|
|
Posted by Chaddy2222 on 09/23/07 13:40
On Sep 23, 9:41 pm, John Hosking <J...@DELETE.Hosking.name.INVALID>
wrote:
> 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_pix...
> > 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?
Hmmm well for people with three quorters of a brain it would be kind
of vital for people to read the message the website is trying to
comunicate.
>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/
<snip>
I agree, after if a large number of people on this NG can't read the
text on the website then what do kind of idea do you think people
would get of the organisation?.
HINT, the only documents where you normally find small print is on
legal documents.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.awardspace.biz
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|