what do you think? review my site.... is it working in your browser

On Sep 20, 1:28 pm, windandwaves <nfranc... (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Hi Folk

Can you please have a look at:http://www.winsborough.co.nz/and tell
me what you think. Apparently it is not working in IE6, although for
it does.

Thank you

Nicolaas

i think its an interesting site.
i agree with other comments that the grey text colour on a white
background is not ideal /

windandwaves wrote:

http://www.winsborough.co.nz/

I changed all the font-sizes to em.... does it work for you now?

No. Setting body font-size:62.5% than overriding paragraph et al with
font-size:1.3em is a really stupid practice.

It has a negative effect on those of us who set a minimum font-size in
our browsers, which, under normal circumstances, makes the web usable
for deeziner sites that use microfonts (like 62.5%). Your type size is
now unnecessarily large because it's 1.3em of my minimum size, not the
tiny 62.5%. Paragraph text is near the size I'd expect for headings.

That 1.3em *must* go, as should 62.5%.

--
Berg

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sat, 22 Sep 2007 00:14:00 GMT
Bergamot scribed:

Ie6 is usually pretty accurate in identifying j/s errors.

Hmmm... I've always thought IE was terribly vague in its error messages.
The JS Console in gecko browsers is much more informative.

Oh, absolutely - it's the pits. I just meant that if it identifies an
error as being present (however vaguely), there most likely is an error.
-Somewhere. It's a shame because it would have been exceedingly simple to
provide sufficient info once the error had been tagged. No profit in it,
though.

--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.

On Sep 23, 2:17 am, Bergamot <berga... (AT) visi (DOT) com> wrote:

windandwaves wrote:

http://www.winsborough.co.nz/

I changed all the font-sizes to em.... does it work for you now?

No. Setting body font-size:62.5% than overriding paragraph et al with
font-size:1.3em is a really stupid practice.

It has a negative effect on those of us who set a minimum font-size in
our browsers, which, under normal circumstances, makes the web usable
for deeziner sites that use microfonts (like 62.5%). Your type size is
now unnecessarily large because it's 1.3em of my minimum size, not the
tiny 62.5%. Paragraph text is near the size I'd expect for headings.

That 1.3em *must* go, as should 62.5%.

--
Berg

Hi Berg

I based it on this assumption:

"If you want to use percentages then in your body style use body
{ font-size: 62.5% } then you can use em's instead of pixels eg. p
{font-size: 1.1em}. Using the 62.5% resets the font sizes for the
entire site so that 1.0em is the same as 10px and will cascade through
the rest of the site. " as discussed on
http://www.cre8asiteforums.com/forum...howtopic=42941,
http://www.456bereastreet.com/archiv...ize_in_pixels/
and other places

Hi Everyone commenting....

I also believe that anyone who has accessibility issues (e.g. bad eye-
sight) would be much better off downloading firefox and use other
tricks to read websites properly rather than relying on philistines
like me to get it right. I am not saying we should be discriminatory,
but I feel in this group, a lot of time is wasted on trying to please
everyone, I think general usability issues are a lot more
interesting. To be everything to all people is just a bit over the
top. For example, if you write a heavy metal song, you are not
adjusting it so that everyone will like it and similarly you can not
expect an academic journal to dumb down their writings to that it is
accessible to the illiterate. I firmly believe that people should
create/write/design what they like and not what they think other would
want. I know that may sound radical, but I love diversity,
quirkiness, originality, etc... I dont like McDonalds (lowering food
to the lowest common denominator). The key is that your website is
accessible to the people you want to reach - right? Sometimes when
someone says : "hey your website does not work on my Gecko 0.8, using
my pink background, 90pixel screen, running on an Atari 64 " then I
think. Your are right! and the same is true for 1/3 of the worlds
population living on less than the dollar a day, nor the people who
dont like the internet or those who are currently under siege by the
US Army. That is, they are all valid points, but you have to place
them within the wider range of the real world. I will do my very best
to make more liquid sites, but I would love to get some comments about
things like "where should the menu be", "design ideas", "cultural
sensitivities", "navigation logic", "branding", etc.....

Thanks again for all your comments.... I am taking them on-board as I
write this.

Nicolaas

Followups set to alt.html

windandwaves wrote:

On Sep 23, 2:17 am, Bergamot wrote:

No. Setting body font-size:62.5% than overriding paragraph et al with
font-size:1.3em is a really stupid practice.

It has a negative effect on those of us who set a minimum font-size in
our browsers, which, under normal circumstances, makes the web usable
for deeziner sites that use microfonts (like 62.5%). Your type size is
now unnecessarily large because it's 1.3em of my minimum size, not the
tiny 62.5%. Paragraph text is near the size I'd expect for headings.

That 1.3em *must* go, as should 62.5%.

[Bergamot's sig trimmed]

I based it on this assumption:

"If you want to use percentages then in your body style use body
{ font-size: 62.5% } then you can use em's instead of pixels eg. p
{font-size: 1.1em}. Using the 62.5% resets the font sizes for the
entire site so that 1.0em is the same as 10px and will cascade through
the rest of the site. " as discussed on
http://www.cre8asiteforums.com/forum...howtopic=42941,

Pretend you never read that. Or better yet, realize that some people
post on fora (and, er, NGs) without knowing what they're talking about.

http://www.456bereastreet.com/archiv...ize_in_pixels/
and other places

Hi Everyone commenting....

