Text size

I am a bit put off by the use of "minority groups", as well as other usages
in Osgood's tone, really. Sounds a bit insensitive to me.

The fact is this - Osgood uses px because he can't be bothered to worry
about what happens in FF, or Mac browsers. That's OK with me, but it may
not be the right recipe for others.

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================


"darrel" <notreal (AT) nowhere (DOT) com> wrote

Yes, I agree. Thousands of minority groups that can easily read 11px
text, with or without a reading aid, that equates to a majority.

And you base that assumption on what?...

a) designing to accomodate multiple type sized isn't detrimental to
anyone

Sure it is. I don't design a kids comic in the same way as I design an
adult orientated magazine.

We're not talking about paper. We're talking about the web.

b) a lot of minority groups depend on resizable type...often equating to
actually being a majority of your users.

Now youre trying to tell me that the majority of the global populations
sight cannot be corrected by convention use of glasses....come on behave.

Do you know that these pople wear glasses all the time? Do you know what
PPI their monitor is set to to accurately know how big 11px is? Do you
know how far they are seated away from their browser? Do you know if
perhaps they just prefer bigger type?

Anyways, even if everyone on the planet could read 11px type perfectly,
there still isn't a really good reason to prevent people from changing it
to their own prefences.


I suppose you are saying that those coming from a print-based design
background their opinions do not count.

Nope. I come from a print design background myself.

I'm saying a lot of print designers who try and build web sites have a
really tough time understanding the basic differences between the
mediums...namely that the web is much less about designer-control and much
more about designer-suggestion mixed with end-user control.

Listen, print design and presentation was around eons before the
web...the web has got a lot of catching up to do in terms of
presentation.

They are different things.

Good design *is about* accessibility.

Just that?

No. It's about accessibility. And usability. And ergonomics. And
aethetics. And writing. And color. And form. And message. Etc.

-Darrel

darrel wrote:

Yes, I agree. Thousands of minority groups that can easily read 11px text,
with or without a reading aid, that equates to a majority.


And you base that assumption on what?...

Common sense.

a) designing to accomodate multiple type sized isn't detrimental to anyone


Sure it is. I don't design a kids comic in the same way as I design an
adult orientated magazine.

We're not talking about paper. We're talking about the web.

Just because its the web doesnt mean to say the presentation should
suffer. It does because of its limitations but you can give it a helping
hand if its possible.

b) a lot of minority groups depend on resizable type...often equating to
actually being a majority of your users.


Now youre trying to tell me that the majority of the global populations
sight cannot be corrected by convention use of glasses....come on behave.

Do you know that these pople wear glasses all the time? Do you know what PPI
their monitor is set to to accurately know how big 11px is? Do you know how
far they are seated away from their browser? Do you know if perhaps they
just prefer bigger type?

It doesnt matter what PPI the end users monitor is set at. px, ems, %
WILL all decrease, or enlarge in size from what you set it at. So
basically if you're serious about accessibility you would need a 'screen
resolution sniffer' to feed a different style sheets to cater for this
situation.

Anyways, even if everyone on the planet could read 11px type perfectly,
there still isn't a really good reason to prevent people from changing it to
their own prefences.

They can, just use the available tools....I wouldnt stop them from doing it.

I'm saying a lot of print designers who try and build web sites have a
really tough time understanding the basic differences between the
mediums...namely that the web is much less about designer-control and much
more about designer-suggestion mixed with end-user control.

There are some excellent commercial site designs out there, which push
the boundaries in terms of design. I believe that sometimes if you only
come from a web designer background you don't push the envelope in
presentation enough and so stagnate.

Both designing and being able to code efficiently are equally important
but if I have to choose one over the other Id would say being able to
design is more important because that IS the end product and the end
product is what people buy.

Listen, print design and presentation was around eons before the
web...the web has got a lot of catching up to do in terms of presentation.


They are different things.

Different things with a lot in common. Design sells.

Good design *is about* accessibility.


Just that?


No. It's about accessibility. And usability. And ergonomics. And aethetics.
And writing. And color. And form. And message. Etc.

Great, glad to see you're not 'blinkered'


Anyway enough of this half assed crap Im off to get some real work done.
That Guinness has my name on it

Murray *TMM* wrote:

I am a bit put off by the use of "minority groups", as well as other usages
in Osgood's tone, really. Sounds a bit insensitive to me.

