Font Size units

[Jukka K. Korpela]

Re: Font Size units

Scripsit Keith Nuttall:

The problem with fixed-width designs, as far as typography goes, is
that a lot of space is wasted on bigger screens, and the type is often
trapped in a small width.

It creates a manifestly ridiculous impression: text in a tiny font in the
midst of emptyness. Even if the user can increase font size, the situation
is crazy when he cannot escape the limitations of the small area reserved
for text display.

One solution is to decrease font size to
around 75%,

You misspelled "way to create additional problems".

but a better solution would be to make the copy area
elastic. In this particular case, it would break the design which was
decided upon before it came anywhere near me - yes I know it's bad,
but what can you do?

You can tell them that the design needs to be changed. What else can you do?

If you were given a web site where a literally stamp-sized area is reserved
for copy text (i.e. content proper), would you _really_ start considering
how to make the font as small as possible (presumably with the requirement
that _some_ people can still read them)?

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")

http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[Bergamot]

Re: Font Size units

Keith Nuttall wrote:

>
All I was saying is that the assumption
that small fonts are always the designer's fault is wrong, and I showed
this by example.

Hmmm... I saw it more as as excuse to do The Wrong Thing, rather than
justification. "The customer is always right" is a fallacy, you know.

--
Berg

[dorayme]

Re: Font Size units

In article <539735F1q4v3lU 1@mid.individua l.net>,
Bergamot <bergamot@visi. comwrote:

Keith Nuttall wrote:

All I was saying is that the assumption
that small fonts are always the designer's fault is wrong, and I showed
this by example.

>
Hmmm... I saw it more as as excuse to do The Wrong Thing, rather than
justification.

I wonder why? Did you consider alternative hypothesis? Are you
able to put yourself in other people's shoes? Are you
knowledgeable about the world and the complicated situations
people find themselves in or just knowledgeable about html/css?

What an uncharitable view of Nuttal you have! That he has this
desire to do the wrong thing almost as a matter of principle,
that he is some sort of html/css devil in other words. C'mon!

--
dorayme

[Andy Dingley]

Re: Font Size units

On 11 Feb, 09:53, Keith Nuttall <k...@yammer.co edotyoukay.inva lid>
wrote:

I'm amazed that people responded so venemously to my comment.

Probably because you're widely seen as a single-issue troll.

All I was saying is that the assumption that small fonts are always the designer's fault is wrong,

They always _are_ the designer's fault. In this case you have stopped
being the designer and have let the customer take design control from
you.

[Andy Dingley]

Re: Font Size units

On 11 Feb, 09:39, Keith Nuttall <k...@yammer.co edotyoukay.inva lid>
wrote:

The problem with fixed-width designs, as far as typography goes, is
that a lot of space is wasted on bigger screens,

Not necessarily -- a long line of text is itself hard to read.

The solution to this for newspapers was to shorten column width and
place many columns side by side - largely as a result of newspapers
having good resolution, good sideways scrolling between columns and
terribly awkward scrolling between pages (especially on commuter
trains). Web pages have rather less resolution, poor sideways
scrolling and excellent vertical scrolling through an almost infinite
page length. Different constraints lead to different solutions.

[Keith Nuttall]

Re: Font Size units

Andy Dingley wrote:

On 11 Feb, 09:53, Keith Nuttall <k...@yammer.co edotyoukay.inva lid>
wrote:
>

>I'm amazed that people responded so venemously to my comment.

>
Probably because you're widely seen as a single-issue troll.

Whoah!

It may be a current subject of particular interest to me - especially
after being recently (unnecessarily) lynched for repeating something in
another newsgroup, which I once read; but I don't think that makes me a
troll - just because I disagree with "accepted wisdom" on a particular
subject. I think "troll" is such a lazy term of abuse. I just like to
redress the balance where necessary.

I think that, if you googled for my usenet postings over the last few
months, you'd see a few topics being discussed. Indeed, in some circles
I'm regarded as quite a helpful little soul. I admit I'm a little
contrary at times (nobody's perfect), but I'm not prepared to be
bullied by a mob into accepting (IMO) dogma.

BTW, other subjects of interest I have discussed in the last year
include: dedicated hosting in the UK, the use of UTF-8, search engine
methodology, elastic layouts, xhtml vs html, laptops, ISP traffic
management, mod rewrite and regular expressions (to name a few)... I
can't be bothered to waste time thinking of any more.

Let's face it, you just don't like me.

--
Keith Nuttall

https://www.yammer.co.uk/webdesign

Re-type the e-mail address how it sounds, remove .invalid

[Felix Miata]

Re: Font Size units

On 2007/02/12 03:54 (GMT-0800) Andy Dingley apparently typed:

On 11 Feb, 09:39, Keith Nuttall wrote:

>The problem with fixed-width designs, as far as typography goes, is
>that a lot of space is wasted on bigger screens,

Not necessarily -- a long line of text is itself hard to read.

