal stadium, my billboards along the highway, is meant to serve *my*
purposes, not the purposes of the people who invented the medium I'm using.
(This doesn't mean I don't fully endorse taking advantage of the Web's
facility to allow content to come through even to those who can't or don't
want to make use of the presentation, and in particular, as I've said here
many times, I am a staunch proponent of the use of relative font sizes.)
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004, Chris Morris wrote: [As an aside, the WAI recommendations put relative units as 'should'
but don't recommend keeping the browser default font-size even in
'may']
Of course the problem with the term "browser default" is - does it
mean the user's currently chosen default setting, or does it mean the
factory-installation default?
You might claim that 90% of users can't tell the difference, because
they haven't yet learned how to adjust it (and if you aren't the one
making that claim, I've seen others who do). If so, then I seem to
deal disproportionately with the remaining 10% who know what they're
doing. Ho hum.
Neal <ne*****@yahoo.com> wrote: Unless I've neglected something, there seems to be at best a tiny loss in
ability to read sites at large when the default size is adjusted to what
the user prefers.
If a user specifies a sans-serif font at a reduced size in the UA then
Chris is spot on: without also setting a minimum font size the user will
suddenly encounter lots of microfonts on sites that previously displayed
fine.
The mantra that a reduced verdana font should not be used in author
stylesheets is all to familiar, the same can be said for specifying it
as a user preferred font. Alas sans serif fonts in general suffer from
the same problem, so specifying any other sans serif font doesn't help
much.
--
Spartanicus
Chris Morris wrote: I can only go on user feedback. I look after quite a few sites, some
of which I didn't write the original styles for. I've only had 'too
large' complaints on the font-size: 100% (and even font-size: 90%)
ones.
Since I don't eavesdrop on your support communications, I'll have to
accept you at your word. Strange, though, that I've authored several
sites -- probably less than you, mind -- and I've never had a complaint
from any visitors that the text size is too big. I even conducted
informal usability studies (*very informal*!). Not a word about the font
size being too big -- or too small.
I must confess that, despite what I wrote above, I'm a little
suspicious. Random visitors to a site that you authored sent an email
complaining that the text size was too large for them? People unknown to
you filled out a feedback form telling you the letters were too big? Really?
Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> writes:
No matter what you use for font size, it will be a guess, unless
you use 100%. From a practical point of view -- not just for the
sake of an ideal -- I see no reason to use anything but 100%.
I think 100% is almost as much a guess about the user as anything
else, though. On a site where the 'target audience' [1]
The "sarcasm intended" comment appended to you message is noted, but
doesn't change the fact that very few web authors know their target
audience that well. The only ones with any real hope are those with a
very narrow topic, e.g., web authoring, or those with a budget for
usability studies.
could reasonably be expected to have adjusted their browser settings
to set 1em to their preferred size, yes, it's a good guess.
100% will *only* give the user's preferred size if the user has set
1.0em to be their preferred size. I don't think most users have, so
100% is as much a guess as anything else.
Let me get this straight: you're suggesting that most people don't know
how to change their font size, so you think making the size smaller
across all your sites is the right choice? If the size is too small for
some proportion of those readers, and they don't know how to resize it,
how will they cope?
And probably, for the majority of users, a wrong guess.
Any guess will be wrong for some proportion of visitors. That's the
point. Don't try to second guess them, leave font-size alone.
--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Chris Morris wrote: Neal <ne*****@yahoo.com> writes:
It's not a matter of making the font larger, it's a matter of making it
manipulatable by the user.
Except that font-size: 90% is just as resizable as font-size: 100%. Just
in case I wasn't clear earlier, I am *not* in any way suggesting px/pt is
a good unit for WWW font-sizing.
Why 90%? Why not 95%? Or 103%? If the user has chosen an optimum font
size, then that is chosen for 100%. These users have chosen to adjust
their font size for a reason: to make it easier to read web sites. By
changing the size, you are making it harder to read. Do you really want to
make it harder for users to read your site?
When you set font-size in points or pixels (which may or may not be
smaller than the ser can read) or at % less than 100 (which is likely to
be smaller than the user can read), you're gaining more content
Hold on. I don't think that's true. Quite a lot of sites set a font size
smaller than the browser default. I don't think small amounts less than
100% (80% and above, say) are likely to be unreadable.
Maybe not by you, now. But not everyone has 20/20 vision. And if you use
80% for you body text, what will you use for the footer? The © info? 70%?
60%? Now it's unreadable. Body text should NOT be 'only just readable'. It
should be clearly readable, any maybe at the very least footer and © text
should be only just readable.
above the fold, but at the cost of taking power and utility away from
the user! I can't support that. I want my content read.
font-size: 90% takes no power away from the user.
If the user had set their default size, might it not annoy them if your
site is different?
Is the default size set in the browser the one the user prefers as is, or
the one that gets the right result for them with the sites they view. I
suspect the latter.
This surely depends on chance, for the most part.
Okay. Now those are two separate cases. Choice by browser used:
- Either they don't know how to set font size, or they don't need to
know because the browser default works for them. The majority of pages
on the web will be displayed at ~80% of their browser default size
[because of the px/pt to em ratio on an out-of-the-box browser]. These
users, probably a (large?) majority, have no idea even that browser
settings can be altered [1]. When they come across a site that uses
100% font size, it gets displayed considerably larger than normal.
