T
Tim Streater
Ed Mullen said:
Better have a new thread then about website uglification
Better have a new thread then about website uglification
D
dorayme
JJ said:
I had a customer recently complain that the main text (at least
on the home page) made the site look like it was for handicapped
people! We went back and forth with the usual, me telling him how
to set his browser so it looked right to him, he replying that he
has heard and understood these arguments before (he does not
really understand the issues!).
I agreed to reduce the font-size of the main text on the home
page (which consisted of boxes of small blurbs) to about 90%
using the excuse that it was boxes of small blurbs. I said
nothing about all the many other pages, which had more genuine
continuous body text, leaving them unchanged.
What he does not know is that I *would not* budge on the rest, he
can see I *have not*, but that is different.
J
JJ
Beauregard said:
But is this really the usability issue you make it out to be? For
example, how do you account for the fact that some of the most widely
used sites on the web use font sizes in the range of 11-13px for body
copy? This includes Facebook, Wikipedia, Twitter... Facebook actually
uses font-size: 11px; on the body, a veritable evil according to this
group. Are you claiming these sites simply ignore the people who can't
read their pages? Or is it more likely that those people don't have
issues in the first place because they know how to zoom their browsers
or get at their accessibility settings and so on?
B
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
JJ said:
Wikipedia doesn't use px for font sizing at all; all I see there is
percentages and ems. I don't do Facebook or Twitter.
Yes, I suppose I am.
My experience with the average home user is that a very high percentage
of them have no idea how to change those things, unless someone like me
tells them.
I guess we'll just have to agree that you don't care too much about
accessibility.
J
JJ
Beauregard said:
I didn't say it did. I included it as an example of sites that have a
body copy font size in the range of 11-13px, regardless of how this is
achieved in the CSS.
I find that hard to believe. I mean, if only 1% of Facebook's users were
having difficulty because of that "font-size: 11px;", that would
translate into a lot of disgruntled users.
Sure I do. But the advive to leave body copy at 100% (16px by default in
most browsers I believe) seems draconian to me, and rather at odds with
my day-to-day experience in the industry and what I see on the web in
general.
B
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
JJ said:
You said, "11-13px for body copy? This includes Facebook, Wikipedia,..."
If the CSS uses %/em as Wikipedia does, the pages will respect _my_
choice for how I view the site. If I had excellent eyesight, that
*could* be 11 to 13 pixels. The web is not paper.
Perhaps, after becoming disgruntled, those users left and never went
back. If you were running a web business, would you want to turn away
even one percent of your customers? Perhaps 1% of your profit is not
important to you.
Nobody says the web is perfect. However, taking the stand that it is
okay to be imperfect still seems to imply to me that you don't care very
much about it.
D
dorayme
Beauregard T. Shagnasty said:
The basic issue is not complicated, industry practice on this is
bad practice that has become entrenched and therefore hard to
combat by small more knowledgeable and more principled
individuals. You take a stand if you can, like on many other
moral, political, and social issues. Each webmaster must take a
stand or face the Usability Clerks under St Peter at The Gates.
D
dorayme
JJ said:
Not necessarily so disgruntled that they would go anywhere else.
There is this cute notion put about here by too many that people
who are unhappy with a website fly off in search of competitor
ones. Does not happen much for various reasons: the comp is just
as bad or or worse, they don't think it that serious, they can't
be bothered, they know they are in an imperfect world, they are
used to being hard done by, they have technical workarounds. Etc.
The dramatic "disgruntled" is not quite the benchmark that is
relevant in deciding whether you should use best practice or bad
industry practice.
The point is this, bad practice might please bosses and website
owners and even some webmasters but it does not help or please
the users. The whole point about best practice (that is not your
'industry practice') is to please all the users as best as
possible and there is only one size for body text that can do
this, only one size that has a solid argument for it: normal in
principle for everyone, to wit, no font-size set or, if you must
(to avoid bugs? Why else?), 100%.
B
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
dorayme said:
Sorry, Beauregard didn't write anything quoted in your post... :-(
D
dorayme
Beauregard T. Shagnasty said:
Was there an *actual* implication that you had? :-!54;;}[***//!
J
Jonathan N. Little
Ed said:
Had no experience with Facebook, but my wife just joined. Wikipedia is
"great" compared to Facebook. My first impression of Facebook is that
they don't even follow standard interface protocol for forms and such. Ugh!
Blogs in general are notorious for the micro-font problem, I guess it
says something about the "value" of the content when it is presented in
"boilerplate" style!
D
dorayme
Jonathan N. Little said:
Spot the irony:
<http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/rulesregulations/mobilityparking/index.
html
B
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
dorayme said:
Besides the micro-fonts, it looks like it was designed and written by a
committee who never talk to each other. They should be turned in to the
government! (oh, wait ...)
JJ will take this site as evidence the practice is acceptable.
J
Jonathan N. Little
dorayme said:
What? They're crippled not blind right? ;-)
D
dorayme
Jonathan N. Little said:
Yes, it is harder to spot because of this, I agree. It is sort of
irony-once-removed, a subtler form. <g>
Put it this way if you want to be serious: here is a webmaster
doing a page that is likely to be accessed by people with
mobility problems, guess who have the most such problems? Yep,
elderly folk. And guess who have less than perfect vision? Yep,
elderly folk.
And if the mere presence of the word "disability" (the federal
permits have this word in them and are associated as well as
reference throughout the NSW scheme) does not drag-trigger a
webmaster to be conscious of usability of his text, and or if he
is overruled by his masters, then well, well ... they will answer
for it at The Gates.
J
Jonathan N. Little
dorayme said:
Hey that may be a new strategy the St Peter and deploy at
PearlyGates.com: "If you can read this text, do not enter!"
C
Captain Paralytic
Surely blindness is a disability as is poor sight.
C
Captain Paralytic
I like the signs that say that dogs aren't allowed on the grass verge.
I've yet to meet a dog that can read!
J
Jonathan N. Little
Captain said:
Sure they can, see what they do to that sign? Dogs just don't respect
authority.
D
dorayme
Tim Streater said:....
Thanks for that. I have subsequently solved it but it's been a couple of
weeks or so since I looked at it, so I don't remember what I did and
it's now getting a bit late (time for my hot milk and so on). I'll check
tomorrow. See <http://clothears.org.uk> if you're *really* interested
I recall a fantastic post of mine complete with URL demos in
reply to you and this was sort of one of my suggestions too, I
think Upsdell gave a hint in that direction too. I was very hurt
by not hearing from you and I have been drinking heavily since.
But I am cheered that Ben has finally come back to post again -
he mysteriously disappears every now and then. <g>