1979-ish web site?

[WindAndWaves]

Btw, I just checked hotmail on IE and I tried to change the font-size.
Absolutely nothing happened. I mean - I think that sucks. Those fonts at
hotmail are small by any standard.... Therefore, it would make a lot more
sense to be able to zoom the whole damn site. Then, for example, the
sign-out button would be legible as well.

Using Firefox, I get nice large letters, but the little sign out button
still does not change in size.

Next, I tried www.google.com. In IE, the font changes, but the font on the
buttons still stays the same.....

Using Firefox (Ctrl + +) you can nicely increase all the fonts, but the
google logo stays the same in size (just imagine this would be a small and
hard to read logo),plus you loose the beautiful combination of the logo and
word New Zealand.

Then I went to w3.org

Font increases nicely, but, for example, a person with bad eyesight would
never be able to read the words "consortium" in the logo or "invent" in the
HP logo or "mindswap" in the University of Maryland information. If on the
other hand, the page was zoomed then all if this would be a bit more legible
and it would not look so strange...

 

[C.W.]

Thank you for your comments Carol.

You're welcome

Let me ask if anyone finds it annoying, stupid or otherwise that you can not
change the font-size in a PDF - one that you read - not one that you
create(well, at least as far as I know).

My acrobat reader allows meto increase the size.

You see, I find the PDF concept much nicer than the HTML concept in terms of
resizing.

PDFs can be zoomed from about 10% to about 400% or whatever, point being you
can choose whatever you want and still see the same thing.

Even when the contents need to be zoomed to where you have to
horizontal scroll to read the contents?

But again - PDF is not comparable to browsers using HTML & CSS is it?

If you would go to any site and change the font-size to any size then I am
sure that especially things like dropdown menus, small columns, etc... would
look a little funny.

And? So? Funny is bearable at times if it makes it easier to read.

I am all for nice looks and visual appeal, don't get me wrong, but I
also like to be able to easily read what the other stuff, outside of
the 'neat design', that person also took time creating for "my eyes"
also.

So my argument in a nutshell: zoom rather than changing only font-size seems
to make more sense. Thereby I acknowledge that in the real world (e.g. LCD
screens, limited options in browsers, etc...) this may not always work. I
dont care about my sites - I can do whatever I want, just like you may do
what pleases you. However, I think, in terms of a technological solution to
the problem that people like to have worse or better eyesight and or viewing
requirements, I think that zooming (in whatever way you may achieve this)
makes fundamentally more sense than font-size increases.

How does one "zoom" on IE - which is reportedly the most popular
browser?

You are avoiding arguing your point by presenting uncomparable or
sometimes unrealistic expectations so far. Now we have advanced to
zooming? This isn't a Flash file we are talking about - but text
presented ona page that is just that: text presented on a page. Not
through an image or different medium other than typing it into an HTML
file. And you have tried to compare that to Word, PDF, TV, Printed
media, and et al - while still sharing it is your preference to use
pixels and not any thoughts shared about the users of your sites
outside of you prefering to use pixel fonts and they can do this with
their desktop settings or go out and buy "a larger monitor".

I understand it is hard to give up some control over a design. After
all a good design takes time, right? But a good web design is also
allowing of some flexibility. Now sure, if I resize the text up a
notch, then a paragraph may no longer be "perfectly aligned" with some
cute eye candy image. Ok, so it isn't. So what? Especially if that
image is only there for 'eye candy' and the text shared is what is
really being the "content" offered to get me to become a client or
customer?

But the web and the browsers were never geared to be treated like
magazine layout enviroments either. Some people feel that they have to
say "this is how it should look - no ifs ands or buts about it" when
they create a site. But then they have already forgotten or ignored
the fact that they never were in control of the end appearance on my
browser or Susie Que's browser either. rf shared about how people can
override your font size preference to begin with - without resizing
anything on their side to accomplish that happening when they go to
your site. And your argumentation of larger monitors being the answer
shares that you are forgetting that not everyone has or can afford to
go out and get that larger monitor .... OR that they can't read the
text on a site, using pixel sized fonts, that is selling monitors at a
nice affordable price, to order one from that site.