Not really considerably. It's not obtrusive, in any case. And larger is
far better than smaller. Larger = clearer, smaller = crampt & illegible.
Newer browsers:
- These have a 'minimum font size' setting. I needn't worry about
setting font-size unreadably small because if the user has properly
configured their browser settings, I can't. Tiny minority of users,
though, at the moment.
I don't want a page's body text appearing in the minimum, even though I
have set it. It's a limit, not a norm. Big text is not as much of an issue. The aesthetics may not be optimal,
but if the page works and users can use it, the quality of the content
will help the user decide if the larger size (which happens to be what
they have actively or passively selected!!) is worth reading. If the
size is too small, the quality of the content cannot be discerned.
I'm not talking about large drops in font-size here. As I said earlier,
the RNIB (who have an obvious interest in making sure their site is
readable by people with visual disabilities) have picked 80% as their base
size. I assume if this was causing problems for their readers, they
wouldn't be doing it.
Why? Their readers with poor sight will hopefully have already configured
their browser to get around badly authored pages.
--
Matt
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
JRS: In article <87************@dinopsis.dur.ac.uk>, dated Thu, 26 Aug
2004 12:22:22, seen in news:comp.infosystems. www.authoring.html, Chris
Morris <c.********@durham.ac.uk> posted : ...
In practice we recommend blue for unvisited links because of user
familiarity, but if we were starting again with the web we'd use
something else.
...
Related : I's like to see a decoration convention that discriminated, at
least for un-visited links and preferably for all links, between links
to the same page, links to the same site, and distant links.
The browser knows; the types correspond to <a href="#Tail">, <a
href="gravity0.htm">, <a href="http://...">.
Granted that "same site" does not necessarily correspond exactly with
"relative page reference".
If a convention already exists, ISTM that it is not well enough known,
at least by me.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
some Astro stuff via astro.htm, gravity0.htm; quotes.htm; pascal.htm; &c, &c.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
Dr John Stockton wrote: I's like to see a decoration convention that discriminated, at
least for un-visited links and preferably for all links, between links to
the same page, links to the same site, and distant links.
The browser knows; the types correspond to <a href="#Tail">, <a
href="gravity0.htm">, <a href="http://...">.
Granted that "same site" does not necessarily correspond exactly with
"relative page reference".
If a convention already exists, ISTM that it is not well enough known, at
least by me.
It doesn't exist. With CSS3 selectors, you could easily do the styling
though.
--
Matt
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
In article <pa***************************@spam.matt.blissett. me.uk>,
Matt <no******@spam.matt.blissett.me.uk> wrote: Except that font-size: 90% is just as resizable as font-size: 100%. Just
in case I wasn't clear earlier, I am *not* in any way suggesting px/pt is
a good unit for WWW font-sizing.
Why 90%? Why not 95%? Or 103%? If the user has chosen an optimum font
size, then that is chosen for 100%. These users have chosen to adjust
their font size for a reason: to make it easier to read web sites. By
changing the size, you are making it harder to read. Do you really want to
make it harder for users to read your site?
There is more to legibility than font-size. Don't discount line-height,
contrast between fore- and background, perceived width of text and
surrounding whitespace.
Lowering font-size is often perfectly justified when complemented with
attention to above properties.
--
Kris
<kr*******@xs4all.netherlands> (nl)
On 26 Aug 2004 12:22:22 +0100,
Chris Morris <c.********@durham.ac.uk> posted: (Some of our intranet pages have red for unvisited and a purple for
visited. In theory, this is a better colour set. In practice readers
are used to blue; I certainly get confused enough by these different
link colours)
Blue is the hardest colour for the eyes to see, the focal point is so
different from other colours, and it's the darkest looking colour as far as
the eyes are concerned. Blue on black is almost unreadable for many
people, blue on white is a bit better though. Darker blue on white (rather
like blue ink, instead of glowing blue light) is even better.
Red is next in line, there's a lot of people who have trouble reading red
writing, and I know some who can't see it at all (those all-too-common
dot-matrix LED array display boards look blank to them).
Playing with colours has never been a particularly wise idea, and I can
only think of one worse situation: yellow text on white backgrounds.
Underlining links has probably been the best and tidiest way of indicating
links, though it has problems with usability on two issues: Underlining
was traditionally a very common way to emphasise words, and it doesn't give
a neat solution for indicating visited versus unvisited links.
--
If you insist on e-mailing me, use the reply-to address (it's real but
temporary). But please reply to the group, like you're supposed to.
This message was sent without a virus, please delete some files yourself.
Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> writes: Chris Morris wrote: I can only go on user feedback. I look after quite a few sites, some
of which I didn't write the original styles for. I've only had 'too
large' complaints on the font-size: 100% (and even font-size: 90%)
ones.
I must confess that, despite what I wrote above, I'm a little
suspicious. Random visitors to a site that you authored sent an email
complaining that the text size was too large for them? People unknown to
you filled out a feedback form telling you the letters were too big? Really?
No, this was in a usability test and in a request for feedback -
sorry, should have made that clearer. (And the request for feedback
was sent to a group who really should have known better). Admittedly
both of those cases have the problem that, yes, they probably wouldn't
have cared otherwise. Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> writes:
No matter what you use for font size, it will be a guess, unless
you use 100%. From a practical point of view -- not just for the
sake of an ideal -- I see no reason to use anything but 100%.
