Different size for different font

On 2007-05-21, Kevin Scholl <kscholl.RemoveThis@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
[...]
>> "From the box to the code, Redmond is clamping down, ..." is
>> grey-on-grey. Wait until you are 65 years old and tell me if you can
>> read it.
>
> For the record, that is #666 on a background that is #EEE fading to
> #FFF (white). Studies for years have shown that high contrast such a
> black on white cause the eyes to tire quickly, so I softened the
> contrast. Not the highest contrast, to be sure, but not flagged by
> contrast analyzers, either.

I'm with on you on that one, the grey on white on your page is
comfortable to read.

Black on white is OK. White on black and I start up Lynx. If that fails
and I still want to read the page, I read the source in a text editor.

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Kevin Scholl wrote:
>>
>> But resolution IS important in this case. Higher resolutions will
>> [snip]
>
> ..and all of this changes between a 15" monitor and a 20", which is why
> it is not important.

Not to mention other factors like the workspace lighting, the user's
eyesight, quality of the graphics card, etc. which are different for
each user, and beyond anyone's control.

>> Studies for years have shown that high contrast such a
>> black on white cause the eyes to tire quickly, so I softened the
>> contrast.
>
> I use black on an off-white, which works well.

Agreed. Black (or near black) text on a very pale background is much
easier on the eye than any color on a white background. Too much white
can be quite glaring.

> Pale grey on off-white doesn't.

My monitor has 3 preset brightness settings (for text vs game playing)
and none of them made the #fff/#666 combination more readable for me.
Forget #eee/#666.

Maybe I just need to sit in the dark, too.

--
Berg

Kevin Scholl wrote:
> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>
>> ..and there is no link on this page to get you to the rest of the site
>> that "doesn't require JavaScript".
>
> Sure there is. Did you miss the "Continue anyway" at the bottom of the
> page?

You really expect people to read that whole page? I didn't bother
reading past the first paragraph. It told me everything I really needed
to know. I was not amused, enlightened, or impressed - quite the opposite.

> But the site does not require Javascript, nor states that it
> does. Recommended, yes (like so many sites nowadays), but not
> required.

If JS truly isn't required, then sending people to that "error" page off
the bat is just plain rude. If you have parts where JS is necessary,
then note it on the related page, not in a splash page to your site.

> For the record, that is #666 on a background that is #EEE fading to
> #FFF (white). Studies for years have shown that high contrast such a
> black on white cause the eyes to tire quickly, so I softened the
> contrast.

Low contrast is a readability problem for a lot of people. Small type is
a readability problem for a lot of people. The 2 combined is the worst
of both worlds.

--
Berg

Kevin Scholl <kscholl RemoveThis @comcast.DELETE.net> writes:

> Jon Fairbairn wrote:
> > The problem with personal experience of this sort of thing
> > is that it's likely to give very distorted results because
> > of the small sample size, particluarly when the real value
> > is fairly small.
>
> Jon,
>
> Given my years of work in this field, and the number and
> nature of the sites on which I've worked, I wouldn't count
> my sample as small. It's almost certainly in the top echelon
> of people here.

Even the very topmost person here (whatever that means) is
likely to have encountered only a small sample of the people
out there looking at websites.

--
Jón Fairbairn Jon.Fairbairn RemoveThis @cl.cam.ac.uk

Scripsit Kevin Scholl:

> No, quoting the entire message in this case indicates that I
> recognized that this was a fairly new thread

It was simply foolish, as is your continued massive quoting. Read a tutorial
on Usenet, or _read_ some constructive discussions, and you'll see that
massive quoting typically indicates stupidity or intentional misbehavior.

>> The default setting of 12pt is good exactly _because_ it is somewhat
>> too large to most people when sans-serif fonts are used. Give some
>> thought to the variation of people and browsing conditions, and
>> you'll see this.
>
> Again, I DO see this.

Yet you have decided to use text sizes like 70%. What you do does not match
what you claim to understand.

> A dark gray on an extremely light gray fading to white is hardly
> illegible. FWIW, I test in grayscale, and have had visually-impaired
> people look at my work. None have expressed any trouble. It seems to
> me you're grasping here to try to make your point.

What you claim to have heard is immaterial when I can see, and many other
people can see, that you actually have tiny text with insufficient color
contrast.

