Type sizs on Mac and PC

[PeterMcC]

mehehheh Why design for computer screens at all? In the furture
we will be using projected holographic displays.

And I'd like one that will scale to fit my room

 

[SpaceGirl]

And I'd like one that will scale to fit my room

--
PeterMcC
If you feel that any of the above is incorrect,
inappropriate or offensive in any way,
please ignore it and accept my apologies.

Me too. I've had this 21" flat panel for 3 weeks now.... it's great for
doing design work but I need something 3 times the size for watching DVDs.
PLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEASEEEEEEEEE

oh and a computer that runs silent.

 

[Tomas Holm]

Great post!

It applies to the thread "css vs table design" as well!

/Tomas

I'm struggling with some of the arguments in this thread; currently our main
client is one of the worlds largest music publishers. We were hired to
develop sites for one of their artists. The target market is MTV-generation;
mostly broadband, but also includes music press and casual surfers. The
*image* of the band is as important (if not more so) than the content of the
site. Also we have to keep in mind that *other* band sites in the same genre
have a "coolness" about them, which forces us to compete on some level. So,
while we will make sure these new sites are XHTML with the look and feel
dictated via CSS, we cannot get away from using Flash & DHTML. We can't
design for 300x300 displays either; It would make the sort of "creative"
designs that are demanded impossible.

Also brings me to another point; We are being asked if we can do more and
more video work for the web. I'd be interested to see how some of the people
arguing in here can find a solution to scaling THAT content to a tiny
screen.

More examples: Take a look at most movie promotion web sites. They tend to
be fairly slick, while fairly simple on the content side of things. They
almost without exception tend to be fixed sized.

The reason for this? The market, the target audience. If we were designing
purely information distribution web sites (a news site, a research site, a
blog) then of course you probably want to hit the largest range of browsers
possible. But for most *commercial* sites you aim for the young, affluent,
MTV-generation (after all, they all grew up, bought computers, and are now
having kids of their own and have money to spend).

--To contact me please mail to tomas dot holm at rodem dot se.--

 

[Bernhard Sturm]

Great post!

It applies to the thread "css vs table design" as well!

yes, I second that.
I believe that there is no black&white thing out there. someone called
me in this NG a dinosaur, just because I took the point against
re-sizable font-sizes.
As SpaceGirl posted, I believe as well that we cannot simply stand in
the corner and say: 'scalable layouts are the only solution, repeat
after me: are the only solution'.
it all comes down to your target audiance, and the way how your client
wants to enforce his CD/CI on the web.

bernhard

 

[Bernhard Sturm]

Me too. I've had this 21" flat panel for 3 weeks now.... it's great for
doing design work but I need something 3 times the size for watching DVDs.
PLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEASEEEEEEEEE

oh and a computer that runs silent.

ahh.. How I am longing for those future times! What a wonderful world we
will live in: no fuss against Mac, no fights against Linux, no CSS/XHTML
discussions, just our small silently running machine and a big
holographic display. sheee...

bernhard

 

[Whitecrest]

I'm struggling with some of the arguments in this thread; currently our main
client is one of the worlds largest music publishers. We were hired to
develop sites for one of their artists....

I totally agree with you, but this falls on many deaf ears here....

Flash, DHTML, and streaming media is NOT the way to go for probably 70%
of the web. But for that other 30% (percentage were pulled from my ass,
based on time spent with some form of entertainment) they are needed,
because (while they can't admit it) sometimes the presentation IS the
content.

 

[Eric Bohlman]

Nobody is setting limits. 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. It's also fixed at around 730 pixels wide. The only limits
being set here are by people like yourself saying we shouldn't design
for fixed resolutions. Why limit yourself like that?

And everybody else's point is that on the Web, unlike print, the designer
doesn't get to specify the size of the canvas. The user does. And the
size will vary. On the Web, a good design is one that can adapt to this
reality, rather than one that tries to wish it away.