I think 100% is almost as much a guess about the user as anything
else, though. On a site where the 'target audience' [1]
The "sarcasm intended" comment appended to you message is noted, but
doesn't change the fact that very few web authors know their target
audience that well. The only ones with any real hope are those with a
very narrow topic, e.g., web authoring, or those with a budget for
usability studies.
Hmm. I think they probably know their target audience quite well, the
problem being that they don't know what this implies about browser
usage. could reasonably be expected to have adjusted their browser settings
to set 1em to their preferred size, yes, it's a good guess.
100% will *only* give the user's preferred size if the user has set
1.0em to be their preferred size. I don't think most users have, so
100% is as much a guess as anything else.
Let me get this straight: you're suggesting that most people don't know
how to change their font size, so you think making the size smaller
across all your sites is the right choice? If the size is too small for
some proportion of those readers, and they don't know how to resize it,
how will they cope?
Browser defaults are ~16px in almost every graphical browser I've come
across, certainly all the major ones. The majority of sites on the web
that set a px/pt based font size set one that's in the 11-13px
region. Bad idea because it's harder to resize, obviously. So a small
decrease below 1.0em won't bring it below that.
--
Chris
Neal <ne*****@yahoo.com> writes: On 26 Aug 2004 18:15:56 +0100, Chris Morris <c.********@durham.ac.uk>
wrote: Except that font-size: 90% is just as resizable as font-size:
100%. Just in case I wasn't clear earlier, I am *not* in any way
suggesting px/pt is a good unit for WWW font-sizing.
Yes, it can be resized. Point is, once the user has set his
preference, 100% doesn't ever have to be resized. Set it and forget it.
Agreed. When/If the user has set their preference so that it is their
preferred font size. I doubt many users do - I've taught web
accessibility courses where I've demonstrated how to change font-size
settings in a browser, and I think I was telling most of the people on
those courses (who are web authors, generally) something new. Is the default size set in the browser the one the user prefers as is,
or the one that gets the right result for them with the sites they
view. I suspect the latter.
So should we change default to 80%? How will we do that? The fact that
authors use sizes smaller than the default is a concept error on their
part. Either I am a lemming following the fold, making text too small,
or I do what makes sense.
Hmm. What I'm wondering is not what the new default should be, but
whether it makes sense to say 100% at all as forcefully as is said. I've said it before - I'd rather annoy some users with big text than
lose some users with small text.
Oh, agreed. I'm not advocating making a huge reduction in size below
100%, though.
Do you KNOW where the line is? For certain? Is it 95%? 90%? 85%?
I know 100% will work for sure.
Do you? For that subset of users who set their preferred font-size,
yes. For everyone else? And, incidentally, can't the visual design be in some sense part of
the content? It identifies which site you're on, provides
semi-subliminal content of the sort that makes providing alt
attributes for semi-decorative photographs tricky, etc.
All important, yet all subordinate to the written word. If the site
cannot be used in a no-CSS, no-image, no-Javascript, no-Flash,
etc. environment -
just the isolated HTML document and nothing else - the site is not
geared toward accessibility for all possible users. Anything we add -
CSS, Js, images, Flash - cannot deteriorate the accessibility, and
must be optional for the page to work.
font-size has nothing to do with that, though, since in a HTML-only
environment it obviously gets ignored.
And I think there can legitimately be non-optional images/js/flash as
part of the content in those cases where there is no other way to
adequately display that content. Provide a text fallback that attempts
to display as much as possible, yes. Serving body text at any size other than 100% disrupts the
sensibility and simplicity built into the way the WWW already works.
Now, this I think is the point I'm trying to make - it's *not* the way
the WWW already works. A tiny minority of sites have font-size: 100%;
even fewer have that as their minimum size. I can't think of a major
site [1] that does even the first (feel free to point a few out).
Hmmph. Big sites screw all sorts of things up. Hardly compelling to
use them as an example of appropriate practice.
This is where the consistency versus correctness argument comes
in. Neilsen's main example is hyperlink colours, but he gives a couple
of other examples as well - of things that are objectively a bad idea
but because they're adopted by a majority of big sites are a convention
that causes more problems to fix.
--
Chris
Matt <no******@spam.matt.blissett.me.uk> writes: Chris Morris wrote: Neal <ne*****@yahoo.com> writes: It's not a matter of making the font larger, it's a matter of making it
manipulatable by the user.
Except that font-size: 90% is just as resizable as font-size: 100%. Just
in case I wasn't clear earlier, I am *not* in any way suggesting px/pt is
a good unit for WWW font-sizing.
Why 90%? Why not 95%? Or 103%?
This is, to an extent, the point. Why not any of those sizes? Indeed,
why not 110% on a particular site. Yes, it'll look larger than the
average site. Yes, the 90% will look smaller than the average
site. Is this really such a big issue?
If the user has chosen an optimum font size, then that is chosen for
100%. These users have chosen to adjust their font size for a
reason: to make it easier to read web sites. By changing the size,
you are making it harder to read. Do you really want to make it
harder for users to read your site?
The same arguments, incidentally, apply to any use of the color: and
background: properties. By setting them to anything, they will be set
to something that is not the default for one or more users, and hence
(assuming the user has set a default) be less readable.
I've not seen many objections to colour changes, provided that the
background/foreground contrast remains good and nothing silly like red
on green gets done - so why objections to small-scale font-size
changes? [There are, incidentally, users to whom the colour will be
more important than the size]
I've been concentrating on smaller font sizes because they get used a
lot anyway, but as you say, why not 103%? above the fold, but at the cost of taking power and utility away from
the user! I can't support that. I want my content read.
font-size: 90% takes no power away from the user.
