Re: containing floating img height within a div

Steve Broski wrote:

Ubuntu, Apple, Facebook, ESPN, Expedia, EBay, Library of Congress,
AOL, IBM, Bank of America ...

Honestly, I'm pretty sure these guys have pondered the idea of larger
default font sizing. Pretty sure the majority of them have tested
larger font sizes as well.

All you have to do is see how the design handles enlarged text sizes.
Lots of big-name sites fall apart, which indicates that they have *not*
tested larger font sizes at all.

--
Berg

Bergamot wrote:

All you have to do is see how the design handles enlarged text sizes.
Lots of big-name sites fall apart, which indicates that they have *not*
tested larger font sizes at all.

I said they test default font sizes. That's doesn't mean they adopted
the designs from these tests. You'll note most lose substantial
functionality without Javascript, fail miserably in old browsers and are
primarily fixed width - breaking down terribly at <800px (or even <960px
in some cases).

That's because these sites don't care. Or, at least don't care enough to
modify their sites for the benefit of a minute fraction of their
audience who have browser-forced gigantic type, disabled JS or are
running browsers at narrow widths/640x480 monitors when these
modifications would be at the expense of the overwhelming majority's
experience.

You're using the wrong metric when trying to calculate a site's success.
Your emphasis seems to be ensuring the most effective means of
delivering content above all else. With a few exceptions (site's
designed for public service, academia, etc) most sites' primary goal is
not content delivery.

The marketplace's design decisions on font-size (damn near unanimous, by
the way) are by no means arbitrary and represent far more compelling
proof of a surfer's preferred default font size than what the few
hundred people involved in creating the few flavors of web browsers chose.

Steve Broski wrote:

Bergamot wrote:
All you have to do is see how the design handles enlarged text sizes.
Lots of big-name sites fall apart, which indicates that they have *not*
tested larger font sizes at all.

I said they test default font sizes.

No, you said:
"Pretty sure the majority of them have tested
larger font sizes as well."

Actually, many fall apart at default browser settings, too. The majority
of big-name sites use absolute rather than relative font sizes and the
layout isn't designed to adapt to anything else.

That's because these sites don't care. Or, at least don't care enough to
modify their sites for the benefit of a minute fraction of their
audience who have browser-forced gigantic type, disabled JS or are
running browsers at narrow widths/640x480 monitors when these
modifications would be at the expense of the overwhelming majority's
experience.

What a bunch of bull.

--
Berg

Bergamot wrote:

I said they test default font sizes.

No, you said:
"Pretty sure the majority of them have tested
larger font sizes as well."

Meaning I'm certain they've tested their global "body {font-size: 13px}"
or similar that they use versus not altering the default size.

As to whether they've tested layouts against surfers arriving with their
browsers configured to display fonts at 2.5x larger -- I doubt they
bother. The traffic they'll see that matches that criteria is
statistically irrelevant.

Actually, many fall apart at default browser settings, too. The majority
of big-name sites use absolute rather than relative font sizes and the
layout isn't designed to adapt to anything else.

Example? Not saying it's not possible, but would be surprised to see a
large site that breaks down with default configurations on Win/Mac/Linux
platforms on a 'standard' browser.

That's because these sites don't care. Or, at least don't care enough
to modify their sites for the benefit of a minute fraction of their
audience who have browser-forced gigantic type, disabled JS or are
running browsers at narrow widths/640x480 monitors when these
modifications would be at the expense of the overwhelming majority's
experience.

What a bunch of bull.

Do you really believe the Amazon's and Yahoo's out there are NOT
constantly testing layouts and tweaks to see how to maximize their
site's return? Seriously. Do you really believe the design decisions
they have in place is simply the result of a couple designer's gut
instincts?

Steve Broski wrote:

Do you really believe the Amazon's and Yahoo's out there are NOT
constantly testing layouts and tweaks to see how to maximize their
site's return? Seriously. Do you really believe the design decisions
they have in place is simply the result of a couple designer's gut
instincts?

Having been a marketing executive for a couple of huge multi-national
conglomerates and having a wife who was an exec for 24 years with one of
those on the list cited earlier, yeah, I have no problem at all
believing that.

And, if not, then that the site is the result of (oh, God, I almost hate
to say this) *a committee*. And, actually, that's probably more likely.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
If you're living on the edge, make sure you're wearing your seat belt.

Steve Broski wrote:

Bergamot wrote:
Steve Broski wrote:
I said they test default font sizes.
No, you said:
"Pretty sure the majority of them have tested
larger font sizes as well."

Meaning I'm certain they've tested their global "body {font-size: 13px}"
or similar that they use versus not altering the default size.

Huh? Never mind. It won't make sense to me no matter how you spin it.

As to whether they've tested layouts against surfers arriving with their
browsers configured to display fonts at 2.5x larger -- I doubt they
bother.

2.5x larger than what? Their specified puny 10px body text, or the usual
browser 16px default? Not that it matters. If they set body text at
10px, the design often depends on that size so even a small increase can
hose it up.

My default is 20px with a minimum 17px. Those numbers are not something
I pulled out of the air intending to break web sites, but the sizes that
*I* need for comfortable reading. I lost count of the number of sites
I've been to that are unusable at those settings. If the site has
something I really need, hopefully it will be usable with CSS disabled,
but that isn't always the case.

The traffic they'll see that matches that criteria is
statistically irrelevant.

And you know this because...?

Actually, many fall apart at default browser settings, too. The majority
of big-name sites use absolute rather than relative font sizes and the
layout isn't designed to adapt to anything else.

