T
Travis Newbury
Lachlan said:
Gee, I don't know. Let me think... Ask?
Gee, I don't know. Let me think... Ask?
L
Lachlan Hunt
Travis said:
Right! And how many people would waste their time conducting a survey
for each and every site, when they could more easily create a flexible
site layout that doesn't depend on specific browser window preferences.
However, you didn't answer the second question:
... and what kind of site's target audience (based on its content)
would target a group of user's with specific browser window size
preferences?
A
Alan J. Flavell
So, who are you going to ask, and what question are you going to ask
them? Have you any idea what proportion of webnauts answer surveys,
and just how typical those are of the ones who don't answer? Now, as
to the question:
"With what will you be browsing my new web site next year when my site
is fully up and running? And how will that change over the following
6-12 months?"
Surely it'd be so much more effective (and, last-not-least, also
*cost-effective*) to design the site flexibly? That might even
persuade some new visitors to stay, who aren't yet on your survey
list, but who arrived with next year's latest and greatest browsing
toy, whatever that may turn out to be.
T
Travis Newbury
Lachlan said:
No I did answer it, you just didn't like the answer.
T
Travis Newbury
Alan said:
Ok, so you dont like to listen to your visitors. No biggy. In the web
application development arena customer feedback including information
about browsers is very important.
It depends on the site. EVERYTHING depends on the site. You can design
Flexibly (read that as generic) if you like. Others take time to listen.
A
Alan J. Flavell
I presume you're already aware that I was going to resent that.
If one fraction of visitors tell me that I ought to take actions which
exclude some other fraction, then I'm afraid I don't want to know.
Sounds like a good principle, as a purely theoretical idea. Have you
been following the discussion of the commercial
http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/planmyjourney/ versus the third-party
alternative gateway http://www.traintimes.org.uk/ ?
You mean that deliberately excluding some fraction of your potential
readership is beneficial? Have you discussed this with TimBL at all?
Oh right, and so optimise the site for those who are already visiting
anyway, while continuing to exclude those who never got far enough to
comment. "Logisch".
C
c.thornquist
kchayka said:That's funny, I find both the font family and size to be absolutely
perfect, since I'm getting my own browser default for both.
If you don't like how your browser default font looks, then change it.
Just don't complain about it.
Wow, that's a "medium"? I have my default in IE set to medium. W3's font is
unusually large, compared to most sites I visit. Must mean most sites use
fixed font sizes?
Carla
C
c.thornquist
Lachlan Hunt said:
No, I'll try to find the research. One thing I do know is that in a
capitalist society there's no shortage of market research. Knowing your
demographic & how they use their product means increased profit. I'm not
endorsing capitalism, but surely you know the research is being done.
Of course it matters what the stats are because I'm trying to reach the most
visitors. If I discover that 80% open their browsers to 100%, then I don't
want my text spreading 100%. I better use columns or blocks to contain it.
BTW, very few use 640x480, but 5 years ago I took them into account when
designing. Now I know they get the horizontal scroll bar. Very few use
1600x1200. Most use ... oh heck, here are the stats from The Counter:
Resolution StatsTue Feb 1 00:01:02 2005 - Tue Feb 8 15:58:00 2005 7.7 Days
1024 x 768 = 54%
800 x 600 = 28%
1280 x 1024 = 10%
1152 x 864 = 3%
Unknown = 2%
1600 x 1200 = 0%
640 x 480 = 0%
from: http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2005/January/res.php
What's the viewport size? The resolution? If it's meaningless, then why are
people suggesting a stylesheet for my browser?
Carla
K
kchayka
c.thornquist said:
The viewport is the part of the browser window where you can actually
see page content.
Even if you're using full-size windows at 1024x768 screen size, the
toolbars, status bars, sidebars and other browser UI parts take away
from the available space, so you may only have an 800x600 viewport.
Screen size only has meaning in that it sets the maximum browser window
size, nothing more. Window size is often less than screen size, viewport
size is always less than that.
K
kchayka
c.thornquist said:
I'd say that's probably a "yes". Unfortunately.
B
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
c.thornquist said:
Since you can't reliably tell what the visitor's viewport size is, and
we've discussed to death around here that the monitor's resolution is
in fact meaningless, what does this have to do with suggesting a
stylesheet? Oh, for *your* browser? A *user* stylesheet? Well, if
you want to override author settings, you would use one.
T
Travis Newbury
Alan said:
Actually I didn't think you would resent that
No. Optimize the site for "likely" visitors, not "potential" there is
a huge difference between the two. A lot in this group seem to miss the
difference.
D
dorayme
From: kchayka said:Newsgroups: comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html,alt.html
Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 18:33:04 -0500
Subject: Re: Opinion: Do web standards matter?
I'd say that's probably a "yes". Unfortunately.