> I guess I'll just say that I'll agree to disagree on this topic in
> general.

That's not a surprise.

> However, I am a put off by YOUR tone, which is very condescending.

When people have no rational arguments, they start talking about other
people's tones, motives, and things like that.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Scripsit Kevin Scholl:

> Let me (again) reiterate that my personal site is an old design (some
> three years old), done well before these issues were much in the
> limelight (nor does it require JavaScript). It's not what I would
> consider a viable example in this case.

If you are giving others advice on using font sizes, shouldn't you design at
least one page where font size issues are dealt with adequately, in your
opinion?

Feel free to babble pointlessly while evading such challenges. You can't
really lose your cause any more than you already have lost.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Scripsit Kevin Scholl:

> Does a percentage-based font allow a vision-impaired user
> to resize IF THEY NEED TO, while retaining an optimal visual
> experience for the vast majority of users under default settings? Yes.

No, because when you have set the font size to 70%, many people won't be
able to reach a sufficiently large size - unless they do something
complicated like override page settings or even use a user style sheet, and
you claim they can't do such things.

And it's not optimal. It's only what you have personally chosen, declaring
your taste as optimal.

> You know, I don't post all that often in Usenet

Promises, promises.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

In article <wfabvy5tqm.fsf DeleteThis @calligramme.charmers>,
Jon Fairbairn <jon.fairbairn DeleteThis @cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:

> Bergamot <bergamot DeleteThis @visi.com> writes:
>
> > BTW, I've never gotten a single complaint from a client or client user
> > about font-size:100% being too big, so your lack of complaints doesn't
> > mean there aren't any, just they don't tell you about it.
>
> Unfortuntaly I've had such a complaint from a client (and
> for this particular client I'm too far down the hierarchy to
> have much say in the matter). It seems to me that the root
> cause of this is that the font default sizes on Windows (IE
> at any rate)

Well, this depends on how you view the strength of the
alternative explanation I gave. I too have had complaints about
100% being too big from clients but where it is perfectly clear
that they are not using IE (but Mac and other browsers). I would
think this business of X height that you mention is marginal to
the real explanation, namely that quite a few people have become
used to seeing sites with less than 100% for body text, their
browsers are set for this to be comfortable (this includes
_these- people being comfortable with the default). It comes as
out of the ordinary to their eye. The truth is that 100% does
often involve more scrolling on sites where someone is saying
something that might actually be worth reading!

But with sufficient patience and persuasion with clients, and
layout to accomodate information, the war can be advanced towards
100%

--
dorayme

In article
<1179766109.179831.91660 RemoveThis @n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Kevin Scholl <kscholl RemoveThis @comcast.net> wrote:

> I wasn't referring to the authors, but users. The visually impaired
> (whatever the reason, be it age, injury, birth defect, whatever)
> generally will know how to adjust their font sizes. The average,
> typical user does not, because they do not NEED to.

Fine, but you need to be fully aware that complaints will not
surface if the irritations are not very serious. Better to be
safe than sorry and use 100% if for body text if you can to avoid
that below the level where 'most will start complaining loudly.
Less people will be disadvantaged this way.

> Consider this as well, just to play devil's advocate. If text less
> than 100% is so problematic, why do the various operating systems and
> their applications all employ default text that is roughly equivalent
> to 11px for their chrome elements (e.g., menus)? Isn't this too small
> for someone such as yourself? How do you deal with that?

Actually, yes! Quite often I have complained about the chrome,
especially on my 20" LCD when I am viewing older OS (via Classic
on my Mac). The point here is that there is little that can be
done about this without serious downsides. But God, in his
wisdom, has given us browsers where the websites themselves can
be made to be easy to use if the authors make sensible decisions.