If you give up some control - the site should still work just fine AND
accomplish the goal behind why it was designed in the first place.

Carol

 

[Toby Inkster]

How about books, magazines, CD covers, packaging, TV, road signs, etc....
All of these media use fixed fonts and the only way to increase the font
size is to buy a larger TV, a loop or glasses/contacts.

Yes, but that is a weakness of the media. The web does not suffer from
this weakness, so why try to emulate the weakness?

 

[C A Upsdell]

Well, you can change your screen or the number of pixels on your screen.
Did you know that all the message in Windows are about font-size 10px?
Unless you change the size of your screen.

It is funny, because a lot of people complain when your website fonts go
below 12pt, while all window message boxes are in 8pt and people do not
seem
to care too much about that.

I don't know about other people, but one of the first things I do when I get
a new PC is adjust the Windows font sizes. Some of the default sizes are
too large for me; and some are too small.

 

[C A Upsdell]

Well, you can change your screen or the number of pixels on your screen.
Did you know that all the message in Windows are about font-size 10px?
Unless you change the size of your screen.

It is funny, because a lot of people complain when your website fonts go
below 12pt, while all window message boxes are in 8pt and people do not
seem
to care too much about that.

I don't know about other people, but one of the first things I do when I get
a new PC is adjust the Windows font sizes. Some of the default sizes are
too large for me; and some are too small.

 

[kchayka]

you should not just change font sizes, but overall size
of everything, images, icons, the little X to close a window, etc.... as
this is

a. less cumbersome

Cumbersome for who? Not the user, for sure.

b. respects the designer

How about having some respect for the user, eh? Besides, a web designer
has nothing to say about how I use my PC for applications other than web
browsing. What you suggest affects everything, not just web pages. It's an
unacceptable solution.

c. is easier to design for

Man, it's all about *you*, ain't it.

I give you a last example. Take MS Word

Apples and oranges. A word processor is intended to make print output.
Different media, different rules, so your example doesn't mean anything.

 

[joseph white]

Are you kidding? So his web site is supposed to make him look like he
has no clue what he's doing... in that case it works perfectly

SpaceGirl, when I was so successful at computer programming, my reward
was a promotion into a position which I had no knack for - managing
other computer programmers. In many cases, I fired programmers that
we're a lot brighter and a lot less smug than you.

In that era, I would "burn out" on a job about every three years, so
would always resign after three years on a Monday so I would have
another job by week's end paying more and not have a weekend worrying
about being unemployed.. Try that today, champ!

I did make a fine living as a professional programmer though, and
supported a family with my efforts probably before you were even
conceived. You too, will someday find intellectual tasks which are now
trivial to you will become very difficult. For example, I possess an
old book in German about partial differential equations I used for my
math thesis, but can't even read it now. I admit that my attempts at
writing some HTML today aren't nearly equal to my facilities once at
IBM370 assembler language, but I was never as smug as you are!

Since you're so smug, your accomplishments surely eclipse mine.

 

[joseph white]

Yup, that'll make people mad all right - can't resize pixels in IE.

God, I guess my career lacked a key component - smugness.

 

[joseph white]

Well, you can change your screen or the number of pixels on your screen.
Did you know that all the message in Windows are about font-size 10px?
Unless you change the size of your screen.

Which is easier: change the text size, say in IE from Medium to
Larger, or the person haivng to go and change screen resolution
settings instead?

To me it would be the option given in the browser versus the other.

It is funny, because a lot of people complain when your website fonts go
below 12pt, while all window message boxes are in 8pt and people do not seem
to care too much about that.

Maybe they don't try to read those tool tip window's text as sometimes
it is not "informative" but someone merely repeating "Home" for the
main page link.

But a tool tip window is different from reading a page filled with
text.

