Type sizs on Mac and PC

  • Thread starter The Devil's Advocate©
  • Start date
S

SpaceGirl

Steve Pugh said:
blown apart.

Only if the page was badly constructed. Making a console that adapts
to variable sized content within it is hardly rocket science. After
all, you just know that two weeks after launch the client is going to
stick a new piece of copy in there with more words than the original.


Oh, where I come from that sort of thing was the old days. These days
I see more and more sites adopting a nice lightweight, flexible layout
with far fewer graphic heavy layouts.


Good design on the web includes flexibility.


And the average punter (a) messes with his font size at all? and (b)
is impressed by sites that she can't read?

If the user tries to change his font size then presumably he has a
good reason for wanting to do so. The skill in designing and building
web sites is making sure that the visual styling does not
disintergrate when the user changes the font size, or window size, or
any other variable.

Steve

Try increasing the font size on the MTV web site and see what happens :) Is
that a bad site? Not really, it's quite a sexy site, and I'm sure it's
audience appreciates it. Sadly, designs like that cannot cope with text
resizing, it looks a mess! Scaling should not happen to JUST the
typefaces... if someone is having trouble reading the content of a page,
then they are also going to have trouble reading the little yellow alt tags,
or any titles and bits of texts that are parts of any images on screen. The
ENTIRE page should scale - then it would never break the design, no matter
what you did.
 
S

SpaceGirl

Bernhard Sturm said:
another can of worms, as this is okay, as long as it's all based on open
and free standards, and I can decide which browser/dvd player/av scaner
will be used by the OS. If it's all just dictated by M$, then I think
it's a very ugly thing. (who is counting the confidential user
information that has being transferred from winXP to the windows media
player to a word document in the past?

bernhard


I hate the idea too... if there were other OS's for the PC market (you cant
count Linux!), then they should *all* have these features built in. But what
choice do we have? Windows 6 comes with it's own antivirus, firewall (just
like XP does already) and lots of other goodies... People forget what an OS
is for. It's a platform for running applications and games. Why when you buy
Windows should you have to also spend a fortune on utilities to make sure
you are secure, and can view your files correctly etc etc. Surely this is
the job of the OS. I buy applications to do all the other jobs; like
creating and editing the files in the first place.
 
L

Leif K-Brooks

Luna said:
I've also handicapped my users by using Flash on the main page, since not everyone
uses Flash

If you're using it well, with alternative content provided, there's no
problem.
, and by my color choices, since not everyone likes those colors,

That's what alternate stylesheets are for.
and by using graphics, since some people use text-only browsers.

That's why you've provided alt text.
 
S

SpaceGirl

Toby A Inkster said:
That has to be the most stupid argument for fixed font sizes I've ever
heard!

Most books are printed in a fixed font size because that is a limitation
of the technology -- you just cannot make a book where the font size is
changeable by the end user.

That said, many popular books are available in large print editions,
allowing the reader a choice of two font sizes.


It's not a stupid argument - it could be applied to any piece of design that
incorporates text. A poster for example, or the list of ingredients on the
back of a bag of chips. They could make the packed bigger to fit all that
text in. But *design* dictates that this would be a rather stupid idea. That
isn't a limitation of technology - it's a limitation of design and target
audience.
 
S

SpaceGirl

Toby A Inkster said:
A pixel can be 2 pixels in Opera 3+, or 8 pixels, or 1.5 pixels, or
whatever the end user wants it to be.

What's a pixel on paper? 1/360th of an inch? That would be logical on a
typical 360dpi inkjet printer.


Which is daft.
 
S

Steve Pugh

SpaceGirl said:
Try increasing the font size on the MTV web site and see what happens :)

At 200% in Mozilla the site holds together quite well. The only
problems are with the select elements.

And with my enforced minimum of 12px in Opera there's really nothing
to even hint that it 'should' be seen at 10px.

Steve
 
L

Leif K-Brooks

SpaceGirl said:
It's not a stupid argument - it could be applied to any piece of design that
incorporates text. A poster for example, or the list of ingredients on the
back of a bag of chips. They could make the packed bigger to fit all that
text in. But *design* dictates that this would be a rather stupid idea. That
isn't a limitation of technology - it's a limitation of design and target
audience.

Of course it's a limitation of the technology. A computer screen can
change, a bag of chips can't. It's that simple.
 
I

iehsmith

From: "SpaceGirl said:
Subject: Re: Type sizs on Mac and PC

So, are you going to handicap everyone else who's NOT visually impaired?
Please tell me then why I cant resize the text in the novel I'm reading at
the moment.


I know this condemns me to W3C hell, but I agree. If people need glasses to
read they SHOULD BE WEARING THEM whenever they're reading. If they can't
read even with glasses, chances are they're listening to your site rather
than reading it anyway.

(a thousand pardons O Mighty W3C and thy mistress WAI, I'll pluck out an
eyeball and offer it in sacrifice; later, hold your breathe;)

inez
 
M

m

I hate the idea too... if there were other OS's for the PC market (you
cant count Linux!),

Humbug! People all over the world are doing multimedia of all kinds
with Linux. I have multimedia working just fine, thank you, and Dreamworks
is now doing their animated movies powered by Linux.
then they should *all* have these features built in.
But what choice do we have?

You build something into any desktop or window manager simply by
putting it on a menu or the desktop. All you need to know is
the address of the probgram. In Linux you just have a bigger
choice of programs to choose from.
 
J

Jay

SpaceGirl said:
So, are you going to handicap everyone else who's NOT visually impaired?
Please tell me then why I cant resize the text in the novel I'm reading at
the moment.

Because it's physically printed on a medium that is not resizable?

Books don't have that capability.