As is a too short one. When lines are too long, a browser can automatically make lines shorter via the simple user measure of narrowing the browser window. How does the user do the opposite?
--
"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the
truth is not in us." 1 John 1:8 NIV

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/

[Felix Miata]

Re: Font Size units

On 2007/02/11 09:39 (GMT) Keith Nuttall apparently typed:

I'm gradually coming to the conclusion that there are two distinct
design types: fixed-width width with reduced font; and full width with
standard font.

You need to broaden your definition of "fixed":

http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/widths-em-v-px.html

http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/fflinelength.html

http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Sites/dlviolin.html

The problem with fixed-width designs, as far as typography goes, is
that a lot of space is wasted on bigger screens

The relevant issue is not screen size, but viewing window size.

http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/bbcSS.html

and the type is often
trapped in a small width. One solution is to decrease font size to

That is an awful solution from the user's perspective. Who's the site really for?

around 75%, but a better solution would be to make the copy area
elastic. In this particular case, it would break the design which was
decided upon before it came anywhere near me - yes I know it's bad, but
what can you do?

You're the professional. You could have inviolable standards. You could educate the client about the way the web was designed to and can work. You could refuse to associate yourself with the tyranny that sub-100% body text is.
--
"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the
truth is not in us." 1 John 1:8 NIV

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/

[Felix Miata]

Re: Font Size units

On 2007/02/10 12:29 (GMT) Keith Nuttall apparently typed:

Felix Miata wrote:

>giving rise to the general designer assumption that the defaults
>are "too big".

Just a passing comment: I am working on a customer's site redesign, at
the moment. Yesterday, I asked what he thought of the latest draft,
which had a copy font size of 81.25%. He said the main problem was that
the font was too big. So, I dropped it to 75%. We appealed, giving
reasons, but he insisted, so he got what he wanted.

You're both working with 24" or 30" displays, right? How does he like it on a Sony 11.1" WXGA laptop?

My point is, that it's not always the designer who decides how big the
font size is.

When designers don't impose arbitrary reductions to the user's choices, the users get to see their choices.
--
"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the
truth is not in us." 1 John 1:8 NIV

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** Rotary ONLY since 1973

Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ <- More than just a FAQ

[dorayme]

Re: Font Size units

In article <c1.2b8.34B9F4$ 16W@p-t18.ij.net>,
Felix Miata <UgaddaBkidding .due2UCE@dev.nu lwrote:

> a long line of text is itself hard to read.

>
As is a too short one. When lines are too long, a browser can automatically
make lines shorter via the simple user measure of narrowing the browser
window. How does the user do the opposite?

That's a good point. But designers should not let it go to their
heads. It is a nuisance to do this in many situations...

--
dorayme

[dorayme]

Re: Font Size units

In article <c1.2b8.34BBcp$ 16X@p-t18.ij.net>,
Felix Miata <UgaddaBkidding .due2UCE@dev.nu lwrote:

On 2007/02/11 09:39 (GMT) Keith Nuttall apparently typed:
>

and the type is often
trapped in a small width. One solution is to decrease font size to

>
That is an awful solution from the user's perspective. Who's the site really
for?
>

Yes, 75% is not the best

around 75%, but a better solution would be to make the copy area
elastic. In this particular case, it would break the design which was
decided upon before it came anywhere near me - yes I know it's bad, but
what can you do?

>
You're the professional. You could have inviolable standards. You could
educate the client about the way the web was designed to and can work. You
could refuse to associate yourself with the tyranny that sub-100% body text
is.

Yes... one can be all sorts of things. Inviolable? It is hard to
dispute that one should argue strongly for best practice. And
educate the client. But now and then one a leeeetle bit of ground
and there is a negotiated settlement. If you can't get 100%, give
them the next best thing, 99% and so on. Where you stop will
depend on how proud you are, how much standing you have, how
secure you are in your business, how much money you stand to lose
if you lose the contract, how much worse it could be if another
developer, a schmuck of the first waters, a schmiel taxi for
hire, a no good lowdown with no scruples whatsoever takes over
(complete with Frontpage and bagfuls of js...)

--
dorayme

[Andy Dingley]

Re: Font Size units

On 12 Feb, 21:41, dorayme <doraymeRidT... @optusnet.com.a uwrote:

Yes, 75% is not the best

Actually 75% _can_ be the best. If you're using IE, you have a high-
res display card, you've selected "Large Fonts" at something like 30%
bigger and you've then fallen down an IE hole where it mis-compensates
for something that the desktop has already compensated for.

The problem is that although this is actually the optimum setting for
that desktop, it's _really_ bad on a less buggy browser (even FF on
the same desktop). This isn't just a compromise you have to choose
here, it's a compromise between slightly inconveniencing some users or
seriously inconveniencing some. It's bet to err for the slight
inconvenience, which means not going so low and having the low-res IE
users see extra-large text by default.