If the user had set their default size, might it not annoy them if your
site is different?
See colours. I think it depends how different. - Either they don't know how to set font size, or they don't need to
know because the browser default works for them. The majority of pages
on the web will be displayed at ~80% of their browser default size
[because of the px/pt to em ratio on an out-of-the-box browser]. These
users, probably a (large?) majority, have no idea even that browser
settings can be altered [1]. When they come across a site that uses
100% font size, it gets displayed considerably larger than normal.
Not really considerably. It's not obtrusive, in any case. And larger is
far better than smaller. Larger = clearer, smaller = crampt & illegible.
So why not use something more than 100%? Make the text even clearer? I'm not talking about large drops in font-size here. As I said earlier,
the RNIB (who have an obvious interest in making sure their site is
readable by people with visual disabilities) have picked 80% as their base
size. I assume if this was causing problems for their readers, they
wouldn't be doing it.
Why? Their readers with poor sight will hopefully have already configured
their browser to get around badly authored pages.
Well, in that case, who is small text size hurting? A quick check of
some accessibility oriented sites:
[Incidentally, small text is used for a paragraph or two, or for
navigation, on some sites]
RNIB: 80% (60% for small text)
TechDis: small
WAI: none set (90% for small text)
WebAIM: none set (80-90% for small text)
IBM Accessibility center: 10-12px
Aprompt: 14px
Bobby: none set (80%-90% for small text)
Disability Rights Commission: Variable, I don't have time to unpick
their stylesheet. There's a font-size: 75% in there, but then there's
a font-size: -12% in there.
Trace Center: none set (70-80% for small text)
NFB: 14pt (10pt and small also used)
Section508.gov: 12px/13px
Not really any pattern emerging here.
--
Chris
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004, Kris wrote: There is more to legibility than font-size. Don't discount line-height,
contrast between fore- and background, perceived width of text and
surrounding whitespace.
Indeed. And since you have (other than the statistical *assumption*
that most of the cattle^W undiscerning readers who are reading the
page have no clue how to change the settings from the factory default)
no idea what font, size, colours etc. your reader has chosen, you can
have no idea what size adjustments they might need for the font and
colour scheme that you're going to set. This is one of the Great
Imponderables in web design.
Lowering font-size is often perfectly justified when complemented
with attention to above properties.
Since my own font size is set for comfortable reading by me, with a
readable font (often Arial) at a fairly high dark-on-light colour
contrast, it means that any author who lowers the contrast, or chooses
a serif font, or uses a reverse contrast, is going to need the text
size to be *increased* before I'm comfortable.
Even a minimum font size isn't really going to help me in that regard.
I *could* of course impose my own size and colour scheme instead of
the author's, but it's a shame to have to do that. So it's ctrl/+ or
ctrl/mousewheel or whatever the browser supports... until the text is
readable. (And then the design falls apart, unless the page author
was a good one).
all the best.
Chris Morris <c.********@durham.ac.uk> wrote: Why? Their readers with poor sight will hopefully have already
configured their browser to get around badly authored pages.
Well, in that case, who is small text size hurting?
Just those people who have _slightly_ reduced eyesight, so that small
text is inconvenient but not so inconvenient that they cannot read small
text at all (so that they would absolutely need to learn the ways to get
around such problems). That makes hundreds of millions of people.
Small text size especially hurts when set in pixels or points using CSS,
since it cannot be simply overridden on IE by selecting a different font
size from a menu. The user would need to know the way to set IE to ignore
font sizes specified on pages, and although this is not rocket science,
it's essentially more complicated to the ordinary surfer.
A quick check of
some accessibility oriented sites:
- - Not really any pattern emerging here.
Oh, there _is_ a pattern. "Accessibility oriented sites" do not do as
they teach. It's unbelievable until you see (or hear) them. There are
several reasons to this:
- those sites are often part of a larger site that has its own policy
that was created by people who didn't care about accessibility
- those sites often emphasize theoretical or political principles
and goals rather than practical accessibility
- many of them concentrate, explicitly or implicitly, on some aspects of
accessibility, such as accessibility to the blind - and a completely
blind people isn't disturbed by font size at all.
But this isn't really about HTML, is it? Authors have usually stopped
using HTML to play with font size. (This isn't such a happy thing. You
can do more harm using font-size: 9px than using <font size="1">.)
ObHTML: Typical examples of inaccessible "accessibility oriented" pages
can be found on the pages of the European Union - they usually put the
actual material on the Web in PDF or Word format and use HTML just for
front matter (index pages and things like that).
--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Pages about Web authoring: http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/www.html
Chris Morris wrote: Brian writes:
Chris Morris wrote:
I can only go on user feedback. I look after quite a few sites,
some of which I didn't write the original styles for. I've only
had 'too large' complaints on the font-size: 100% (and even
font-size: 90%) ones.
Random visitors to a site that you authored sent an email
complaining that the text size was too large for them? People
unknown to you filled out a feedback form telling you the letters
were too big? Really?
No, this was in a usability test and in a request for feedback -
sorry, should have made that clearer. (And the request for feedback
was sent to a group who really should have known better). Admittedly
both of those cases have the problem that, yes, they probably
wouldn't have cared otherwise.