--
dorayme

dorayme <doraymeRidThis DeleteThis @optusnet.com.au> writes:

> In article <wfabvy5tqm.fsf DeleteThis @calligramme.charmers>,
> Jon Fairbairn <jon.fairbairn DeleteThis @cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Unfortuntaly I've had such a complaint from a client (and
> > for this particular client I'm too far down the hierarchy to
> > have much say in the matter). It seems to me that the root
> > cause of this is that the font default sizes on Windows (IE
> > at any rate)
>
> Well, this depends on how you view the strength of the
> alternative explanation I gave. I too have had complaints about
> 100% being too big from clients but where it is perfectly clear
> that they are not using IE (but Mac and other browsers). I would
> think this business of X height that you mention is marginal to
> the real explanation, namely that quite a few people have become
> used to seeing sites with less than 100% for body text,

Sure, but I was arguing that one of the reasons that sites
started having <100% body text was this x-height issue
(namely the designer selects a sans font, sees it looks
bigger than intended and shrinks it without thinking of the
reasons why). Once more than a few sites have been designed
like that, users have to respond, and lo and behold 80% is
the new 100%



--
Jón Fairbairn Jon.Fairbairn DeleteThis @cl.cam.ac.uk

In article <wfwsz144t3.fsf RemoveThis @calligramme.charmers>,
Jon Fairbairn <jon.fairbairn RemoveThis @cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:

> dorayme <doraymeRidThis RemoveThis @optusnet.com.au> writes:
>
> > In article <wfabvy5tqm.fsf RemoveThis @calligramme.charmers>,
> > Jon Fairbairn <jon.fairbairn RemoveThis @cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > Unfortuntaly I've had such a complaint from a client (and
> > > for this particular client I'm too far down the hierarchy to
> > > have much say in the matter). It seems to me that the root
> > > cause of this is that the font default sizes on Windows (IE
> > > at any rate)
> >
> > Well, this depends on how you view the strength of the
> > alternative explanation I gave. I too have had complaints about
> > 100% being too big from clients but where it is perfectly clear
> > that they are not using IE (but Mac and other browsers). I would
> > think this business of X height that you mention is marginal to
> > the real explanation, namely that quite a few people have become
> > used to seeing sites with less than 100% for body text,
>
> Sure, but I was arguing that one of the reasons that sites
> started having <100% body text was this x-height issue
> (namely the designer selects a sans font, sees it looks
> bigger than intended and shrinks it without thinking of the
> reasons why). Once more than a few sites have been designed
> like that, users have to respond, and lo and behold 80% is
> the new 100%

Ah well, perhaps you are on to something on the history of the
'arms race' here. Methinks there are less subtle forces at work.
Young earthlings with superb eyesight, a huge amount of rubbish
that is thought needed to be seen on home pages especially and so
on. Call me cynical.

--
dorayme

dorayme wrote:

> Ah well, perhaps you are on to something on the history of the
> 'arms race' here. Methinks there are less subtle forces at work.
> Young earthlings with superb eyesight, a huge amount of rubbish
> that is thought needed to be seen on home pages especially and so
> on. Call me cynical.
>

BODY { font-size: 1px; }

There! Make'em break out their magnifying glasses, even with their
20-something eyes!

This whole argument is just as asinine, the base font size should be
100% of the users default. and if properly designed will work regardless
of the user settings. You can help yourself as a designer be avoiding
using fonts that are "artificially oversize" or mixing optional fonts of
divergent characteristics. I don't have Verdanda on my Linux box. Until
some truly working system for font embedding|delivery happens you must
design with flexibility that you do not precisely what fonts will be
available for your web design.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

On 2007-05-22, dorayme <doraymeRidThis.RemoveThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> In article <wfwsz144t3.fsf.RemoveThis@calligramme.charmers>,
> Jon Fairbairn <jon.fairbairn.RemoveThis@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
[...]
>> Sure, but I was arguing that one of the reasons that sites
>> started having <100% body text was this x-height issue
>> (namely the designer selects a sans font, sees it looks
>> bigger than intended and shrinks it without thinking of the
>> reasons why). Once more than a few sites have been designed
>> like that, users have to respond, and lo and behold 80% is
>> the new 100%
>
> Ah well, perhaps you are on to something on the history of the
> 'arms race' here. Methinks there are less subtle forces at work.
> Young earthlings with superb eyesight, a huge amount of rubbish
> that is thought needed to be seen on home pages especially and so
> on. Call me cynical.

A tiny font gives a superficial impression of importance and "high
tech", which is why it's used on corporate websites, which are often
content-free anyway. Big fonts look too much like children's books. Also
if you make the actual words easy to see it's too obvious they're just
BS.