Critique request - dumpage.net

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Chris Beall
<Chris_Beall (AT) prodigy (DOT) net> writing in news:9g4Rf.21397$tb3.17995
@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net:

Andrew Cameron wrote:
Adrienne Boswell wrote:
(snip)
Most people (90% and over) will browse with the default font
size and when they come across a site with huge fonts will say "ugh,
that looks crap".

Adrienne,

Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about the font size here?
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/cover.html#minitoc

Chris Beall

It's fine for me because the size is not specified, so it is at the size
that I like.

--
Adrienne Boswell
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 12:44:41 +0000, Andrew Cameron wrote:

Nope. I use the default XP size (although I revert the GUI back to
classic mode) with the default font size in Firefox. I also view at
1280x1024, which makes my fonts even smaller than on the majority of
1024x768 or 800x600 screens.

Computers display in pixels. XP (and Firefox) size fonts in pixels. Now,
make sure you read this twice: a pixel has only a casual relationship to
actual displayed size.

Thus, a font at 16px can (and does) vary between 5mm and 2.5mm. In
other words, it can be up to twice as small or twice as large as it
appears to you.

Since you have absolutely no way of knowing how big it'd actually look,
the only reasonable thing to do is set it at 100% of the user's preference.

--
Ben Measures
$email =~ s/is@silly/@/

Adrienne Boswell wrote:

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Chris Beall
Chris_Beall (AT) prodigy (DOT) net> writing in news:9g4Rf.21397$tb3.17995
@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net:


Andrew Cameron wrote:

Adrienne Boswell wrote:

(snip)

Most people (90% and over) will browse with the default font
size and when they come across a site with huge fonts will say "ugh,
that looks crap".

Adrienne,

Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about the font size here?
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/cover.html#minitoc

Chris Beall





It's fine for me because the size is not specified, so it is at the size
that I like.

Of course. Now I'll ask Andrew the same question, which is what I

intended...

Chris Beall

Andrew Cameron wrote:

(snip)

Most people (90% and over) will browse with the default font size and
when they come across a site with huge fonts will say "ugh, that
looks > crap".

Andrew,

Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about the font size here?
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/cover.html#minitoc

How do you feel about the fontsize HERE, i.e. in this newsgroup?

Chris Beall

Ben Measures wrote:

Computers display in pixels. XP (and Firefox) size fonts in pixels. Now,
make sure you read this twice: a pixel has only a casual relationship to
actual displayed size.

Okay, okay, okay, come on now folks. I've been doing this whole web
thing for almost a decade now, I do web development for a living and
have been for several years - I know about pixels, resolution and
monitor sizes; please don't patronise me.

I meant relatively, on the same size of monitor. Sheesh. It's a
scalable thing, too - I mean, you guys don't know how big my monitor is.

The only reason I posted in here was for comment on the design as we
have designers at work and it's not my best area, but I should have
guessed that I would be jumped on by the Every Site On The Web Must Be
AAA Complaint Brigade.

--
Regards,
Andrew Cameron
http://dumpage.net/

Chris Beall wrote:

Andrew,

Yes, Chris?

Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about the font size here?
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/cover.html#minitoc

Well, I don't find it very easy to read, to be honest. If I flick the
font size down one click in Firefox, it suits my preferences nicely and
makes it a lot friendlier to my eyes. I'm not just saying that.

That page is not designed to be pretty (it doesn't seem to have been
designed at all); its purpose is its function - link heavy and
content-rich, but that's why people provide text-only modes and make
their otherwise visually-attractive sites degrade gracefully for text
browsers.

I think the W3C's design skills (or rather, lack of) are not only
counter-productive to what people like Dave Shea, Doug Bowman, Cameron
Moll etc are trying to do, but impractical in the real world where
clients want pretty and we have to provide both accessibility and "The
Shiny". I guess that's a rant for another thread, really.

The bottom line is: if I design something in a certain way, that's how I
want it to look. Some will agree with me, some will not. If we all
used 100% font size everywhere then the web would look boring.

How do you feel about the fontsize HERE, i.e. in this newsgroup?

Oh, you card.