Now you've piqued my curiousity. Who was in the group, and why should
they "have known better"? I know the only complaints I ever got about
font size being too big was from a client, not from her visitors. And
she's a graphic designer, a "print" girl, as she says. Resizable fonts
was quite knew to her.
Browser defaults are ~16px in almost every graphical browser I've
come across, certainly all the major ones. The majority of sites on
the web that set a px/pt based font size set one that's in the
11-13px region. Bad idea because it's harder to resize, obviously. So
a small decrease below 1.0em won't bring it below that.
In other words, it won't be any worse than the worst example of web
authoring (vis-a-vis font sizing), and it might even be better. Not
exacly a ringing endorsement.
--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> writes: Chris Morris wrote: Brian writes: Chris Morris wrote:
I can only go on user feedback. I look after quite a few sites,
some of which I didn't write the original styles for. I've only
had 'too large' complaints on the font-size: 100% (and even
font-size: 90%) ones.
Random visitors to a site that you authored sent an email
complaining that the text size was too large for them? People
unknown to you filled out a feedback form telling you the letters
were too big? Really? No, this was in a usability test and in a request for feedback -
sorry, should have made that clearer. (And the request for feedback
was sent to a group who really should have known better). Admittedly
both of those cases have the problem that, yes, they probably
wouldn't have cared otherwise.
Now you've piqued my curiousity. Who was in the group, and why should
they "have known better"?
It was the local computing society newsgroup. If you were to pick a
group of people who were most likely to know that browsers have size
controls that would be the one. So if they *had* set their browsers to
preferred size I'd have expected lots of (or at least some) 'too
small' complaints. I got a couple of 'too large' and the other
comments were in entirely different areas.
The usability test was, I think, a group of prospective students - but
I only got the report from that, I wasn't present, so it could have
been UA misconfiguration by the testers.
I know the only complaints I ever got about font size being too big
was from a client, not from her visitors. And she's a graphic
designer, a "print" girl, as she says. Resizable fonts was quite
knew to her.
Oh, graphics designers *always* complain the fonts are too big. There
should be a CSS media type that halves the font size for them.
--
Chris
Chris Morris wrote: This is, to an extent, the point. Why not any of those sizes? Indeed,
why not 110% on a particular site. Yes, it'll look larger than the
average site. Yes, the 90% will look smaller than the average site.
Is this really such a big issue?
If it is not a big issue, why are you arguing that it's a good idea to
change it?
The same arguments, incidentally, apply to any use of the color: and
background: properties. By setting them to anything, they will be set
to something that is not the default for one or more users, and
hence (assuming the user has set a default) be less readable.
I've not seen many objections to colour changes, provided that the
background/foreground contrast remains good and nothing silly like
red on green gets done - so why objections to small-scale font-size
changes?
Probably for 2 reasons: (1) Font-sizing is more often done in such a way
as to reduce usability signicantly. (2) Setting font-size to something
smaller by definition moves toward less readable (even if it doesn't
reach the point of unreadable); changing color may lessen readability,
or it may increase it.
--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Chris Morris wrote: Neal <ne*****@yahoo.com> writes:
I know 100% will work for sure.
Do you? For that subset of users who set their preferred font-size,
yes. For everyone else?
For everyone else, there's no way to know what will work best. It could
be 90%; it could be 105%. Hell, it could be 155%. Who knows? Your guess
of 90% is no better than any other. 100% is the best guess, since it
leaves it to the user to change the font size if they need to, and
otherwise leaves it alone.
You keep arguing that smaller is better, but other than "everyone else
does it", you've presented no reason why.
--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Chris Morris wrote: Oh, graphics designers *always* complain the fonts are too big. There
should be a CSS media type that halves the font size for them.
lol There's still time to propose it for css3!
--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> writes: Chris Morris wrote: This is, to an extent, the point. Why not any of those sizes? Indeed,
why not 110% on a particular site. Yes, it'll look larger than the
average site. Yes, the 90% will look smaller than the average site.
Is this really such a big issue?
If it is not a big issue, why are you arguing that it's a good idea to
change it?
I'm more arguing it does no real harm to change it by small amounts
[1]. Just about every website in existence attempts to change
*something* away from the user's default settings. Some change huge
amounts of positioning, colouring, font size, etc.
The user, obviously, has the power to force it all back to their
default settings if they want to. Even in IE one can construct a user
stylesheet though I doubt many go to those lengths.
It's obviously two-way - you suggest how you think the page works
best, with positioning, colours, font-sizes, etc - and the user is
free to selectively accept or ignore each bit (and lots of people
forget that last bit in their designs).
[1] To use an analogy with colour, if someone had #333/#ddd as their
foreground/background combination, I doubt many people would object
and say that it should be higher contrast, despite it being not as
good contrast as #000/#fff and almost certainly out of line with most
user's browser settings, whereas if it was #777/#aaa more people
would complain that it was difficult to read.
The same arguments, incidentally, apply to any use of the color: and
background: properties. By setting them to anything, they will be set
to something that is not the default for one or more users, and
hence (assuming the user has set a default) be less readable.
I've not seen many objections to colour changes, provided that the
background/foreground contrast remains good and nothing silly like
red on green gets done - so why objections to small-scale font-size
changes?
Probably for 2 reasons: (1) Font-sizing is more often done in such a way
as to reduce usability signicantly.
True. But I did say *small-scale*. And if you look at many
print-designed sites they have very low contrast text in places which
does significantly reduce usability.
