11 or 12px ?

[JustAnotherGuy]

While sitting in a puddle Toby A Inkster scribbled in the mud:




Microsoft caring about their customers. You very funny Toby!!!

Er, Microsoft pours millions of dollars into figuring out things like
where shading and borders should go.

 

[kchayka]

Then fix your design.

^^^

Fix (verb):
1. To put into a stable or unalterable form
2. To correct or set right; adjust

The design is butchered because the author attempted the first
definition. Repairing the design is the second definition.

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

Easier said than done. Such sites where changing the font size site-wide screws
up the site are usally complex in graphics and the general layout. This isn't
the internet of 1998 anymore.

Then they should either use a simpler design or find a pretty design
which works. I would much rather a web site which works for me than one
which looks nice and doesn't work.

That ecritters.biz site in your email isn't trying to sell anything (nor would
it produce sales anyway), so you don't have to worry about the "wow factor" and
the resulting obstacles that some designers must face.

No, but it isn't an example of good design in any case. I did the
original tabled layout before I knew much about CSS, and later replaced
it with a rather bad CSS layouts. The pages are even worse.

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

sans-serif is available on every computer I've ever encountered. It
is the visitor's default - what /they/ like - and maybe, if they don't
care for sans fonts, they may have even set it to Times New Roman! You
shouldn't care.

Some browsers have an option to choose sans-serif or serif as the
default. You might want to not even specify sans-serif so that setting
will be used.

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

Er, Microsoft pours millions of dollars into figuring out things like
where shading and borders should go.

Then they do the exact opposite of what their studies say.

 

[Sid Ismail]

: I've been wondering about the fashion these days to tell people not to
: specify font sizes on their web pages. Frankly, I don't consider this
: very good advice.
:
: The fact is, no matter which font size you pick, someone will want to
: resize it.


The viewer has set his default size. What's with this logic... ?

Sid

 

[Richard]

Rafal 'Raf256' Maj wrote:

I'm wondering, with font-size should I use for my pages.

I would like to rely on pixel-size settings (to preserve identical look
across different machines, if somone realy can't see 12px verdana then he
might enforce bigger font in browser -or- I'll probably add an option to
easly change font size on size).

Currently I do use 11px, but maybe 12px would be better? On the other
hand with 12px little less informations will fit on one
page/screen/column/etc.

I hate fixed font sites.
I set my browser to totally disregard their font choices and settings.
Leave it at 11 pt and allow the user to change at will.
Just design the site so the information stays put within a cell regardless
of size.

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l-.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GG-1175498 ____| ]____,
Rafal 'Raf256' Maj X-( * )
Rafal(at)Raf256(dot)com ,"----------"

 

[JustAnotherGuy]

Then they do the exact opposite of what their studies say.

True! They can't tell the difference between an operating system and a
colouring book anymore :S

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Quoth the raven named Leif K-Brooks:

Some browsers have an option to choose sans-serif or serif as the
default. You might want to not even specify sans-serif so that
setting will be used.

I specify sans-serif based on the numerous publications that say a
sans-serif font is better for reading on screen, and a serif is better
for print. My print stylesheets specify { font-family: serif; }

The visitor, of course, is free to override.

 

[Jim Royal]

If the designer specifies no font size, the default size will appear
too large for the majority of people

How do you know it's too big for most people?[/QUOTE]

Vast personal experience. Trust me on this.

And what's wrong with allowing those of us who know exactly what our
prefered font size is and who like sites to be displayed with that?

Nothing. My choice is between inconveniencing the small percentage of
visitors that you represent versus inconveniencing the majority of
visitors who don't even know that they can scale their text.

Ultimately, whatever font size you pick (or refuse to pick), you are
inconveniencing someone. A portion of your visitors will always be
resizing your text. I say: Try to please the largest group.

 

[Toby A Inkster]

That's the point. Go with default and those who don't know the option to change
it is right there on their browser can have the option on the page.

Or better, a link explaining how the user can adjust the default font size
for their browser.

 

[Jim Royal]

I assume Microsoft put some kind of
thought into choosing that particular size, hence I'd hazard a guess that
it's about right for most people.