Keep in mind that the user's screen resolution is absolutely meaningless to
a Web designer, because the user can decide just how much of his screen to
dedicate to Web browsing, which will very often *not* be the only thing the
user is doing with his computer at the time.

 

[Eric Bohlman]

You use a Mac.

Windows IE is broken and text sized in pixels or points can not be
resized by the user. Only a user stylesheet or disabling all font
sizing in the preferences will allow users to over ride such font
sizes.

Just to amplify here, the only thing Windows IE and Mac IE have in common
is that the same corporation owns the copyrights. They're actually
completely separate programs written by separate groups of people. Mac IE
is one of the most standards-compliant browsers; Windows IE is one of the
least.

 

[Firas D.]

yes, I second that.
I believe that there is no black&white thing out there. someone called
me in this NG a dinosaur, just because I took the point against
re-sizable font-sizes.

I am so sorry if that came across as derogatory. I really didn't mean it
to be rude and was just having some lighthearted fun at your expense,
but I see why it looks insulting.

It's just that I'm firmly grounded in the Zeldman school of markup,
which pretty much fits into the attitudes in both alt.html and the other
groups its regulars frequent and current web design trends. So someone
objecting to a resizing of his font size looked like big-time blasphemy

On the other hand, I know that I probably couldn't make an mtv.com type
site that was fluid, at least in one lifetime. So more power to you in
whatever you do. But eventually all of us who author for the internet
have to learn to love the web--that includes accepting that the text
just won't look like we intend it to.

Again, I apologize and good luck.

 

[Bernhard Sturm]

Bernhard Sturm wrote:

I am so sorry if that came across as derogatory. I really didn't mean it
to be rude and was just having some lighthearted fun at your expense,
but I see why it looks insulting.

It's just that I'm firmly grounded in the Zeldman school of markup,
which pretty much fits into the attitudes in both alt.html and the other
groups its regulars frequent and current web design trends. So someone
objecting to a resizing of his font size looked like big-time blasphemy

no problem. I would call my self a Zeldman adept as well, but before I
used to follow Siegel's guidelines.. ;-) you see there is nothing
permanent. And if something sounds like blasphemy in this NG, then it's
time to re-think the religion.

On the other hand, I know that I probably couldn't make an mtv.com type
site that was fluid, at least in one lifetime. So more power to you in
whatever you do. But eventually all of us who author for the internet
have to learn to love the web--that includes accepting that the text
just won't look like we intend it to.

yepp.. that's true, I just made the experience (I do webdesign now for 6
years), that I get much faster bored about fluid designs than fixed ones...

Again, I apologize and good luck.

no problem and thanks.
bernhard

 

[John C]

Me too. I've had this 21" flat panel for 3 weeks now.... it's great for
doing design work but I need something 3 times the size for watching DVDs.
PLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEASEEEEEEEEE

oh and a computer that runs silent.

I have a spare Kaypro 2 I might be willing sell. No fan at all. Also no
hard drive (5.25" floppies only). The screen's almost as big as some of
those walk-man DVD players, but monochrome (green!). However, I'm not
sure if there are any DVD drivers for CP/M operating system.
Nevertheless, it is silent! Well, it was the last time I fired it up,
about 10 years ago, after somebody decided that 64K wasn't quite enough,
after all.

 

[Toby A Inkster]

More examples: Take a look at most movie promotion web sites. They tend to
be fairly slick, while fairly simple on the content side of things. They
almost without exception tend to be fixed sized.

And do you think people go to them *because* they have fixed widths and
fixed font sizes?

No. People go to them *despite* the fact that they have fixed widths and
fixed font sizes.

Perhaps if they still had all the whizzy graphics and flashy effects but
also had resizable fonts and could better cope with browser canvas size
changes, they'd get even *more* visitors?