(2) Setting font-size to something smaller by definition moves
toward less readable (even if it doesn't reach the point of
unreadable); changing color may lessen readability, or it may
increase it.
But generally, if moved away from the user's colour settings in the UA
(assuming they've either set them or are happy enough with the default
- which is the assumption recommending font-size: 100% makes), will
decrease readability (excepting spot colour for highlighting or
de-emphasis equivalent to the use of <big> or <small> [1] for the
same, perhaps).
And colour display can vary as much as font-size in some situations.
[1] Or more likely the CSS equivalents
--
Chris
Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> writes: Chris Morris wrote: Neal <ne*****@yahoo.com> writes:
I know 100% will work for sure. Do you? For that subset of users who set their preferred font-size,
yes. For everyone else?
For everyone else, there's no way to know what will work best. It could
be 90%; it could be 105%. Hell, it could be 155%. Who knows? Your guess
of 90% is no better than any other. 100% is the best guess, since it
leaves it to the user to change the font size if they need to, and
otherwise leaves it alone.
This is true - but then why change *anything* from the user/user
agent-supplied default? Why not just write good semantic markup and
let the user(agent) supply their own styles for it? [1]
[1] This is getting bizarrely close to the straw-man 'accessibility
experts want all sites to look the same in black on grey', which is
odd since I'm fairly sure no-one in this thread is *trying* to say that.
You keep arguing that smaller is better, but other than "everyone else
does it", you've presented no reason why.
That is, as the Neilsen article points out, sometimes a good
reason. Why does it apply to link colour and underlining, making the
conventional but sub-optimal underlined blue a very good idea (links
want to be links, and other references) but doesn't apply to small
font sizes? It does seem that on the major websites (that set what the
majority of users will see as the convention) the convention is
'something smaller than factory default'.
I suppose what I'm trying to work out is why font-size for body text
*must* be 100% for a good site, and yet other bits of HTML/CSS that
change the appearance away from the user's preferences (in such a way
that the user can change it back or set their browser to force it
back, so px/pt sizes are obviously out) aren't objected to. I
genuinely can't see why this particular bit is so special.
--
Chris
JRS: In article <pa****************************@spam.matt.blissett .me.u
k>, dated Fri, 27 Aug 2004 00:09:01, seen in news:comp.infosystems. www.a
uthoring.html, Matt <no******@spam.matt.blissett.me.uk> posted : Dr John Stockton wrote:
I's like to see a decoration convention that discriminated, at
least for un-visited links and preferably for all links, between links to
the same page, links to the same site, and distant links.
The browser knows; the types correspond to <a href="#Tail">, <a
href="gravity0.htm">, <a href="http://...">.
Granted that "same site" does not necessarily correspond exactly with
"relative page reference".
If a convention already exists, ISTM that it is not well enough known, at
least by me.
It doesn't exist.
With CSS3 selectors, you could easily do the styling
though.
That response rather exemplifies the typical approach of these
newsgroups, where the regulars appear to be far more interested in
writing pages (to strict W3, independently of what browsers can do) than
they are in reading them.
Nothing that I can do with CSS selectors can affect what I will see,
while using someone else's system, when reading pages written by, for
example, you; implementing such a convention on a single site will at
most benefit only those who remember the convention of that site.
I see that
<style type="text/css"><!--
.XXX { font:bold italic ; background: #80FF80; }
--></style>
aaa <a href="#123" class=XXX>123</a> bbb
works; but (a) I'd prefer not to have to add, even in an automated
fashion, classes to all the 9500-odd links on my site, making it 3%
bigger; (b) the wish is for a *recognised* convention, such as might
eventually come about if W3 were to recommend that browsers should
implement it.
I'm trying the effect of italic for same-page links and bold for other-
site links in my index page.
--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SonOfRFC1036)
Jukka K. Korpela <jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote: Oh, there _is_ a pattern. "Accessibility oriented sites" do not do as
they teach. It's unbelievable until you see (or hear) them.
On a similar note, the last time I read through the list of "Brand-X"
browsers at <http://webtips.dantobias.com/brand-x/>, it was disturbing how
many browser vendors had home pages that didn't work in their own browser.
--
Darin McGrew, mc****@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/
Web Design Group, da***@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/
"If you aren't part of the solution, then you are part of the precipitate."
In article <Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph.gla. ac.uk>,
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote: Lowering font-size is often perfectly justified when complemented
with attention to above properties.
Since my own font size is set for comfortable reading by me, with a
readable font (often Arial) at a fairly high dark-on-light colour
contrast, it means that any author who lowers the contrast, or chooses
a serif font, or uses a reverse contrast, is going to need the text
size to be *increased* before I'm comfortable.
Even a minimum font size isn't really going to help me in that regard.
Disable CSS in your browser: you happy, me happy. I stick as much
presentational matter into CSS as possible to help you disable or
override it and have it the way you want it.
I *could* of course impose my own size and colour scheme instead of
the author's, but it's a shame to have to do that. So it's ctrl/+ or
ctrl/mousewheel or whatever the browser supports... until the text is
readable. (And then the design falls apart, unless the page author
was a good one).
Don't worry.
--
Kris
<kr*******@xs4all.netherlands> (nl)
In article <87************@dinopsis.dur.ac.uk>,
Chris Morris <c.********@durham.ac.uk> wrote: For everyone else, there's no way to know what will work best. It could
be 90%; it could be 105%. Hell, it could be 155%. Who knows? Your guess
of 90% is no better than any other. 100% is the best guess, since it
leaves it to the user to change the font size if they need to, and
otherwise leaves it alone.