I reckon that if you have bad eyesight it is easiest to increase the size of
your monitor (or decrease the area shown),

Increasing the size of the monitor? You mean buy a new monitor or
desktop resolution settings? And if the latter - if I go larger then
there are more pixels across the screen area which means that 8px font
is covering less area/size even though still being 8 pixels in size.

rather than trying to influence

the look of websites. Many sites actually use images with 8pt fonts, and
you are not going to increase those by increasing the font size so there you
go.

Which is why those sites are recommended to share alt="" and to repeat
that image-shared text as text somewhere within the page.

Which none of the above removes the fact that there are sizing methods
available, through CSS, that can more easily accomadate resizing of
text without the user needing to tweak their PC's settings versus the
browesr's.

So what argumentation, besides "well, some other people do it that
way... " and "well, text in images can't be resized ..." [which the
images sorta kinda can be in Opera or Firefox, btw] can be supplied
as a reasoning NOT to use % or em sizing instead of px or pt?
[Paticularly when discussing "out-dated" thoughts ... as accessibility
thoughts was not much consideration back in 1995 but is now - but back
in 1995 <font size="2"> was the method of text sizing used and that
method is resizeable through the browser.]

Carol

God, I guess my career lacked a key component - smugness.

 

[joseph white]

How about books, magazines, CD covers, packaging, TV, road signs, etc....

None of which are applicable to a browser environment where the reader
is usually sitting closer the monitor than they are the TV.

And don't get me started on packaging or print thoughts after I reamed
out a local grocery store for using itty bitty sized text at the
bottom of their flyer that even the clerks NOR manager could read
without a magnifying glass themselves.

All of these media use fixed fonts and the only way to increase the font
size is to buy a larger TV, a loop or glasses/contacts.

I have glasses already [not by choice - but thanks to genes]. My 21
inch TV does just fine on letting me watch the local news or
television shows that aren't reliant on fonts either when you think
about it. I can even watch those shows on a B/W TV set and not have to
lean forward or squint to make out what is happeneing just because I
happened to be viewing it on a different setting [lack of color]

Why shouldn't my 15inch monitor work just as well for browsing and
reading web sites? Want me to use a larger monitor to read your site
creations on - then you feel free to can buy me one

Right now I prefer my desk top settings for the majority of how I use
my PC - and I see no reason why I should go out and buy a new monitor
or adjust my desktop settings to have you feel happy that you can use
10px or 8px sized fonts on content you expected me to able to read
without leaning way forward or squinting or without "speical
preparations" on my side.

As Richard [rf] said - my hand is never far from the mouse when
surfing so just easier to click on "back" and exit the site than jump
through hoops.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that we should not take into account
people with bad eyesight (that is why, for example, road signs are fairly
large). We should.

It is not just about people with bad eyesight. Some people with
perfect 20/20 vision have shared thoughts about pixel sized text on
sites being hard to read and irks about the pixel sizing being used
that makes it hard to resize in IE.

However,having said that, it is fairly easy (in windows at least) to set the
"pixel-size" for your screen (at least on the old ones, not sure about LCD,
but I am sure it is possible). This means that all applications, anywhere,
anytime, anything will

a. look as the designer intended it (i.e. proportion is one of the biggest
things in design and as soon as you increase the font size you loose
proportionality)

No you don't. You just think it does if you are viewing the design
from "everything must look as intended" in terms of it must look like
it does on your side on everyone else's browser. It can still look "as
intended" while allowing the user ease in increasing the text size if
need to be.

b. all items will be larger (or smaller) as it pleases you (not just fonts,
also images, tickboxes, icons, buttons, lines, windows, borders, etc....)

I really think that this makes a lot more sense than having to tune your
browser fonts as you describe, etc....

You are expecting to people to bend over backwards for your sites in
defense of using pixel sized fonts all throughout the pages of it.
Thereby putting all blame on people not able to read the contents on
the user's shoulders? And you are willing to buy how many folks the
current preferred monitor size for that backbending thought?

