Type sizs on Mac and PC

[kchayka]

Soon as we get away from pixel based design the better.

Did you contradict yourself here?

 

[kchayka]

My point was that some designs are suited for
fixed dimensions, while others aren't. Look at the BBC web site... it's
about the best out there for accessibility and cross-browser support.

So where does usability fit in? bbc.co.uk has too small text and lots
of narrow columns that get all squished up when I increase the text size
enough for my reading comfort. This only makes it hard to read, and
kinda ugly to boot. Please explain how this is a good thing, because I
don't get it.

It's also fixed at around 730 pixels wide.

And this is one of the serious flaws with it. Ideally, widening my
browser window would help resolve the readability problems, but the
fixed width prevents that. Again, please explain how this is supposed
to be to my benefit?

The only limits being set here are by
people like yourself saying we shouldn't design for fixed resolutions. Why
limit yourself like that?

Why do you limit yourself (and your users) by setting fixed designs?
Most of the time they are totally unnecessary. bbc is but one example
of fixing the width for no good reason.

 

[kchayka]

If
people have a real issue with the size of typefaces it begs the question...
why don't you reduce the bloody resolution on your monitor?

Because, for every other application I run, my high resolution is bloody
fantastic. Why should the rest of my work suffer because of a few
stoopid web designers?

 

[kchayka]

Mac IE
is one of the most standards-compliant browsers;

That was undoubtedly true when MacIE5 was released, but it has since
fallen behind the pack. I don't think it's had any CSS bug fixes in any
of the updates since it was first released. There's no hope they'll get
fixed now, either. :-(

It's probably still the best browser for MacOS, though.

 

[kchayka]

If people need glasses to
read they SHOULD BE WEARING THEM whenever they're reading.

Um, I am. Right now.

If they can't
read even with glasses, chances are they're listening to your site rather
than reading it anyway.

Wrong. Everybody thinks this is only about catering to the blind. It's
not. I just need a larger than average text size, 10px is completely
unreadable for me. I have absolutely no difficulties whatsoever using
any other application. The only trouble I *ever* have is with those web
sites where the author set these stoopidly small font sizes.

BTW, this also includes about 99.9% of all Flash sites on the web. I'm
still waiting to find one that is readable.

 

[Brandons of mass destruction]

That was undoubtedly true when MacIE5 was released, but it has since
fallen behind the pack. I don't think it's had any CSS bug fixes in any
of the updates since it was first released. There's no hope they'll get
fixed now, either. :-(

It's probably still the best browser for MacOS, though.

nope. it's extremely slow compared to mozilla, firebird or safari

 

[kchayka]

but your pixel would still be a pixel ;-)

But the physical size of that pixel changes as the screen and/or monitor
size changes. The pixel size at 1280x1024 on a 17-inch monitor is
seriously smaller than on a 21-inch monitor. Thus a 10px font size is
perceived quite differently between the two.

which leads to the beauty of fixed font-sizes.

Which leads to the (readability) problem of fixed font-sizes.

however, to open another can of worms: you could define your font-size
in 'em' as recommended by the W3C. I wouldn't, as you will then have to
create two CSS for Mac/Linux and PC. That's just the other way how to
solve the font-size problem.

I don't follow your logic here. I can see no reason for 2 stylesheets,
especially when using proper relative font sizes. BTW, there is no
font-size "problem" except in your own mind.

I would stick with pixels as you have much better control over a fixed
font size.

Users be damned! Right?

BTW: if you really want to cover the high-res users, you could create
your two CSS files for low- and high-res browser profiles.

This is another silly idea. If you don't know the physical monitor size
(or dpi), how can you reliably determine whether it's really "high-res"
and thus might qualify for adjustment? Don't try to second-guess your
users. You'll be wrong a whole lot more often than you'll be right.

 

[PeterMcC]

I think the people who *need* a variable-size font know how to resize
the text. Someone who doesn't have any sight limitations probably
wouldn't know or care.

Precisiely - the whole point is that fixed font sizes *don't* resize,
whether the user knows how to resize text or not.

 

[SpaceGirl]

So where does usability fit in? bbc.co.uk has too small text and lots
of narrow columns that get all squished up when I increase the text size
enough for my reading comfort. This only makes it hard to read, and
kinda ugly to boot. Please explain how this is a good thing, because I
don't get it.