This is true - but then why change *anything* from the user/user
agent-supplied default? Why not just write good semantic markup and
let the user(agent) supply their own styles for it? [1]
[1] This is getting bizarrely close to the straw-man 'accessibility
experts want all sites to look the same in black on grey', which is
odd since I'm fairly sure no-one in this thread is *trying* to say that.
Visitors are not getting all they want. Clients, my boss or me myself
either. As a professional developer, one is in the middle of a whole lot
of people who all have their own needs or demands.
I lower font-size in my CSS for the pages I develop. I don't lower it
extremely. I use percentages, so people can easily scale them to
whatever they think it is right. I stick it all in a stylesheet, so
people can disable it or override it altogether if they disagree. No
complaints yet.
--
Kris
<kr*******@xs4all.netherlands> (nl)
On 27 Aug 2004 17:42:14 +0100, Chris Morris <c.********@durham.ac.uk>
wrote: Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> writes: Chris Morris wrote: > This is, to an extent, the point. Why not any of those sizes? Indeed,
> why not 110% on a particular site. Yes, it'll look larger than the
> average site. Yes, the 90% will look smaller than the average site.
> Is this really such a big issue?
If it is not a big issue, why are you arguing that it's a good idea to
change it?
I'm more arguing it does no real harm to change it by small amounts
The problem I and others are trying to articulate is this: how small is
"small"?
We cannot determine the size of the UA's viewport, so we either design for
one size and to hell with the others, or we design to flex to whatever the
size happens to be.
We cannot determine the colors which may be present in a user stylesheet,
so we either say screw 'em if they set my background color as their text
color, or we account for it by specifying both background and text color.
Similarly, we cannot know what size of text is the border between what the
user cannot read and can read, whether as an absolute unit or a percentage
of the UA's setup, so we either send whatever we like and let the user
sort it out if they can, or we send text at a size that we are absolutely
certain each user can read (100%).
Your argument is based on a guess as to what the user wants. My point is
that guesswork is error-prone, and we know without a doubt that if 100%
was unusable the user would either have changed it to a size which works
*for them*, or has given up altogether before they reach our pages.
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 12:26:11 +0000 (UTC), Jukka K. Korpela
<jk******@cs.tut.fi> wrote: Chris Morris <c.********@durham.ac.uk> wrote:
Why? Their readers with poor sight will hopefully have already
configured their browser to get around badly authored pages.
Well, in that case, who is small text size hurting?
Just those people who have _slightly_ reduced eyesight, so that small
text is inconvenient but not so inconvenient that they cannot read small
text at all (so that they would absolutely need to learn the ways to get
around such problems). That makes hundreds of millions of people.
Just to add, in print media the user has the option of bringing the
printed matter into a position of better focus to read the fine print.
This is a natural human action and needs no thought. Not that I defend
microfonts in print media, but the accessibility problem is in many cases
nullified by the adaptive nature of humans.
On the WWW, we are dealing with a screen. It's unnatural for humans to
move themselves closer or farther away from what they are seeing to focus
something better, and we certainly can't expect them to grasp the monitor
in their hands and bring it to their nose. The browser zoom, if it works
on the webpage at all, is not a natural reaction but a learned one, and
involves an extra conscious step on the part of the user.
That makes delivering legible text more important on screen than it is in
print. As many web designers have their roots in print, they naturally
bring their tendencies from print media over to the web without real
consideration of the differences between the media. As a result, we see
all these micros on webpages that can't be resized.
Why do very successful sites still do well even if they violate all the
good practices we espouse? Simply, their content is in such demand the
obstacles they put in the user's way are worth overcoming. I hesitate to
assume my content is so worthwhile that it can overcome accessibility
problems. Therefore it's font-size: 100% for me.
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 20:48:46 +0200, Kris <kr*******@xs4all.netherlands>
wrote: In article <Pi*******************************@ppepc56.ph.gla. ac.uk>,
"Alan J. Flavell" <fl*****@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote: Even a minimum font size isn't really going to help me in that regard.
Disable CSS in your browser: you happy, me happy. I stick as much
presentational matter into CSS as possible to help you disable or
override it and have it the way you want it.
But I no happy. I want to see the webpage like all the other "normal"
people do. I don't want a stripped-down site unless it's the only way my
browser can use it, or it's the only way my disability allows me to use it.
If I have to disable CSS on your site, why not go to another which has
accounted for my needs instead?
Dr John Stockton wrote: JRS: In article <pa****************************@spam.matt.blissett .me.u
k>, dated Fri, 27 Aug 2004 00:09:01, seen in news:comp.infosystems.www.a
uthoring.html, Matt <no******@spam.matt.blissett.me.uk> posted :Dr John Stockton wrote:
I's like to see a decoration convention that discriminated, at least
for un-visited links and preferably for all links, between links to the
same page, links to the same site, and distant links.
The browser knows; the types correspond to <a href="#Tail">, <a
href="gravity0.htm">, <a href="http://...">.
Granted that "same site" does not necessarily correspond exactly with
"relative page reference".
If a convention already exists, ISTM that it is not well enough known,
at least by me.
It doesn't exist.
With CSS3 selectors, you could easily do the styling
though.