Example?

msnbc.com is probably the worst because it's as useless with CSS
disabled as with it enabled. There are plenty of others, though.
nbc.com, qwest.com, the online banking service for one of my banks
(can't get to it without an account there), yadda yadda yadda

Do you really believe the design decisions
they have in place is simply the result of a couple designer's gut
instincts?

That or marketing types that don't understand the media. I've worked
with far too many of those. Some are trainable, others are not.

--
Berg

On Jan 31, 7:00*am, Bergamot <berga... (AT) visi (DOT) com> wrote:

Steve Broski wrote:

Ubuntu, Apple, Facebook, ESPN, Expedia, EBay, Library of Congress,
AOL, IBM, Bank of America ...

Honestly, I'm pretty sure these guys have pondered the idea of larger
default font sizing. Pretty sure the majority of them have tested
larger font sizes as well.

All you have to do is see how the design handles enlarged text sizes.
Lots of big-name sites fall apart, which indicates that they have *not*
tested larger font sizes at all.

Or it might indicate that they don't care.

On 2009-02-01, Patricia Aldoraz wrote:

On Jan 31, 7:00*am, Bergamot <berga... (AT) visi (DOT) com> wrote:
Steve Broski wrote:

Ubuntu, Apple, Facebook, ESPN, Expedia, EBay, Library of Congress,
AOL, IBM, Bank of America ...

Honestly, I'm pretty sure these guys have pondered the idea of larger
default font sizing. Pretty sure the majority of them have tested
larger font sizes as well.

All you have to do is see how the design handles enlarged text sizes.
Lots of big-name sites fall apart, which indicates that they have *not*
tested larger font sizes at all.

Or it might indicate that they don't care.

They are most likely not even aware of the problem. It looks fine
in their browsers (heck, they've looked at it in several), so it
must be all right.

--
Chris F.A. Johnson <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
================================================== =================
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)

Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:

On 2009-02-01, Patricia Aldoraz wrote:
On Jan 31, 7:00 am, Bergamot <berga... (AT) visi (DOT) com> wrote:
Steve Broski wrote:

Ubuntu, Apple, Facebook, ESPN, Expedia, EBay, Library of Congress,
AOL, IBM, Bank of America ...
Honestly, I'm pretty sure these guys have pondered the idea of larger
default font sizing. Pretty sure the majority of them have tested
larger font sizes as well.
All you have to do is see how the design handles enlarged text sizes.
Lots of big-name sites fall apart, which indicates that they have *not*
tested larger font sizes at all.

Or it might indicate that they don't care.

They are most likely not even aware of the problem. It looks fine
in their browsers (heck, they've looked at it in several), so it
must be all right.

Nothing is a simple as has been suggested. Now, it's trivial to make
a one column page expand infinitum. But the sites we are talking about
are dense packed with content and navigation. Most are 3 column, which
is almost the standard.

Now, I don't read the same sites as Bergamot, but I did look at
msnbc.com. It's pretty much what you would expect of MS, still relying
heavily on tables and much the same kind of markup as you get from MS
Word. So I'd have to put this in the "idiot" realm.

Should we be designing complex sites that have a default size of 1em,
or that look as good at 20px as they do at 12px? Not if you want to
get commercial work. The best that we can reasonably expect is 3 layers
of zoom, not the monstrous size text is held up as the standard here.
Bergamot has as hard a time seeing things the way most people do, as we
do in seeing it his way.

Web authoring is still in a bit of transition, we aren't that far out
from when all major sites used tables. As should be widely know here,
it's not trivial to do tableless equal 3 column layouts that aren't a
nightmare to set up. Most of the designers I work with can't do it,
instead I've persuaded them to let me set up the templates.

With all that said, I think we are getting closer to having the
knowledge and tools to improving usability all around. Some of the tools
now falling in my kit (such as AJAX) will be resisted amongst many here,
but it's already widespread amongst such leaders as Google.

So, if you want to evangelize on reasonably zoomable sites, I'll be
there for you because the adjustment to do this are possible. If you
want to evangelize on dumping Verdana and going with 1 em always, then
you are fighting a needless battle, one I can't support.

Jeff

On Feb 1, 12:22*pm, Jeff <dont_bug... (AT) all (DOT) uk> wrote:

* *So, if you want to evangelize on reasonably zoomable sites, I'll be
there for you because the adjustment to do this are possible. If you
want to evangelize on dumping Verdana and going with 1 em always, then
you are fighting a needless battle, one I can't support.

Personally, I think this paragraph contains the key. That is, a good
designer/developer will produce sites that remain usable as text is
zoomed to a reasonable degree. The simple fact is that a very slim
minority of people even know you CAN set minimum font sizes and/or
user style sheets, much less actually do so. On the other hand, users
who do have vision problems (or preferences) generally know how to
adjust text size via their browser (be it through the View menu or CTRL
+/-).

So the question becomes, do you leave everything at the default 1em/
100%, which most people do in fact consider large, for the sake of the
minority? Or do you design sites that can be effectively zoomed, safe
in the knowledge that the small subset of users that might need to
enlarge knows how to do so? I can appreciate Berg's viewpoint, and
sympathize with poor vision (as my own is horrific without corrective
lenses), but if the site can be zoomed and remain usable, it seems
much more logical to me to go with the majority.

I do have a question for Berg (or anyone else who sets their minimum
font rather larger than the "norm". I'm curious what you do about
operating system settings, since most of them default to font sizes
even smaller than most Web sites? And yes, this is a serious question,
not some kind of flame bait.