Don't know the stats on this one but it could also be due to sites
specifying less than 100 percent or less than 1em sizes for almost all text
(bar headings). Perhaps you mean this sort of thing too?
I have had no luck or only very dubious and grudging support from clients
when I do not set the font sizes to be less than normal and "leave it to the
viewers" I held off one person for 29 days with arguments and actually going
and setting his browser preferences - but in the end, a terse instruction to
reduce the font sizes and that was that. I set .8 and .85 for things like
paras and he and his partners were very happy and, after being glum for a
while, I admit it looked more "standard" and when they paid I thought, who
can fight this epidemic? Is it an epidemic?
This is how I have been thinking (it is possibly inaccurate but corrections
are instructive...): It is sensible to set main text to be "normal" in css
(or not setting at all) unless there is a special reason. This special
reason, ideally, should not include "So many websites have such unnaturally
small fonts that browsers are now default factory set or user set to make
most such pages easily readable. Thus when a web designer uses normal fonts
they will appear unusually large. The standard of normality has shifted. In
other words, there is a feedback process that has corrupted what was so
usefully conceived by the scss standard to pay respect to the viewers
settings. A sort of inflationary effect on the currency has happened.
(Currencies can get replaced to remove absurdities, new notes with lower
numbers ... perhaps this sort of thing could happen with a later html
version? XHTML 5 or something is geared to make normal smaller than browser
settings. Thus web designers can use normal with confidence again. I do not
seriously propose this, just an idea...)
dorayme
D
dorayme
in my last, "the scss standard" was a typo, should have been "the css
standard"...
dorayme
standard"...
dorayme
C
c.thornquist
dorayme said:
<snip>
Maybe for those who have used the internet much longer than myself, the
average font size on sites today appears small. I've been using the www for
just 5 years. My sites usually have 12px or 11px (on older sites) Arial. I'm
going to try to stop using fixed sizes (unless I discover some reason why I
shouldn't switch).
I have visited sites with fonts so small I couldn't make out the text. If I
remember correctly, they were usually sites built entirely with FLASH. Maybe
the designer thinks small fonts look modern?
I understand why developers use mini fonts or pixel fonts, but they should
be used very sparingly and only in an image.
I'm 46 & need reading glasses, but still find that most sites have
appropriate font sizes. Another consideration is the vertical scroll. I try
to build sites that do not scroll on the opening page. Larger font sizes
take up more space. It's a balancing act when you put usability issues into
the mix. People don't like to scroll, so you try to keep the page tight.
It's not as if us designers are doing these things purely for aesthetics or
worse, for no purpose at all.
Carla
K
kchayka
c.thornquist said:
There's no question that people don't like horizontal scrolling, but I
think vertical scrolling has been more or less accepted as "normal". I
believe even usability guru Neilsen now agrees with that. If you don't
think so, then can you cite a reference that supports your claim?
Reducing a font-size just so you can squeeze more into the viewport is
truly a wasted effort. First, you don't know how big the viewport will
be, so any guess as to a text scaling factor is just that - a guess,
which will probably be wrong in a lot of cases. Then there are those
visitors who can't read your chosen font-size. Some who need larger text
will zoom text and mess up your layout. Others who can't read it will
just go to another site that doesn't have such readability problems.
It's a no-win situation.
I don't dispute that putting important info at the top of the page is A
Good Thing, for both users and search engines, but reducing the
font-size is not the way to get it noticed.
I think you might be a little naive.
C
c.thornquist
kchayka said:
I don't have a reference. I have read that you should keep scrolling to 3
windows or less. I expect to scroll on a site that is for news or reference,
but from a design point of view on the front page of a business site it
doesn't work. Your design is incomplete.
<snip>
From my point of view, since I try to keep scrolling off my front page, it's
not a wasted effort. I'm talking about IF I wanted 14px Arial versus an 11
or 12px. That extra size can make the vertical bar show up. I don't like the
look of large text anyway, so if some who want large fonts get the vertical
scroll bar, so be it.
I don't reduce font size for much of anything. I settled on 12px Arial long
ago. What I will do is remove extraneous content from that first page.
Deeper pages scroll when necessary. And, now that I know IE won't let users
adjust their font sixe if its specified in CSS, I'll avoid specifying a size
with px.
I think you might be a little naive.
Well, I try to be purposeful
Carla
K
kchayka
c.thornquist said:
You consider 14px Arial to be "large"? In my world, that's still pretty
small, considering my default font size is 20px.
11px equates to font-size:55%! Few can read text that small. I'm not one
of them.
This is A Good Thing.
Just don't go the route a lot of otherdesigners and use something puny like .7em for body text. That's only
marginally better than using tiny px, IMO.
D
dorayme
From: kchayka said:
so what do you normally (taking an average) set for body text?
dorayme
B
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
dorayme said:
body { font-size: 100%; }