I am not trying to offend anyone here, but I just want to see if my theory
makes sense (to me it still does, but I am keen to listen).

It doesn't make sense because so far your argumentation or theory has
been angled solely at your ease and desire to try to present "as if in
print" thoughts on a flexible enviroment [the browser and various
monitor sizes and desktop settings preferences] versus more than one
person's ease thoughts. So far all you have tried to do is defend YOUR
use of pixel sized text and not present really feasible alternatives
to other people happening across one of your site designs outside of
"use a larger monitor".

Carol

God, I guess my career lacked a key component - smugness.

 

[Barbara de Zoete]

SpaceGirl, when I was so successful at computer programming, my reward
was a promotion into a position which I had no knack for - managing
other computer programmers. In many cases, I fired programmers that
we're a lot brighter and a lot less smug than you.

Reread the first few lines of Jeffrey's post:

Howdy. I think your site is fine for what it is supposed
to be -- a personal home page. really I do. But I will
share with you some tidbits that you may find useful.

First of all, don't take any critcism here too harshly.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Now, take a deep breath and start living your age Or doesn't age come
with wisedom where you're from?

 

[Neal]

joseph white:

SpaceGirl:
SpaceGirl, when I was so successful at computer programming, my reward
was a promotion into a position which I had no knack for - managing
other computer programmers. In many cases, I fired programmers that
we're a lot brighter and a lot less smug than you.

"I was serving on starships while you were in DIAPERS!" - Montgomery Scott

She wasn't really being smug on purpose, I believe. Her point is that this
website doesn't put off the appearance that you're particularly skilled.
That happens to be true, I'm afraid.

Now we can listen to folks like Vincent Flanders who say that a personal
site need not be concerned with typical web authoring gaffes. Or we can
take a more hardline approach and say that all sites should strive to be
totally modern, valid (or mostly so) and elegant.

I won't presume to know what's best, but there are arguments to both
opinions. SpaceGirl was merely pointing out the contrasting opinion to
"it's ok, it's just a personal site and you needn't worry about it".

I don't think her statement was intended to slight you, your
accomplishments, or to even address your current ability to do computer
tasks (!). It was addressed at the product, and this is normal procedure
here. A flaw in the product is not necessarily a flaw in the producer -
though many will indeed assume this is so even when it is not. That's why
we generally work toward eliminating these niggling problems in the
product, and therefore we do not confuse comments on the work as
applicable to the person behind the work.

However, I don't presume to speak for her, but merely my reaction to her
post. She will certainly correct me if I'm incorrect.

 

[joseph white]

It is pretty good to be listed there:
www.muellseite.de

The ancient Greeks had a concept, "hubris". It's is best translated
into English today as "excessive pride" or "smugness". I see that
trait still thrives three centuries later.

 

[Neal]

God, I guess my career lacked a key component - smugness.

Typical script:

A: My page is broken, can you help me fix it?
B: Well, this is wrong, change that to the other thing, and add these and
those.
A: Why are you picking on my site? You're mean!

Repeat ad nauseum, and presto! you have alt.html and the ilk.

alt.html (in fact, general Usenet) facts:

1) We're all here for free, discussing the topic, helping each other for
fun, and doing it on the quick most often.
2) Much is indicated by tone, and it is absent in this medium.
3) Comments are made about the code, not the coder.
4) If you think you've been insulted, you're probably wrong.
5) If you complain about the perceived insult and then you think others
are insulting you afterwards, this time you might be right.

Joe, relax. We're trying to help and discuss here. No one has motivation
to insult you unless you troll the bait for insults. What you see as
smugness is likely not that at all.

While I respect your history with computers, let's face facts: you aren't
up to speed on modern web design. That does not make you a bad person, nor
does it negate your other experience. It just makes you someone who could
stand to learn a little more about the technology.

 

[joseph white]

No offence, but 1997 is being generous. It's awful. And I didn't even
look at the code.

No offence, but I'll wager that if one looked up "hubris" or "asshole"
in a dictionary, your photo would be there as an illustration.

