Complex Menus
in [CSS]
|
From: Felix Miata on 14 Jun 2008 03:55 On 2008/06/13 08:53 (GMT+0800) David Morris apparently typed: > Bergamot wrote: > > http://www.bergamotus.ws/misc/sensible-css-text-sizing.html > Ok I had a read of this, and I can see that you have a point with > Minimum Font size in FireFox - finally something I can actually see! > (For the first time here - everything else has just looked like an > emotional sound off, relatively devoid of content -- I am totally > unimpressed by "I know more than you, so do it my way sorts of arguments"). http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/Clagnut/bbcnSS.html has an earlier origin and uses far fewer words, allowing screenshots to do most of the speaking. Note that as of Firefox 3, the problem is gone except as to Opera users. As in Safari, in FF3 the minimum is applied only to sizes that would otherwise be rendered below the minimum, leaving already minimum or larger sizes unimpacted by the minimum setting. > I now need to decide how many users have a minimum font size set high > enough for it to be a problem versus the more general it looks better > with smaller than 100% font size. No you don't. The numbers are non-zero, which are as close to known as could possibly matter. The numbers don't matter one iota. To think it matters is to ignore and thus disrespect your visitors' previously determined optimums. Every instance of non-100% text sizing on main content is a statement of disrespect, telling your visitors you know better and/or they screwed up. It's absurd. You can't know whether they screwed up or not, and you can't know better what works best for them. Can't. Impossible. > BTW, I found Jakob Nielsen's font > selection too large (was he going for irony here?) and actually changed > it to smaller to make it more readable (which in my day to day browsing > I generally don't have to do). Nielsen uses 100% sizing. If text on his site viewed in your own browser is too large for you, almost certainly you screwed up in your own selection of your browser's default size setting. It's your job to adjust your own browser's behavior, not to mess with everyone elses' browsers (via non-100% CSS content text). We already got it right. Any assumption to the contrary is pure disrespect, aka rude. On Nielsen's site most text is too small for me, even though my default size is correctly set. The reason is his average content lines are too many words long for my preferred window width. Lines that long need either a larger text size, or a width constraint, to attain comfort while reading. Luckily, it takes only a second to narrow the browser window to provide the required constraint. Unfortunately, the converse is not possible. Lines too short due to arbitrary width contraints set based upon arbitrarily small assumed text sizes cannot be widened by widening the browser window. > Is this font size issue a swimming against the tide argument in the same > way I rail against the use of Javascript? Once upon a time virtually everyone used low resolution (low DPI) displays. In all the many years since, browser defaults have not budged, while resolutions and DPI have been steadily climbing. It used to be, when DPI was universally low, that 16px and nominal 12pt really were really really big. A nominal 12pt was typically in the 14pt-18pt actual size range. So, deeziners really couldn't fit very much in the available space using text in default size. But, that's ancient history that the vast majority of web deeziners haven't yet abandoned as a design fundament, leaving far too many web users needlessly finding most pages give them eyestrain and backaches trying to read, only because those deeziners are too lazy or clueless or just downright rude. Related reading: http://www.dev-archive.net/articles/font-analogy.html http://fm.no-ip.com/auth/bigdefaults.html http://tobyinkster.co.uk/article/web-fonts/ http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/font-size http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html http://www.lighthouse.org/accessibility/legible/ http://www.informationarchitects.jp/100e2r?v=4 -- "Where were you when I laid the earth's foudation?" Matthew 7:12 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
From: Felix Miata on 14 Jun 2008 04:05 On 2008/06/12 08:24 (GMT-0700) Kevin Scholl apparently typed: > I truly do not believe there is a clear "wrong" or "right". Repect is always right. Disrespect is always wrong. Disregarding my preference (px or pt main content sizing) and adjusting my preference (relative, but non-100% main content sizing) are always disrespect. Always. -- "Where were you when I laid the earth's foudation?" Matthew 7:12 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
From: Felix Miata on 14 Jun 2008 04:08 On 2008/06/13 07:21 (GMT+0800) David Morris apparently typed: > It is the real users that count. Exactly, and they should need do no more than arrive and read. If they X the tab or hit the back button before they assimilate your message, you screwed up. -- "Where were you when I laid the earth's foudation?" Matthew 7:12 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
From: Bergamot on 16 Jun 2008 07:10 Felix Miata wrote: > On 2008/06/13 08:53 (GMT+0800) David Morris apparently typed: >> Bergamot wrote: > >> > http://www.bergamotus.ws/misc/sensible-css-text-sizing.html > > Note that as of Firefox 3, the problem is gone except as to Opera users. FYI, the problem will still exist for those with a user stylesheet having body {font-size:100% !important} And that could be any browser. -- Berg
|
Pages: 1 Prev: bg-image not showing in Safari, FF/mac.. Next: Need help finding CSS bug in Opera |