Well I guess I just get the job done. Not too much sentiment in the
business world I revolve in.

The fact is this - Osgood uses px because he can't be bothered to worry
about what happens in FF, or Mac browsers.

What, explain...if nothing else I'm bothered. This should be interesting.

You seem secure in the knowledge that using px prevents your IE visitors
from resizing text. That's only true in IE, and only if you don't enable
the accessability options. It's not true in FF or any of the current Mac
browsers.

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================


"Osgood" <notavailable (AT) atthisaddress (DOT) com> wrote

Murray *TMM* wrote:

I am a bit put off by the use of "minority groups", as well as other
usages in Osgood's tone, really. Sounds a bit insensitive to me.

Well I guess I just get the job done. Not too much sentiment in the
business world I revolve in.


The fact is this - Osgood uses px because he can't be bothered to worry
about what happens in FF, or Mac browsers.

What, explain...if nothing else I'm bothered. This should be interesting.

Common sense.

Look around, Osgood. The population in this country is aging. Monitor
resolutions are increasing. Portable display devices are shrinking.

Just because its the web doesnt mean to say the presentation should
suffer.

Presentation is enhanced when the end-users can read your type.

It does because of its limitations but you can give it a helping hand if
its possible.

You say limitations. Other's say benefits. ;o)

It doesnt matter what PPI the end users monitor is set at. px, ems, % WILL
all decrease, or enlarge in size from what you set it at.

Uh...right. That's my point. 11px isn't the same size across the board as
you seem to assume it is.

Bob using an 800*600 monitor may read your site just fine. Next time he's at
the library and stuck with the 1280x1600...whoa! His type just shrunk 75%!
ouch. Granted, a well designed site will allow him to resize that as he
needs to.

So basically if you're serious about accessibility you would need a
'screen resolution sniffer' to feed a different style sheets to cater for
this situation.

No, if you're serious about web design, you realize that people may change
your spec's easily to accomodate their particular needs and design for that.

There are some excellent commercial site designs out there, which push the
boundaries in terms of design. I believe that sometimes if you only come
from a web designer background you don't push the envelope in presentation
enough and so stagnate.

Sounds like you are advocating that form should trump function?

Both designing and being able to code efficiently are equally important
but if I have to choose one over the other Id would say being able to
design is more important because that IS the end product and the end
product is what people buy.

'Coding' is design too.

Different things with a lot in common. Design sells.

You're talking about decoration and layout. Design is much, much more than
just that.

Anyway enough of this half assed crap Im off to get some real work done.
That Guinness has my name on it

Hmm...I cant' argue that point. ;o)

-Darrel

Murray *TMM* wrote:

You seem secure in the knowledge that using px prevents your IE visitors
from resizing text. That's only true in IE, and only if you don't enable
the accessability options.

Not sure what your trying to inform me here Murray. You know I already
know that.


It's not true in FF or any of the current Mac

browsers.

Again you know I already know that....not sure at all what the point of
your reply was to be honest.

darrel wrote:

Common sense.


Look around, Osgood. The population in this country is aging. Monitor
resolutions are increasing. Portable display devices are shrinking.

Just because you are 80 or 90 it doesnt mean that your eyesight cannot
be corrected with the aid of glasses to the point where you can read a
book or newspaper comfortably. If that were the case publications really
would have to be thinking about enlarging the size of the text they use
to cater for all these aging people.

Just because its the web doesnt mean to say the presentation should
suffer.


Presentation is enhanced when the end-users can read your type.

What makes you think they cant when using pixels?

It does because of its limitations but you can give it a helping hand if
its possible.


You say limitations. Other's say benefits. ;o)

What can be achieve in prnt design cannot always be accomplished in web
design so I don't see the benefits as you call it.

It doesnt matter what PPI the end users monitor is set at. px, ems, % WILL
all decrease, or enlarge in size from what you set it at.


Uh...right. That's my point. 11px isn't the same size across the board as
you seem to assume it is.

Bob using an 800*600 monitor may read your site just fine. Next time he's at
the library and stuck with the 1280x1600...whoa! His type just shrunk 75%!
ouch. Granted, a well designed site will allow him to resize that as he
needs to.