Web browsers have the capability to adjust the text size. This means that
many users have their browsers set to adjust text size to a comfortable or
readable size. This capability was put in place for website visitors to use.
Why are you so against that? It's not that hard to make a website with
adjustable text sizes without breaking the site using CSS.

- J
 
J

Jay

SpaceGirl said:
Out in the real world where something like 80% of people are using 800x600
displays, and the majority of the test are 1024x768. You cant design for
everything. So you design for the average.

In our studio we have one machine running 1120 x 960 (19" CRT), one 1280 x
1024 (21" flat panel) and one machine running 1024 x 768. We always design
sites for 800 x 600 (or 780 x 550).

What happens when the average or majority changes? Before the 800x600 the
majority was 640x480. When the new majority is 1280x1024 are you going to
redesign? What a waste. Just do it right the first time.

- J
 
J

Jay

SpaceGirl said:
I wish. Clients tend to want pixel perfect. And they are the ones paying for
the designs in the first place.

I agree but,
A little client education can sometimes go a long way. And sometimes it
doesn't.

- J
 
B

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

Quoth the raven named SpaceGirl:
Uh huh, I know. People also know how to make their browsers bigger
if they need to. That's not a big deal when the vast majority of
(commercial) existing web sites are also designed for 800 x 600
(meaning 750 x 500-ish usuable pixels).

If your site fits in 800x600 that is ok with me. The problem comes
when you (as you indicate you may do) sniff my *resolution* and serve
me a page that is inflexible at 1024x768 and will not fit in my
800x600 window. Once again, resolution is /not/ relevant. What would
you serve me if you found my monitor was set at 1600x1200?

Regarding font size, how do you know if I have my desktop set at Small
Fonts or Large Fonts? Your pixel design will probably fall apart if
I'm on Large Fonts.

Of course I know how to make my browser window bigger; I didn't get
this computer yesterday.

....
 
B

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

Quoth the raven named SpaceGirl:
message news:[email protected]...

So, are you going to handicap everyone else who's NOT visually
impaired?

That question doesn't make sense. Handicap who? The 15% who use a
different browser? The 4/5 of the 85% who have good vision?

If you set your font sizes in percentages, everyone is happy. And if
your design falls apart, it is flawed.
Please tell me then why I cant resize the text in the
novel I'm reading at the moment.

Books are apples and web pages are oranges. Why would you want to
imply that a web page equals a book/magazine/newspaper? Aside from the
fact that they all serve content, there is no similarity.
 
T

Toby A Inkster

SpaceGirl said:
It's not a stupid argument

In fact, it's barely an argument at all. But if we assume that it is
indeed an argument, it is most certainly a stupid one.
it could be applied to any piece of design that incorporates text. A
poster for example, or the list of ingredients on the back of a bag of
chips. They could make the packed bigger to fit all that text in.

The limitation of printed material that I was referring to is not
that the material is necessarily small, but that it can't be resized by
the end user. (The possible exception to this is text printed on a
balloon, which will expand when inflated.)

The web is not limited in this way. It is stupid to argue that we should
act like it's limited in that way because some other medium is limited in
that way.
 
T

Toby A Inkster

SpaceGirl said:
I hate the idea too... if there were other OS's for the PC market (you cant
count Linux!)

Why not?

And can I count FreeBSD? OpenBSD? NetBSD? What about BeOS? And FreeDOS?
And how about AtheOS?
 
D

Dan

Not quite hell, but it does place you in the "not yet enlightened" category.

Forget browsers. Design for the World Wide Web and do the best job you
possible can. You simply can't predict how your page will be used or by
whom.

Stop assuming everyone is sitting at exactly the correct angle in the
correct light. Sometimes people look over each other's shoulders to view the
web. Sometimes a public speaker will be "live" on the web as he presents his
seminar and your page will be projected onto a large multimedia screen at
the front of the hall. Sometimes web pages are accessed in a not-so-smooth
airplane or on someone else's computer.

Thank you, Doctor :) I have two pairs of glasses, contact lenses, six
different computer screens in different locations and a variety of changing
light situations. Rigid layouts with unresizable text that are tolerable in
some settings are useless in others.

Don't be lazy, and don't handicap your site and your viewers by adopting a
"take it or leave it" attitude. Instead, take the time to learn how to
develop pages that are attractive and usable.

Dan
http://www.FreelanceWorkshops.com
 
G

Gary

SpaceGirl said:
I wish. Clients tend to want pixel perfect. And they are the ones paying for
the designs in the first place.
So true. And the most frustrating clients are the ones who have goofy
browser/font/display settings and are so dense that they can't
understand any explanation, no matter how simple. You know you are
mature when you can bring yourself to explain the issues to to them,
realize that they are beyond clueless, and then without rancor,
complete the project so that they like it and it is also at least
marginally acceptable to the rest of the world.

Incidenatlly, doesn't part of the issue with Mac vs. PC fonts have to
do with the 96dpi Windows default versus the 72dpi Mac default? To me
that has often seemed to explain a lot of things (not all, of course!).

Gary
 
S

SpaceGirl

Leif K-Brooks said:
Of course it's a limitation of the technology. A computer screen can
change, a bag of chips can't. It's that simple.


The packet could be made bigger :)
 
S

SpaceGirl

Toby A Inkster said:
In fact, it's barely an argument at all. But if we assume that it is
indeed an argument, it is most certainly a stupid one.


The limitation of printed material that I was referring to is not
that the material is necessarily small, but that it can't be resized by
the end user. (The possible exception to this is text printed on a
balloon, which will expand when inflated.)

The web is not limited in this way. It is stupid to argue that we should
act like it's limited in that way because some other medium is limited in
that way.

It is limited. By the size of the screen.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,904
Latest member
HealthyVisionsCBDPrice

Latest Threads

Top