And this is one of the serious flaws with it. Ideally, widening my
browser window would help resolve the readability problems, but the
fixed width prevents that. Again, please explain how this is supposed
to be to my benefit?


Why do you limit yourself (and your users) by setting fixed designs?
Most of the time they are totally unnecessary. bbc is but one example
of fixing the width for no good reason.

It's a matter of design; and target.

 

[SpaceGirl]

Did you contradict yourself here?

Actually I'd agree - sooner we get away from pixel based design the better.
Unfortunately, we're stuck with a platform that really doesn't give itself
to any other solution without sacrificing "design". We're on the uhmmm cusp
of being able to do this though - with OSX supporting scaled desktop
content, and Windows 6 (in about 18 months if we're lucky) all these
arguments will become moot. If you want a window to be bigger hold down
control and drag the corner of the window... the entire window INCLUDING
content "scales" (enlarges) just like a magnifying glass. The web page (or
application) doesn't even know it's being scaled, so the content itself
doesn't have to be redrawn or re-arranged. You can see examples of this
working in WinAMP (it has scaling) on Windows XP. Office 2003 also uses
device independent units to draw it's front end (no pixels there at all), so
that in theory when the new Windows front end ("Avalon") is out (part of
Windows 6), design can be more flexible - design your pretty interface to
look good at 800x600 - it'll still look just as good at 1600x1200 without
you having to do a thing.

 

[Steve Pugh]

Actually I'd agree - sooner we get away from pixel based design the better.
Unfortunately, we're stuck with a platform that really doesn't give itself
to any other solution without sacrificing "design". We're on the uhmmm cusp
of being able to do this though - with OSX supporting scaled desktop
content, and Windows 6 (in about 18 months if we're lucky) all these
arguments will become moot. If you want a window to be bigger hold down
control and drag the corner of the window... the entire window INCLUDING
content "scales" (enlarges) just like a magnifying glass.

Which does nothing at all for the people who want to use bigger
windows because they allow them to see more content at once.

The web page (or
application) doesn't even know it's being scaled, so the content itself
doesn't have to be redrawn or re-arranged.

Surely that assumes that the width:height ratio of the window is
fixed.

You can see examples of this
working in WinAMP (it has scaling) on Windows XP. Office 2003 also uses
device independent units to draw it's front end (no pixels there at all), so
that in theory when the new Windows front end ("Avalon") is out (part of
Windows 6), design can be more flexible

I think you mean _less_ flexible.

- design your pretty interface to
look good at 800x600 - it'll still look just as good at 1600x1200 without
you having to do a thing.

What about at 800x1200?

Steve

 

[SpaceGirl]

Which does nothing at all for the people who want to use bigger
windows because they allow them to see more content at once.


Surely that assumes that the width:height ratio of the window is
fixed.


I think you mean _less_ flexible.


What about at 800x1200?

Steve

I wasn't suggesting this was some sort of panacea; but it's at least a
solution for those in hear moaning about "fixed fonts". It still comes down
to design at some point; for some sites resizable content is useful. Other
sites it's not the case. Right now it comes down to the fact, regardless of
your opinion, the vast majority of sites ARE fixed sized, and that's what
the market is demanding. Maybe this will change in the future, but for now
we just have to live with it.

 

[Steve Pugh]

I wasn't suggesting this was some sort of panacea; but it's at least a
solution for those in hear moaning about "fixed fonts".

Windows already has the magnifier tool. Scalable windows is another
nice feature but it doesn't really help people who need or want larger
font sizes but who don't want to look at blurry, badly resized images.

It still comes down
to design at some point; for some sites resizable content is useful. Other
sites it's not the case.

These other sites being those that don't really have any content to
speak of?

Right now it comes down to the fact, regardless of
your opinion, the vast majority of sites ARE fixed sized,

Looking at a dozen sites that I visit daily and a few big names, I see
that just under half of them are fixed width designs whilst over half
are flexible, and none of them use fixed font sizes.

and that's what the market is demanding.

Is it really? Are people turning away from flexible sites? Looking at
Amazon, or Google, or (most of) eBay, I don't think so. The sites that
people actually visit again and again are flexible. These companies
understand the web as a medium.

Maybe this will change in the future, but for now
we just have to live with it.

No, we can do better.

