Different size for different font

In article <slrnf57qha.5ad.spamspam.RemoveThis@bowser.marioworld>,
Ben C <spamspam.RemoveThis@spam.eggs> wrote:

> 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.

!

--
dorayme

On 2007/05/21 11:36 (GMT-0700) Kevin Scholl apparently typed:

> Does a percentage-based font allow a vision-impaired user
> to resize IF THEY NEED TO,

When you as web designer choose to make an arbitrary reduction from their
choice, whether that choice is affirmative or passive, it's an eminently
reasonable presumption that they will need to. This is the reason why modern
browsers feature a zoom function, in order to defend against web authors who
affirmatively choose not to respect site visitors.

> while retaining an optimal visual
> experience for the vast majority of users under default settings? Yes.
> Simple as that.

Not simple. You:
1-are not using my eyes
2-are not sitting in my chair
3-are not seeing my display

Therefore you have no concept of optimal visual experience from any
perspective nor for any environment except your own.

You OTOH probably:
1-have above average eyesight (few people with poor eyes in web design business)
2-have larger than average display (working at it most of day, well deserved)
3-don't need to actually use (read) your page (intimate familiarity)

This distorts your perspective as compared to average web users.

http://css.nu/articles/font-analogy.html
http://www.informationarchitects.jp/100e2r?v=4
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html
--
"The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining
ever brighter till the full light of day." Proverbs 4:18 NIV

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/

On 2007/05/21 09:48 (GMT-0700) Kevin Scholl apparently typed:

> 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.

#666 on #EEE is flagged as insufficient color difference by the one I use:
http://juicystudio.com/services/colourcontrast.php

One notch off the extremes is quite sufficient softening. I can get by with
#333 on #FFF if the text is fully my default size, but #222 and #111 are
very much better. Your contrast lowering is excessive, and coupled with your
tiny text, makes reading your content painful in the absence of disabling
your styles.
--
"The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining
ever brighter till the full light of day." Proverbs 4:18 NIV

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/

On 2007/05/21 18:08 (GMT+0100) Jon Fairbairn apparently typed:

> Kevin Scholl wrote:

>> 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.

The only thing that matters is that that quantity is nonzero. It's about
respect and doing the right thing, something few web designers choose to
practice.
--
"The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining
ever brighter till the full light of day." Proverbs 4:18 NIV

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/

On 2007/05/23 02:18 (GMT-0500) Ben C apparently typed:

> 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.

Until you're sitting in the chair of your visitor, you know neither how big
is big nor how small is small.

What is known is that if you think the 12pt default is too big, your
perspective does not match that of average web users:
http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/2S/font.htm
--
"The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining
ever brighter till the full light of day." Proverbs 4:18 NIV

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/

Felix Miata <UgaddaBkidding.due2UCE.DeleteThis@dev.nul> writes:

> On 2007/05/21 18:08 (GMT+0100) Jon Fairbairn apparently typed:
>
> > Kevin Scholl wrote:
>
> >> 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.
>
> The only thing that matters is that that quantity

[of people who are adversely affected by smaller fonts]

> is nonzero.

As far as whether to do the right thing is concerned, I
quite agree. But my point was that his claim to have sampled
a large proportion of people strikes me as unlikely, so his
impression of the number of people who would be affected as
small (effectively zero is what his argument implied) is
invalid.

> It's about respect and doing the right thing, something
> few web designers choose to practice.

Alas so.

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

Felix Miata wrote:
>
> http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/2S/font.htm

That study was done back in 2000. It would be interesting to see what
has changed since then, considering the improvements in display devices
over the past few years.

--
Berg

On 21 May, 17:48, Kevin Scholl <ksch....DeleteThis@comcast.net> wrote:

> Higher resolutions will of course make text appear smaller on screen.

Not necessarily for IE.

Owing to a bug in how IE applies the Windows desktop default font size
adjustment twice, a high-resolution Windows display may display web
pages at an excessively _large_ size. If the user has obtained a high
resolution display and a monitor of average size it's relatively
common (more common than them setting browser user stylesheet) for
them to set the Windows desktop display font size to be larger than
standard. IE then applies this settings again itself (Windows has
already applied it), resulting in browser "1em" sizes being
relatively larger than when a lower resolution display has been
configured to give equally sized desktop fonts.

In article <c1.2b8.35NCD3$16p@p-t18.ij.net>,
Felix Miata <UgaddaBkidding.due2UCE.TakeThisOut@dev.nul> wrote:

> On 2007/05/21 09:48 (GMT-0700) Kevin Scholl apparently typed:
>
> > 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.
>
> #666 on #EEE is flagged as insufficient color difference by the one I use:
> http://juicystudio.com/services/colourcontrast.php
>
> One notch off the extremes is quite sufficient softening. I can get by with
> #333 on #FFF if the text is fully my default size, but #222 and #111 are
> very much better.

My thought too, I was much happier with #333 when I looked at
Kevin's site the other day. But as for $111 or #222 being much
better, that is an interesting idea... except that at least with
#111 it is not very much better than #000. Curiously enough
though, there seems to be an argument here for #222. Thanks
Felix.

--
dorayme

Bergamot <bergamot RemoveThis @visi.com> writes:
> Felix Miata wrote:
> > http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/2S/font.htm
>
> That study was done back in 2000. It would be interesting to see what
> has changed since then, considering the improvements in display devices
> over the past few years.

Well, they give enough information to be able to repeat the experiment.

--
Chris

On 2007/05/21 09:48 (GMT-0700) Kevin Scholl apparently typed:

> 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.

Sounds like urban legend to me. Can you cite any such studies?

I suspect most who think black on white is too contrasty have incorrectly
adjusted display brightness and contrast settings. Manufacturers tend to set
these values to arbitrarily high defaults in order to more readily lure buyers.

My eyes tire least quickly when text is easiest to read, which means a
correctly set display, maximum contrast text (black or virtual black, not
"gray"), and my choice of text size.
--
"The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining
ever brighter till the full light of day." Proverbs 4:18 NIV

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/