I also believe that anyone who has accessibility issues (e.g. bad eye-
sight) would be much better off downloading firefox and use other
tricks to read websites properly rather than relying on philistines
like me to get it right.

No. You sound like one of these guys who has "Best viewed with IE 5 or
higher" on his pages. A page should be viewable to all visitors, no
matter what their browser is. If the browser doesn't meet their needs,
or is weak in usability, the user can trade up. But usability shouldn't
have to depend on what UAs the page was designed for.

You're suggesting that Microsoft come clean and market Internet Explorer
as "a browser for people without bad eyesight or other accessibility
issues". Firefox can be for people over 35, people who wear glasses,
people with certain size monitors, people in businesses, etc.

I am not saying we should be discriminatory, but I feel in this group,

Um, you posted in two groups. Which one do you mean?

a lot of time is wasted on trying to please everyone, I think
general usability issues are a lot more interesting.

What usability issue is more general than whether a site is readable or
not? I understand that usability questions are interesting (I think so,
too), and so I point you to Jakob Nielsen and Vincent Flanders and their
ilk. But being able to see (i.e., consume) the text is fundamental.
http://www.useit.com/
http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/

To be everything to all people is just a bit over the
top. For example, if you write a heavy metal song, you are not
adjusting it so that everyone will like it and similarly you can not
expect an academic journal to dumb down their writings to that it is
accessible to the illiterate. I firmly believe that people should
create/write/design what they like and not what they think other would
want.

Now you're talking about art, which has its own value, but which is
separate from the science of delivering content. If your message is a
message of art, you can be artistic, but I believe most sites on the
planet are informational, educational, business, or functional (meaning
utilitatarian) in nature. The communication is basic to their usefulness.

Stupid Analogy Time: The most beautiful or provocative art (a sculpture,
say) is worthless if it's locked in a vault where nobody can see it. If
it's on display, then people can enjoy it (which is what art's for),
unless it's up on the ninth floor and there's no lift. Sure, some hardy
folk will go up there, but lots will miss out.

Not everyone will want to see it in the first place, because they hate
sculpture, just like not everybody will want to hear your heavy metal
song (and the sculptor and songwriter won't care), but for those with an
interest, the work ought to be accessible.

I know that may sound radical, but I love diversity,
quirkiness, originality, etc... I dont like McDonalds (lowering food
to the lowest common denominator). The key is that your website is
accessible to the people you want to reach - right?

Hey, I think I just wrote that. ;-)

That is, they are all valid points, but you have to place
them within the wider range of the real world. I will do my very best
to make more liquid sites, but I would love to get some comments about
things like "where should the menu be", "design ideas", "cultural
sensitivities", "navigation logic", "branding", etc.....

Discussions about whether the nav should be vertical-left,
vertical-right, or horizontal-top don't matter much for sites which
people can't read easily. Also, see the links I mentioned.

--
John
Pondering the value of the UIP: http://improve-usenet.org/

windandwaves wrote:

On Sep 23, 2:17 am, Bergamot <berga... (AT) visi (DOT) com> wrote:
windandwaves wrote:

http://www.winsborough.co.nz/

Setting body font-size:62.5% than overriding paragraph et al with
font-size:1.3em is a really stupid practice.

http://www.cre8asiteforums.com/forum...howtopic=42941,
http://www.456bereastreet.com/archiv...ize_in_pixels/

Hmmm... articles written by deeziners for deeziners. Why would you think
they have a clue? They really want everything in px, to maintain their
loverly deezines. They have merely deluded themselves into thinking they
are now more accessible or something. I'm not sure what they think, but
they are wrong.

I also believe that anyone who has accessibility issues (e.g. bad eye-
sight) would be much better off downloading firefox

Um, I already use a browser that is more intelligent than most
deeziners. It can't fix everything, though.

and use other
tricks to read websites properly rather than relying on philistines
like me to get it right.

In your case, disabling stylesheets altogether seems the best choice.
Why would you want your visitors to do things like that, when it is so
unnecessary?

If you insist on setting a type size that is less than 100%, then don't
do it the stupid way. Just set body text at 85% and forget about bumping
up paragraph text to compensate for being so tiny. At least then
everybody will have a fighting chance to get it a comfortable size
without disabling CSS altogether.

--
Berg

In article
<1190525999.227269.292130 (AT) w3g2000hsg (DOT) googlegroups.com>,
windandwaves <nfrancken (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

I will do my very best
to make more liquid sites, but I would love to get some comments about
things like "where should the menu be", "design ideas", "cultural
sensitivities", "navigation logic", "branding", etc.....

In that case, you are not quite in the right newsgroup. When you
talk about design ideas, and people respond here, it is
inevitable and understandably right that the issue will be seen
in its relevance to a breathing live website, not a picture on a
wall. This brings in issues of usability immediately, especially
in regards to browser and font sizing.

--
dorayme