|
|
Posted by John Hosking on 09/23/07 11:41
Followups set to alt.html
windandwaves wrote:
> On Sep 23, 2:17 am, Bergamot wrote:
>> No. Setting body font-size:62.5% than overriding paragraph et al with
>> font-size:1.3em is a really stupid practice.
>>
>> It has a negative effect on those of us who set a minimum font-size in
>> our browsers, which, under normal circumstances, makes the web usable
>> for deeziner sites that use microfonts (like 62.5%). Your type size is
>> now unnecessarily large because it's 1.3em of my minimum size, not the
>> tiny 62.5%. Paragraph text is near the size I'd expect for headings.
>>
>> That 1.3em *must* go, as should 62.5%.
[Bergamot's sig trimmed]
> I based it on this assumption:
>
> "If you want to use percentages then in your body style use body
> { font-size: 62.5% } then you can use em's instead of pixels eg. p
> {font-size: 1.1em}. Using the 62.5% resets the font sizes for the
> entire site so that 1.0em is the same as 10px and will cascade through
> the rest of the site. " as discussed on
> http://www.cre8asiteforums.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=42941,
Pretend you never read that. Or better yet, realize that some people
post on fora (and, er, NGs) without knowing what they're talking about.
> http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200602/setting_font_size_in_pixels/
> and other places
>
> Hi Everyone commenting....
>
> I also believe that anyone who has accessibility issues (e.g. bad eye-
> sight) would be much better off downloading firefox and use other
> tricks to read websites properly rather than relying on philistines
> like me to get it right.
No. You sound like one of these guys who has "Best viewed with IE 5 or
higher" on his pages. A page should be viewable to all visitors, no
matter what their browser is. If the browser doesn't meet their needs,
or is weak in usability, the user can trade up. But usability shouldn't
have to depend on what UAs the page was designed for.
You're suggesting that Microsoft come clean and market Internet Explorer
as "a browser for people without bad eyesight or other accessibility
issues". Firefox can be for people over 35, people who wear glasses,
people with certain size monitors, people in businesses, etc.
> I am not saying we should be discriminatory, but I feel in this group,
Um, you posted in two groups. Which one do you mean?
> a lot of time is wasted on trying to please everyone, I think
> general usability issues are a lot more interesting.
What usability issue is more general than whether a site is readable or
not? I understand that usability questions are interesting (I think so,
too), and so I point you to Jakob Nielsen and Vincent Flanders and their
ilk. But being able to see (i.e., consume) the text is fundamental.
http://www.useit.com/
http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/
> To be everything to all people is just a bit over the
> top. For example, if you write a heavy metal song, you are not
> adjusting it so that everyone will like it and similarly you can not
> expect an academic journal to dumb down their writings to that it is
> accessible to the illiterate. I firmly believe that people should
> create/write/design what they like and not what they think other would
> want.
Now you're talking about art, which has its own value, but which is
separate from the science of delivering content. If your message is a
message of art, you can be artistic, but I believe most sites on the
planet are informational, educational, business, or functional (meaning
utilitatarian) in nature. The communication is basic to their usefulness.
Stupid Analogy Time: The most beautiful or provocative art (a sculpture,
say) is worthless if it's locked in a vault where nobody can see it. If
it's on display, then people can enjoy it (which is what art's for),
unless it's up on the ninth floor and there's no lift. Sure, some hardy
folk will go up there, but lots will miss out.
Not everyone will want to see it in the first place, because they hate
sculpture, just like not everybody will want to hear your heavy metal
song (and the sculptor and songwriter won't care), but for those with an
interest, the work ought to be accessible.
> I know that may sound radical, but I love diversity,
> quirkiness, originality, etc... I dont like McDonalds (lowering food
> to the lowest common denominator). The key is that your website is
> accessible to the people you want to reach - right?
Hey, I think I just wrote that. ;-)
> That is, they are all valid points, but you have to place
> them within the wider range of the real world. I will do my very best
> to make more liquid sites, but I would love to get some comments about
> things like "where should the menu be", "design ideas", "cultural
> sensitivities", "navigation logic", "branding", etc.....
Discussions about whether the nav should be vertical-left,
vertical-right, or horizontal-top don't matter much for sites which
people can't read easily. Also, see the links I mentioned.
--
John
Pondering the value of the UIP: http://improve-usenet.org/
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|