 

[Barbara de Zoete]

No offence, but I'll wager that if one looked up "hubris" or "asshole"
in a dictionary, your photo would be there as an illustration.

Are you deliberately trying to make enimies out here? If so, you're pretty
succesful. Keep up the good works,

Cheers,

 

[WindAndWaves]

You're welcome


My acrobat reader allows meto increase the size.



Even when the contents need to be zoomed to where you have to
horizontal scroll to read the contents?

But again - PDF is not comparable to browsers using HTML & CSS is it?


And? So? Funny is bearable at times if it makes it easier to read.

I am all for nice looks and visual appeal, don't get me wrong, but I
also like to be able to easily read what the other stuff, outside of
the 'neat design', that person also took time creating for "my eyes"
also.


How does one "zoom" on IE - which is reportedly the most popular
browser?

You are avoiding arguing your point by presenting uncomparable or
sometimes unrealistic expectations so far. Now we have advanced to
zooming? This isn't a Flash file we are talking about - but text
presented ona page that is just that: text presented on a page. Not
through an image or different medium other than typing it into an HTML
file. And you have tried to compare that to Word, PDF, TV, Printed
media, and et al - while still sharing it is your preference to use
pixels and not any thoughts shared about the users of your sites
outside of you prefering to use pixel fonts and they can do this with
their desktop settings or go out and buy "a larger monitor".

I understand it is hard to give up some control over a design. After
all a good design takes time, right? But a good web design is also
allowing of some flexibility. Now sure, if I resize the text up a
notch, then a paragraph may no longer be "perfectly aligned" with some
cute eye candy image. Ok, so it isn't. So what? Especially if that
image is only there for 'eye candy' and the text shared is what is
really being the "content" offered to get me to become a client or
customer?

But the web and the browsers were never geared to be treated like
magazine layout enviroments either. Some people feel that they have to
say "this is how it should look - no ifs ands or buts about it" when
they create a site. But then they have already forgotten or ignored
the fact that they never were in control of the end appearance on my
browser or Susie Que's browser either. rf shared about how people can
override your font size preference to begin with - without resizing
anything on their side to accomplish that happening when they go to
your site. And your argumentation of larger monitors being the answer
shares that you are forgetting that not everyone has or can afford to
go out and get that larger monitor .... OR that they can't read the
text on a site, using pixel sized fonts, that is selling monitors at a
nice affordable price, to order one from that site.

If you give up some control - the site should still work just fine AND
accomplish the goal behind why it was designed in the first place.

Carol

You be pleased to know that I changed the measurements in my current project
from px to em. Thank you for your comments.

 

[WindAndWaves]

Rubbish. The design is flawed to start with. Yes, if I make my font size too
large word wrap makes the lines too short. This is not because I have
changed my font size, it is because you have a fixed width design. When I
get cranky because there are too few words on a line I make my browser wider
(probably up to 100 pixels for your site). However, with your design nothing
happens. *You* have made the decision that *I* want to view your site 800
pixels wide. This is an incorrect decision.

Dear Richard

You be pleased to know that for a new project that I working on, I have
changed the measurement from px to em.

Cheers

Nicolaas

 

[joseph white]

Now, take a deep breath and start living your age Or doesn't age come
with wisedom where you're from?

It has nothing at all to do with geography. Wisdom coming with age is
a myth older persons foist on the youth.

If anything is true, it's the opposite.

 

[Barbara de Zoete]

It has nothing at all to do with geography. Wisdom coming with age is
a myth older persons foist on the youth.

If anything is true, it's the opposite.

Is it that hard to try and have some fun, while learning someting in the
mean time. This previous post was a bit of irony from my side. Next time I
will put the semantically correct <irony> tags around ;-) .
Lighten up my friend. Have a laugh or two. Ignore those that you get
annoyed by. Killfile a few if you have to. This is actually a good place
to be if you want to learn and improve your skills. Read and feel free to
ask or respond.