You'd assuming incorectly. The W3C adopted the 16 pixel default size
based on the apparent size of a pixel at 96 ppi at the distance of the
average person's arm. (Yeah, it's as ridiculous as it sounds.) The 16
pixel default size is completely arbitrary.

 

[Toby A Inkster]

Verdana is a bad choice as well. It's too big.

It's also horribly mixed up: is it serif or sans-serif?

Open up your word processor, switch to Verdana, put the font up big and
type in capitals: JUPITER.

Look at the I and J: they have serifs! Compare that with other sans-serif
fonts.

http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/scratch/verdana-is-strange

 

[Jim Royal]

But I don't want to temporarily resize my text just to see your site.
What's wrong with letting me choose what I want?

Nothing. I am in fact letting you choose what you want by avoiding
pixel-based font sizing.

However, you represent a miniscule portion of my audience -- that tiny
portion that knows where the text-scaling control in their browser is
located. The default medium size of 16 pixels is too large for
comfortable reading by most people.

If I specify no font sizes, letting the browser settings handle it, I
am actually creating a usability problem for the vast majority who do
not know how to resize their default font.

 

[Jim Royal]

If you design your site correctly, using my default size (100%) and
only specify { font-family: sans-serif; } you are catering to me, your
valuable visitor, rather than your own personal taste.

Actually, no. I'd be catering to your personal taste, rather than the
needs of the majority of my valuable visitors.

I consider setting default size (100%) to be a usability problem. In my
experience, most people are not comfortable reading default-sized text
(which is typically 16px/96ppi). Most people are also unfamiliar with
the font scaling controls in their browsers, and thus are unable to fix
things to their liking.

A far better solution is to size the font intelligently using
percentages or ems so that the chosen size suits the content of a given
page. People who need large type to read comfortably can still resize
it, and they are also more likely to know about the font scaling
controls, as they have a personal reason to look into it.

And remember, as stated so often, visitors with that famous operating
system component masquerading as a browser, will not easily be able to
up the font size for your site if you specified pixels.

If you'd read my post, you'd have noticed that I specifically advised
against using pixel-based font sizes, and recommended using percentages
or ems.

 

[Jim Royal]

: The fact is, no matter which font size you pick, someone will want to
: resize it.

The viewer has set his default size. What's with this logic... ?

You're making an unwarrented assumption that the viewer is aware that
he has the ability to pick a default font size.

Just because you do it doesn't mean that others do. Fact is, most
others don't.

 

[Toby A Inkster]

You'd assuming incorectly. The W3C adopted the 16 pixel default size
based on the apparent size of a pixel at 96 ppi at the distance of the
average person's arm.

Errr... no. That calculation was used to convert between points and
pixels. It has nothing to do with default browser font sizes.

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

Actually, no. I'd be catering to your personal taste, rather than the
needs of the majority of my valuable visitors.

You would be catering to my personal tastes, Beauregard's personal
tastes, your personal tastes, and everyone else's personal tastes.

I consider setting default size (100%) to be a usability problem. In my
experience, most people are not comfortable reading default-sized text
(which is typically 16px/96ppi). Most people are also unfamiliar with
the font scaling controls in their browsers, and thus are unable to fix
things to their liking.

Then that's unfortunate, but they need to learn. Should I be forced to
go where you want me to go because not everyone knows where they want to go?

A far better solution is to size the font intelligently using
percentages or ems so that the chosen size suits the content of a given
page. People who need large type to read comfortably can still resize
it, and they are also more likely to know about the font scaling
controls, as they have a personal reason to look into it.

But if your page makes text smaller than I have chosen, I don't want to
resize my text just for one page. I will leave.

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

You're making an unwarrented assumption that the viewer is aware that
he has the ability to pick a default font size.

Just because you do it doesn't mean that others do. Fact is, most
others don't.

You don't make something easier for people who don't know what they're
doing at the expense of people who do. Provide some instructions for
setting font size in various browsers if you like, but don't stop me
from getting the font size I chose.

 

[JustAnotherGuy]

<snip>

This is a kind of holy war. Neither the hard-core print-thinking
designers nor the new-world-hailing-coders will give in