Posted by dorayme on 10/24/05 01:41

> From: dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au>
>
>> From: Michael Winter <m.winter@blueyonder.co.uk>
>
>> On 22/10/2005 02:44, dorayme wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> So the output - the output, what the average punter sees and
>>> uses on and from his screen - is awful, is it?
>>
>> So, you want to determine quality based solely on how a section of the
>> potential audience might see a document? That would seem to be quite a
>> restricted view of 'quality'. It seems to me that software that has the
>> purpose of generating HTML and CSS should be able perform that task
>> adequately.
>>
>> As for your question: awful? No, not quite, but it is bad. The text is
>> too small to be comfortable, and there's low contrast between text and
>> background images.
>>
>> If we move away from the norm and impose a minimum font size (I use a
>> very reasonable 12px), the numerous 'overflow: hidden' declarations
>> cause some of the text to be hidden. Obviously, this only gets worse at
>> larger font sizes. If I look at the site using Opera with its text
>> browser emulation mode, it is unusable.
>>
snip
>>
>
> Michael, I agree with much of what you say.

snip
>
> As I said in another post, it looked not too bad at one font
> size but really terrible at others, a sign to me that the wsiwig
> probably needed an operator to heed some classic advice of
> /knowing/ how to do without one at the very least...
>
> I think there is a little issue, but it is not very pressing;
> about you saying "So, you want to determine quality based solely
> on how a section of the potential audience might see a
> document?" I did not at all mean "soley" and I don't think the
> average punter is just any old "section of the potential
> audience".
>
> Cheers anyway...

I notice a typo of mine...

In short, I mean that if a person caters for a very big section
of a website audience (say from 15" to 19" screens bracketed at
a couple font sizes either way of average settings for such
screens) the site will be very much better than one that does
not. This does not make it perfect, true. I was thinking that it
is a slightly misleading (though technically correct) use of the
word "solely" (here I typoed).

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]