Another reason to not use micro-size fonts

[Adrienne Boswell]

My neighbor was standing behind me today looking at a mock-up of a site I
am working on, and he said that he liked the fact that the text was large
(100%), because he could see it. He brought up the idea that someone could
be looking at a site and say "Hey, honey, take a look at this" - over their
shoulder. He said, "It's hard enough seeing stuff, don't make me work for
it."

 

[richard]

My neighbor was standing behind me today looking at a mock-up of a site I
am working on, and he said that he liked the fact that the text was large
(100%), because he could see it. He brought up the idea that someone could
be looking at a site and say "Hey, honey, take a look at this" - over their
shoulder. He said, "It's hard enough seeing stuff, don't make me work for
it."

100% of what?
If I use 4pt size then not change it in any way, it's 100% of the font
size right?
Anything below 10pt is hard to read for most people without glasses.
But you've got to cram a 1,000 lines of text into a small place and
make sure you have the room for all those gawdy ads.

 

[Sherman Pendley]

100% of what?

100% of the default size that the browser is configured to use.

If I use 4pt size then not change it in any way, it's 100% of the font
size right?
Yes.

Anything below 10pt is hard to read for most people without glasses.

Then why would someone configure their browser to use something below
that by default?

But you've got to cram a 1,000 lines of text into a small place

No you don't. The "place" is a web page, and it expands to fit however
many lines of text you want to fill it with.

Assuming, of course, that you haven't taken extra steps to restrict
the page to a specific size. If you *have* done that, then you'll get
the mess you asked for.

sherm--

 

[Travis Newbury]

No you don't. The "place" is a web page, and it expands to fit however
many lines of text you want to fill it with.

I believe you missed the sarcasm tag in richard's post...

 

[Sherman Pendley]

I believe you missed the sarcasm tag in richard's post...

Yep, *completely* missed it. D'oh! :-(

sherm--

 

[Bergamot]

I believe you missed the sarcasm tag in richard's post...

Actually, I don't believe sarcasm ever crossed richard's mind.
He's not that clever.

 

[dorayme]

Actually, I don't believe sarcasm ever crossed richard's mind.
He's not that clever.

The blessed is he. Better than the type that only has sarcasm on their
minds.

 

[Harlan Messinger]

My neighbor was standing behind me today looking at a mock-up of a site I
am working on, and he said that he liked the fact that the text was large
(100%), because he could see it. He brought up the idea that someone could
be looking at a site and say "Hey, honey, take a look at this" - over their
shoulder. He said, "It's hard enough seeing stuff, don't make me work for
it."

I got another example. Restaurants I go to these days LOVE to use teeny
print on their menus, even as they dim the lights more and more. I was
in a place the other night that's so used to the problem that they had a
supply of light-up magnifiers on hand when I told them I couldn't read
the descriptions. I went to the same place yesterday and sat outside
where the light was fine, and still the font was so small that I
realized just in time that the sushi platter I had thought was bargain
didn't include 20 pieces, but 10. Depending on how I held the menu, the
character could have been a 2 or a 1. The same was true for prices on
the page.

Any graphic designer should have been able to figure out the problem and
avoid it.

 

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

I got another example. Restaurants I go to these days LOVE to use teeny
print on their menus, even as they dim the lights more and more. I was
in a place the other night that's so used to the problem that they had a
supply of light-up magnifiers on hand when I told them I couldn't read
the descriptions. I went to the same place yesterday and sat outside
where the light was fine, and still the font was so small that I
realized just in time that the sushi platter I had thought was bargain
didn't include 20 pieces, but 10. Depending on how I held the menu, the
character could have been a 2 or a 1. The same was true for prices on
the page.

A few months ago there was a poster from a branch of the
provincial government exhorting restaurants not to use small
print on their menus.

There was a URL to the branch's web site on that poster. Guess
what? That web site used minuscule type.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Any graphic designer should have been able to figure out the problem and
avoid it.

Only if they see it as a problem.

 

[dorayme]

Only if they see it as a problem.

If they don't see it as a problem, then, of course they are not going to
figure it out. The point - any meaningful point has to escape a mind
that specialises in motherhood statements - is that a Graphic designer
charged with making a comfortably readable menu who missed seeing that
unreadable print was unreadable would be incompetent.

 

[Harlan Messinger]

Only if they see it as a problem.

Yeah, in the same sense that food manufacturers should refrain from
putting ground glass into their products only if they see it as a
problem. I'm certain that the designer considered the strong possibility
that the restaurant owner might actually prefer his customers not to be
able to read the menu and order food.

Did you have a meaningful point to make or are you just exercising the
jerk in your knee?

 

[Travis Newbury]

If they don't see it as a problem, then, of course they are not going to
figure it out. The point - any meaningful point has to escape a mind
that specialises in motherhood statements - is that a Graphic designer
charged with making a comfortably readable menu who missed seeing that
unreadable print was unreadable would be incompetent.

