|
|
Posted by dorayme on 08/11/06 01:39
In article <2FNCg.6669$WL7.4296@reader1.news.jippii.net>,
"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> wrote:
> dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> scripsit:
>
> > It is amazing what folk will put up with
>
> Surely. Should we therefore make them suffer more?
>
Naturally not. Look at the context, a senior and respected member
of this church had said, "if it bothered them that much, they
would have found out how to change it." It was in response to
this. It was not meant to be processed any old how and odd
conclusions drawn.
> > and website
> > makers on the whole tend to use less than 100%.
>
> Really? Did you actually conduct a survey, or is this your impression? The
> impression is most probably wrong, since so many pages use _fixed_ font
> sizes, which might be smaller than your browser's basic font size, or some
> common default font size in browsers, but it's still a completely different
> issue - even though it may look similar.
Your distinctions are real enough and can be important in some
contexts. But not all facts are relevant to every context. Yes,
it is my impression and as often as not there are fixed fonts and
less than 100% fonts and I have had colleagues express surprise
that I think normal body text should be 100% (but they are mostly
savvy about the undesirability of fixed fonts... perhaps I have
been a little influenced in my impression by this?). Let me add
that I am persuaded by this church's arguments and explanations
about the desirability of 100% for main text, an advantage not
enjoyed by atheistic colleagues, they just will not attend.
> I'm pretty sure that <font-size setters> group does not constitute more than 50% of all pages
> (and some of them set the font size larger than 100%).
>
You just had to add this last bit in brackets! I am happy to
accept your stats, it accounts for my impression of font-size
setters (as opposed to pixel-size one) using less than 100% as
often as not. <this is a friendly remark>
> > This has consequences.
>
> Everything has.
>
I reply to things too before reading on... and I am tempted to
forgive you. But I will resist. In the context, it was the start
of a suggestion about the particular sort of consequence (which I
may or may not be right about). It is a normal part of saying
things. Best not to take things out of context old boy.
> > One of them is that there would be a tendency for
> > browsers to be set either by default or by a technician at what
> > makes most sites comfortable viewing.
>
> I thought you thought that the great majority does not touch the font
> settings of their browsers at all. So I don't quite follow your reasoning.
>
Fair enough. I did say "default" and "technicians", I could have
mentioned friends, computer supply people and others. The point
is that some set of earthlings determine what is "normal". It is
not a magical command from a higher being. This set of people are
quite likely, over time, to be influenced by what actually
happens. What actually happens is that a great many website
makers cause their their body fonts to be smaller than those who
set them to 100% (to take a good standard). It does not seem
silly to suppose this has an effect on the forces that form the
defaults as averaged over what the user gets when he first turns
on his new or 2nd hand machine or indeed, borrowed machine. So, i
speculate, and it is confirmed by my impressions and experience,
that when one sees less than 100%, it often looks comfortable.
> > When the good guys use
> > 100%, it looks oddly big to a lot of people.
>
> Perhaps. I prefer looking "oddly big" to looking foolishly small - and
> unreadable to hundreds of millions of people at least if they don't know how
> to set the font size in their browsers.
>
Me too! You and I are like two little peas in a pod.
> Have you _ever_ seen or read a genuine user's complain about too large font
> size on a web page?
Yes. But if i say anything I will have to sit here and type
more... enough already
Compare this with the actual complaints about too small sizes.
>
Quiote. It is much better to risk "too big" and if one attends to
overall design, it will be a much smaller risk.
> "Oddly big" is what designers themselves find as objectionable.
>
I am sure you are right
You missed a class: the client. If I were to go on about the
client, I would never finish.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|