 

[SpaceGirl]

I have a spare Kaypro 2 I might be willing sell. No fan at all. Also no
hard drive (5.25" floppies only). The screen's almost as big as some of
those walk-man DVD players, but monochrome (green!). However, I'm not
sure if there are any DVD drivers for CP/M operating system.
Nevertheless, it is silent! Well, it was the last time I fired it up,
about 10 years ago, after somebody decided that 64K wasn't quite enough,
after all.

This machine it quite loud. It's running at 3.6Ghz (P4/EE) and has two fat
fans strapped to the top of the CPU and a big tube that goes to the back of
the machine. Then there's the graphics card (ATI Radeon 9800 XT), which has
a vast fan as well which notches up speed if anything 3D is going on. Then
there are 3 case fans, and the PSU fan. You dont really notice how loud it
gets until you *stop* doing whatever it is that kept it busy. THe machine
sounds like a small jet coming into land. I had to move it under the desk
and push it right back out of the way just to make it bearable. It was
impossible when I had it on the desk.

 

[SpaceGirl]

And do you think people go to them *because* they have fixed widths and
fixed font sizes?
No


No. People go to them *despite* the fact that they have fixed widths and
fixed font sizes.

They go to them because of the design - design which is expected because of
the medium (film) dictates a level of quality.

Perhaps if they still had all the whizzy graphics and flashy effects but
also had resizable fonts and could better cope with browser canvas size
changes, they'd get even *more* visitors?

Doubt it. Most people dont care. And it's "most people" who fall into the
average demographic for web designers.

 

[Bernhard Sturm]

SpaceGirl wrote:




And do you think people go to them *because* they have fixed widths and
fixed font sizes?

hoenstyl I wonder if there are stats around about the behaviour of
visitors concerning fixed font sizes or variable font sizes. I am very
curious about any sort of study telling us how the average user behaves
or reacts when coming to a site offering him/her a variable font-size.
Does anyone in the group know of such a usability study?

cheers
bernhard

bernhard

 

[Bernhard Sturm]

This machine it quite loud. It's running at 3.6Ghz (P4/EE) and has two fat
fans strapped to the top of the CPU and a big tube that goes to the back of
the machine. Then there's the graphics card (ATI Radeon 9800 XT), which has
a vast fan as well which notches up speed if anything 3D is going on. Then
there are 3 case fans, and the PSU fan. You dont really notice how loud it
gets until you *stop* doing whatever it is that kept it busy. THe machine
sounds like a small jet coming into land. I had to move it under the desk
and push it right back out of the way just to make it bearable. It was
impossible when I had it on the desk.

hmm.. I always buy myself high-end graphic cards that have no fan
mounted (I don't play 3D games on my computer, all I need are multiple
displays at high resolutions connected to a single card). Matrox has
some very good cards specially designed for DTP and design purposes
(okay they are crap concerning their 3D engine, but who cares).


bernhard

 

[PeterMcC]

hoenstyl I wonder if there are stats around about the behaviour of
visitors concerning fixed font sizes or variable font sizes. I am very
curious about any sort of study telling us how the average user
behaves or reacts when coming to a site offering him/her a variable
font-size. Does anyone in the group know of such a usability study?

I have a suspicion that the average user doesn't know or care; however, the
significant group of users in this case are those who need re-sizeable fonts
to be able to read the site contents. 100% of them react badly when coming
to a site that doesn't offer a variable font-size.

 

[Carol Ott]

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.

Carol

 

[Bernhard Sturm]

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.

maybe.. but I would like to know how many users are turned away from a
site, that offers variable font-size, but they couldn't find or use it
or weren't aware, that it was possible, and then complained that the
site didn't offer variable font size.. just exactly the kind of things
that any usability guru would preach. are there any studies around
covering these issues?

cheers
bernhard


www.daszeichen.ch
remove nixspam to reply

 

[Carol Ott]

You might want to contact the Lighthouse for the Blind. They're a pretty
good source of information on accessibility issues that specifically affect
sight-disabled people.

Carol