My point is my presentation will be the same x-browser, small or large.
Allowing the end user to have initial control of your site it wont be.
My job is to present a page how I proportionally want it to be
represented. After I have done that job I can do no more. If the end
user then requires to use the zoom tool thats ok by me.

So basically if you're serious about accessibility you would need a
'screen resolution sniffer' to feed a different style sheets to cater for
this situation.

No, if you're serious about web design, you realize that people may change
your spec's easily to accomodate their particular needs and design for that.

Thats just rubbish. Who the hell changes their browers default text
size, god forbid the screen resolution. If you were to conduct a survey
I'm willing to bet the majority would'nt have a clue what youre talking
about. Its a plug and play world we live it.

There are some excellent commercial site designs out there, which push the
boundaries in terms of design. I believe that sometimes if you only come
from a web designer background you don't push the envelope in presentation
enough and so stagnate.

Sounds like you are advocating that form should trump function?

Nope, what Im saying is its easier to sell a good visual concept
designed by a competent designer than one that is designed by a web
programmer that isnt.

Both designing and being able to code efficiently are equally important
but if I have to choose one over the other Id would say being able to
design is more important because that IS the end product and the end
product is what people buy.


'Coding' is design too.

I dont see that point at all. Code is functional I would'nt call it
design. Infact it has little to do with design. Not many people like
looking at code, its not very exciting, unless of cause you are a web
techie.

Different things with a lot in common. Design sells.


You're talking about decoration and layout. Design is much, much more than
just that.

I think I addressed that above.

I know you know it. I am puzzled why you are ignoring it in your responses
to others.

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Team Macromedia Volunteer for Dreamweaver
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.dreamweavermx-templates.com - Template Triage!
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.macromedia.com/support/search/ - Macromedia (MM) Technotes
==================


"Osgood" <notavailable (AT) atthisaddress (DOT) com> wrote

Murray *TMM* wrote:
You seem secure in the knowledge that using px prevents your IE visitors
from resizing text. That's only true in IE, and only if you don't enable
the accessability options.

Not sure what your trying to inform me here Murray. You know I already
know that.


It's not true in FF or any of the current Mac
browsers.

Again you know I already know that....not sure at all what the point of
your reply was to be honest.

Murray *TMM* wrote:

I know you know it. I am puzzled why you are ignoring it in your responses
to others.

Im not really ignoring it. I just answered the question as I saw it. The

original poster mentioned specifically that he had noticed this trait in
in IE (NOT OTHER BROWSERS). I would suspect, reading between the lines,
they had tried enlarging the text in other browsers via the zoom tools
available and saw that it worked just fine, were puzzled as to why the
same thing didn't happen in IE when they used the enlarge text feature,
asked a specific question, to which I gave a specific answer.

My point is my presentation will be the same x-browser, small or large.
Allowing the end user to have initial control of your site it wont be.
My job is to present a page how I proportionally want it to be
represented. After I have done that job I can do no more. If the end
user then requires to use the zoom tool thats ok by me.

NOT TRUE. If I don't use IE pc, I can change your px sizes as much as I
want. However, they won't behave as nicely as those done with
accessibility and decent user interface design in mind. Typically,
knowledgeable designers/developers use %/em settings.

No, if you're serious about web design, you realize that people may
change your spec's easily to accomodate their particular needs and
design for that.

Lots of folks change their settings and resolution. You must have a VERY
limited clientele if you haven't run into this yet.

There are some excellent commercial site designs out there, which
push the boundaries in terms of design. I believe that sometimes if
you only come from a web designer background you don't push the
envelope in presentation enough and so stagnate.

Sounds like self-justifying crapola to me. Good design doesn't require
ignoring accessibility just for design's sake.

As for all the rest of it about design over coding, you should realize
that there are two aspects (or more, depending upon the project) of
design - visual and functional. A good designer deals with all aspects
and typically, it *isn't* the graphic end that drives the design. That's
just pretty pictures, though I love that aspect of every project A
good designer can paint "pretty pictures" that work with great function!

Pushing the envelope doesn't require using pixels per se. It requires
great functionality and imagination to see how you can convey message
and vision specific to the content. Pushing the envelope just for its
own sake is silly and off-message.

My 2 cents, for which I get paid *a lot more* than that.

Donna Casey, designer/developer