--
Regards,
Andrew Cameron
http://dumpage.net/

Andrew Cameron wrote:

Ben Measures wrote:
Computers display in pixels. XP (and Firefox) size fonts in pixels. Now,
make sure you read this twice: a pixel has only a casual relationship to
actual displayed size.

Okay, okay, okay, come on now folks. I've been doing this whole web
thing for almost a decade now, I do web development for a living and
have been for several years - I know about pixels, resolution and
monitor sizes; please don't patronise me.

I meant relatively, on the same size of monitor. Sheesh. It's a
scalable thing, too - I mean, you guys don't know how big my monitor is.

Someone I know worked on the multimedia system for BC place stadium. In
part of the testing, or maybe just for the fun of it, they played a fighter
combat game on the system. It apparently looked very good on the 40 foot
diagonal screen, and the stadium sound system checked out quite well too.

The relevance is, the pixels in that screen were probably in the range of a
half inch high. A browser viewport set at 200 x 200 would be somewhere in
the 8' x 8' range.

The only reason I posted in here was for comment on the design as we
have designers at work and it's not my best area, but I should have
guessed that I would be jumped on by the Every Site On The Web Must Be
AAA Complaint Brigade.

Unfortunately, we news group groupies do seem to be holier than thou...
What I know is the Goddess' gift, and everyone else out there can either
tow my line, or they are out to lunch. (I hope you can detect my sarcasm
here.)

Some might say take it with a grain of salt, take it with a 25lb bag of the
stuff.

Carolyn
--
Carolyn Marenger

Andrew Cameron wrote:

Ben Measures wrote:

Computers display in pixels. XP (and Firefox) size fonts in pixels. Now,
make sure you read this twice: a pixel has only a casual relationship to
actual displayed size.

Okay, okay, okay, come on now folks. I've been doing this whole web
thing for almost a decade now, I do web development for a living and
have been for several years - I know about pixels, resolution and
monitor sizes; please don't patronise me.

OK, but you're dodging the key part of Ben's post. Ben's bottom line was:

Since you have absolutely no way of knowing how big
it'd actually look, the only reasonable thing to do
is set it at 100% of the user's preference.

--
Gregor mit dem Motorrad auf Reisen:
http://hothaus.de/greg-tour/

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 22:28:35 +0000, Andrew Cameron wrote:

If we all used 100% font size everywhere then the web would look boring.

You don't need to make sure it's 100% everywhere, just that the
weighted average size is 100% of the user's preference.

--
Ben Measures
$email =~ s/is@silly/@/

Andrew Cameron wrote:

Chris Beall wrote:

Andrew,


Yes, Chris?

Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about the font size here?
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/cover.html#minitoc


Well, I don't find it very easy to read, to be honest. If I flick the
font size down one click in Firefox, it suits my preferences nicely and
makes it a lot friendlier to my eyes. I'm not just saying that.

OK. Now, how did you feel about having to make an adjustment in order
to optimize the site to your preferences? (not frustrated, at least,
since you COULD make such an adjustment.)

Suppose you left your browser set 'one click down'. Would you then find
that text on other sites was too small, requiring you to return the
setting to its default position? If so, who is responsible for that,
W3C or the other sites?

(snip)

The bottom line is: if I design something in a certain way, that's how I
want it to look. Some will agree with me, some will not. If we all
used 100% font size everywhere then the web would look boring.

I don't think anyone has advocated that. When folks here have advocated
a rule-of-thumb, it has generally been:
- Use 100% for body text.
- Use larger percentages where appropriate to get greater attention.
- Use smaller percentages (but not less than 85%) for small quantities
of less important information, such as copyright and other legal notices.

How do you feel about the fontsize HERE, i.e. in this newsgroup?


Oh, you card.

Hey, it was a serious question, even if it was baited. Lots of useful
information gets communicated here, yet we manage to do that without
authors being able to determine font sizes. But, just as with web
pages, YOU can adjust the font size (if your newsreader supports it;
mine does). And, because WE can't override that setting, EVERY message
you see here will be readable, to you, without further changes being
required. Boring, if you think, but efficient.

Chris Beall