Sorry, I disagree. They (the designer) have to reach a balance
between the look of the design and the functionality of the design.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Did you have a meaningful point to make or are you just exercising the
jerk in your knee?

I am pointing out that just because one person see's it as a problem,
that does not necessarily make it a problem. Without meaningful data
this entire thread is nothing more an an anecdote about a bad
experience at a restaurant. How bad are the eyes of the viewer? What
percentage of the customers could not read the menu? .5%? 50%? Maybe
the problem is not the menu, but rather the lighting? (Who the hell
would order sushi in a dimly lit restaurant??) The OP stated that
they had lighted magnifying glasses for those that asked. Maybe they
found that to be an acceptable solution for their customers. Maybe
the OP was just looking for things to complain about? Is the OP's
classification of a micro font the same as mine? Can the OP see the
menu at a place like McDonalds? Do we force them to make their sign
bigger until all but the legally blind can read it?

Based on what we did know, I am not ready to condemn this as bad
design, or incompetent designer just because we have an anecdote from
a single customer.

 

[Andy Dingley]

      There was a URL to the branch's web site on that poster. Guess
      what? That web site used minuscule type.

At least they hadn't used a small font as well!


(You managed to spell minuscule correctly, but it doesn't mean what
you think)

 

[Harlan Messinger]

I am pointing out that just because one person see's it as a problem,
that does not necessarily make it a problem. Without meaningful data
this entire thread is nothing more an an anecdote about a bad
experience at a restaurant.

Since the font size is the same on every menu in the restaurant every
day of the year, and since the lighting that they use is what it is and
doesn't vary like the weather, then within the context of the story it
wasn't an anecdote, it was a report of the conditions at that restaurant.

How bad are the eyes of the viewer? What
percentage of the customers could not read the menu? .5%? 50%? Maybe
the problem is not the menu, but rather the lighting?

This isn't a theoretical problem. I was there. I can tell the difference
between text that is slightly outside readability for me (I'm mildly
farsighted) and text that is a complete blur. And the fact that
management has a supply of these magnifiers on hand attests to their
having received complaints from a sufficiently large number of people
that they felt the need for a solution. And the fact that these teeny
magnifiers that aren't even wide enough to read an entire menu item
without swinging it back and forth means that no customer is going to be
really happy to have to read the menu this way, unless you have some
special insight into the minds of people who go to restaurants that
tells you that people actually prefer reading menus through tiny
magnifiers over just having the type size large enough in the first place.

In other words, go soak your head.

(Who the hell
would order sushi in a dimly lit restaurant??) The OP stated that
they had lighted magnifying glasses for those that asked. Maybe they
found that to be an acceptable solution for their customers. Maybe
the OP was just looking for things to complain about? Is the OP's
classification of a micro font the same as mine?

Why are you referring to the OP in the third person? I'm not the OP. I'm
the one who related this story.

Can the OP see the

menu at a place like McDonalds? Do we force them to make their sign
bigger until all but the legally blind can read it?

Based on what we did know, I am not ready to condemn this as bad
design, or incompetent designer just because we have an anecdote from
a single customer.

Your reaction would probably be the same to the ground glass in the
food. You don't have much of a sense of the real world, do you?

 

[Travis Newbury]

Since the font size is the same on every menu in the restaurant every
day of the year, and since the lighting that they use is what it is and
doesn't vary like the weather, then within the context of the story it
wasn't an anecdote, it was a report of the conditions at that restaurant.

It was an opinion that the lighting was bad and the font too small.
you weere telling of your experience, that makes it an anecdote.

This isn't a theoretical problem. I was there...

And you reported "your" experience. Mine might be different.

In other words, go soak your head.

Harlin, lines like this are below you.

Your reaction would probably be the same to the ground glass in the
food. You don't have much of a sense of the real world, do you?

please...

 

[dorayme]

Sorry, I disagree. They (the designer) have to reach a balance
between the look of the design and the functionality of the design.

You say you disagree and then think you are indicating how you disagree.
But you are indicate nothing, just another vacuous motherhood. Who could
possibly disagree with that someone charged with making a menu must
balance the look with the functionality?

You seem not to have one of the most important concepts in the design of
functional objects: making the functional nice without compromise. It is
a measure of the skill of a designer in anything that the less he
compromises, the higher his skill. If he makes a menu unreadable then he
is a bad designer of menus.

He might be wasted as a menu designer. He might have a career in the
purer arts - though I doubt it for reasons that are probably a bit off
topic here.

 

[dorayme]

Your reaction would probably be the same to the ground glass in the
food. You don't have much of a sense of the real world, do you?

Travis retreats to the vacuous motherhood statement so often because it
is the perfect vehicle for not engaging with the world.

 

[dorayme]

Harlin, lines like this are below you.

You, on the evidence of this last statement, prefer to be above
yourself. Give me earthy any day.