Steve

 

[Bernhard Sturm]

But the physical size of that pixel changes as the screen and/or monitor
size changes. The pixel size at 1280x1024 on a 17-inch monitor is
seriously smaller than on a 21-inch monitor. Thus a 10px font size is
perceived quite differently between the two.

that's perfectly true, and I assume that for one reason the user has set
it's resolution to this size. I can also assume, that he or she is then
also able to read thise smaller fonts. (or have you ever read the
palette labels in FreeHand MXa? no body seems to complain here about the
small size, because a lot of designers (including me) use 21" screens at
1600x1200 pix, AND take into account that they have to read smaller text
sizes). It was always a mistery to me, that people want bigger
resolutions in order to see MORE content, but then complain, that they
can't read the content anymore, because the font-size is too small,
setting the resolution to a lower rate gives them less content, hence
you will always loose.

I don't follow your logic here. I can see no reason for 2 stylesheets,
especially when using proper relative font sizes. BTW, there is no
font-size "problem" except in your own mind.

then tell me: what is the proper font size? there are so many machines
and browsers out there: my PDA Psion Revo's Opera displays em's and %'s
or pt's (let alone mm's) different, than my Konqueror on my Linux
machine, and IE does interpret em's slightly different than other
browsers. But on the other hand: on all those plattforms pixels seem to
be far more constant than any other size unit.
But I agree, maybe pixels are not the best way to get rid of the
font-size problem (as it's one, proofs all those sites dedicated to the
various font-sizes on Mac/Linux/Windows browsers).
but after reading
http://hotwired.lycos.com/webmonkey/99/41/index3a_page3.html i'll think
I'll swap to em's (knowing that this can cause headaches with cascading
font-sizes in IE), let's give it a try.
I don't know for how long you are in the business, but according to my
experience, the only cure for font-sizes is testing on as many platforms
and browsers you can find. easy was yesterday.

bernhard

 

[Toby A Inkster]

then tell me: what is the proper font size?

1em.

 

[SpaceGirl]

Windows already has the magnifier tool. Scalable windows is another
nice feature but it doesn't really help people who need or want larger
font sizes but who don't want to look at blurry, badly resized images.


These other sites being those that don't really have any content to
speak of?


Looking at a dozen sites that I visit daily and a few big names, I see
that just under half of them are fixed width designs whilst over half
are flexible, and none of them use fixed font sizes.


Is it really? Are people turning away from flexible sites? Looking at
Amazon, or Google, or (most of) eBay, I don't think so. The sites that
people actually visit again and again are flexible. These companies
understand the web as a medium.


No, we can do better.

Steve

The sites that you mention have a very specific market; retail. I'd suggest
you could add news web sites to your list as well. I would hope that sites
like that offer flexible content and resizing. However the market I work in
is the music industry, where image is as (if not more) important as the
content. This would also apply to other media markets, such as movies.

What I'm suggesting is that what might be a good idea for one type of layout
may not be a good idea for another. It's not possible to say "fixed font
sizes are bad" or visa versa. There are probably equal cases for either
argument.

Most of the sites I use reguarly (a handful of news sites) tend not to be
fixed size. I think most of the other sites I visit are fixed size. But then
those are the sites I go to, and they may not be the same sort of sites you
visit.

 

[SpaceGirl]

1em.

And if 1em appears different sizes on different machines and different
browsers? What if you want to match graphics with that?

 

[Toby A Inkster]

And if 1em appears different sizes on different machines and different
browsers?

Then you still use 1em.

What if you want to match graphics with that?

<img src="foobar" alt="Foo Bar" style="height:8em; width:12em;">

 

[SpaceGirl]

Then you still use 1em.


<img src="foobar" alt="Foo Bar" style="height:8em; width:12em;">

Do you actually design web pages!??

Okay so I draw a pretty picture 24px x 500px in photoshop. It they gets
SCALED on the web page doing it your way. Have you ever tried this? It looks
AWEFUL... You cannot do that, sorry... tell me another solution, one that
works.

 

[Firas D.]

SpaceGirl wrote:
Other

sites it's not the case. Right now it comes down to the fact, regardless of
your opinion, the vast majority of sites ARE fixed sized, and that's what
the market is demanding. Maybe this will change in the future, but for now
we just have to live with it.

Or you can choose to be a leader in your area of the industry