That response rather exemplifies the typical approach of these newsgroups,
where the regulars appear to be far more interested in writing pages (to
strict W3, independently of what browsers can do) than they are in reading
them.
I wrote "It doesn't exist" first. The CSS selectors comment is there, as I
thought it appropriate. You have suggested something that hadn't
previously occoured to me, but is an interesting idea nevertheless. Whilst
few current browsers support the needed CSS (see later) they will do so in
the future.
Nothing that I can do with CSS selectors can affect what I will see, while
using someone else's system, when reading pages written by, for example,
you; implementing such a convention on a single site will at most benefit
only those who remember the convention of that site.
But it might be appropriate for a user stylesheet, for instance. Or an
intranet.
I see that
<style type="text/css"><!--
.XXX { font:bold italic ; background: #80FF80; }
--></style>
aaa <a href="#123" class=XXX>123</a> bbb
works; but (a) I'd prefer not to have to add, even in an automated
fashion, classes to all the 9500-odd links on my site, making it 3%
bigger; (b) the wish is for a *recognised* convention, such as might
eventually come about if W3 were to recommend that browsers should
implement it.
*[href] {
}
*[href^="http://"] {
}
*[href^="#"] {
}
Style as you see fit.
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/CR-css3-selectors-20011113/>
I _know_ it's practically useless at the moment, but it would be boring if
all we did here was answer questions without discussing related issues.
--
Matt
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Chris Morris wrote: Brian writes:
Chris Morris wrote:
Do you? For that subset of users who set their preferred
font-size, yes. For everyone else?
For everyone else, there's no way to know what will work best. It
could be 90%; it could be 105%. Hell, it could be 155%. Who knows?
Your guess of 90% is no better than any other. 100% is the best
guess, since it leaves it to the user to change the font size if
they need to, and otherwise leaves it alone.
This is true - but then why change *anything* from the user/user
agent-supplied default?
(1)To enhance the ui (e.g., adding a:hover colors to make it clear where
lins begin and end, change text alignment so form labels are close to
the input fields they point to, etc.).
(2)To enhance the visual appearance (adding background images, changing
margins, etc.).
Perhaps you think making text smaller falls under (2). I don't. Text
size is more of practical consideration. H1 larger than H2, which is
larger than P.
Besides, there is no ideal color, really. You can't really turn it up or
down, the way you can font size. So I don't think the analogy holds.
Why not just write good semantic markup and let the user(agent)
supply their own styles for it? [1]
[1] This is getting bizarrely close to the straw-man 'accessibility
experts want all sites to look the same in black on grey', which is
odd since I'm fairly sure no-one in this thread is *trying* to say
that.
Only you, just now. You keep arguing that smaller is better, but other than "everyone
else does it", you've presented no reason why.
That is, as the Neilsen article points out, sometimes a good reason.
Why does it apply to link colour and underlining, making the
conventional but sub-optimal underlined blue a very good idea
I think Neilsen's argument is based on the history of links; Mosaic used
blue, and the tradition was established. Does small text have some sort
of history? I really don't know about that.
In any case, I don't think blue links present as much of a accessibility
issue as small text.
--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/
Dr John Stockton wrote: Nothing that I can do with CSS selectors can affect what I will see,
while using someone else's system, when reading pages written by,
for example, you;
What, you've never heard of a user stylesheet?
--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me) http://www.tsmchughs.com/ This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: Dufe |
last post by:
Hello all:
To deal with the problem of differing user screen resolutions, I've
explored: 1) making the pages in PHP, 2) having different pages on the
same page and selecting the proper one via...
|
by: Brent |
last post by:
Does anyone know the best way to detect and track a visitors screen
resolution. I know the javascript to detect the users resolution but
I am a bit confused on the best way to track and save this....
|
by: Wayne Aprato |
last post by:
How do most Access developers handle the issue of different database
users possibly running different screen resolutions? At the moment, I
design for the worst case scenario ie. 800 x 600 screen...
|
by: TD |
last post by:
This question is off topic but you folks have the answers. I do Access
development work at clients offices using my laptop. I want to purchase
a new laptop but I am wondering if I need a laptop...
|
by: ravideep |
last post by:
if I set the website layout in pixels, say 800X600. It works fine with screens with window size 800X600. But if someone is having screen 1200X800, then it doesn't stretch to the full window. How can...
|
by: Charles Arthur |
last post by:
How do i turn on java script on a villaon, callus and itel keypad mobile phone
|
by: ryjfgjl |
last post by:
In our work, we often receive Excel tables with data in the same format. If we want to analyze these data, it can be difficult to analyze them because the data is spread across multiple Excel files...
|
by: emmanuelkatto |
last post by:
Hi All, I am Emmanuel katto from Uganda. I want to ask what challenges you've faced while migrating a website to cloud.
Please let me know.
Thanks!
Emmanuel
|
by: BarryA |
last post by:
What are the essential steps and strategies outlined in the Data Structures and Algorithms (DSA) roadmap for aspiring data scientists? How can individuals effectively utilize this roadmap to progress...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
There are some requirements for setting up RAID:
1. The motherboard and BIOS support RAID configuration.
2. The motherboard has 2 or more available SATA protocol SSD/HDD slots (including MSATA, M.2...
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However,...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Most computers default to English, but sometimes we require a different language, especially when relocating. Forgot to request a specific language before your computer shipped? No problem! You can...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers,...
|
by: agi2029 |
last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing,...
| |
