Complex Menus

[David Morris]

Re: Complex Menus

Jonathan N. Little wrote:

David Morris wrote:

>Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

> Yes, my fontsize page is aimed at getting authors to not use pixels

>for

> sizing - instead of percent or em - because of the shortcomings of IE.
> But you did notice of course that it stresses using 100% for body{

>} and

> for content text. Or didn't that sink in?
> >

>Ok, so what I think you are saying is that *all* web pages should be
>displayed with a font size of 100%, that is, 16px?

>
No, that *may* be 16px! Or 14px, 20px, 25px, 30px,... The point that you
are missing is
>
body { font-size: 100% }
>
Which means the basic font size of your page will be exactly the right
size that the user has set to comfortably read; not what you, the
designer, wishes. Who is more important, you or your customer? Bad
business model if you select "you".
>
Now if you, as the designer, find that
>
body { font-size: 100% }
>
is too big, then you should change your browser's default size, not
impose it on others.

Isn't the reality more like: most users don't know anything about
setting browser font size, and that most (and this is not to say they
are right or wrong) choose a font size that to the designer looks
reasonable for most users. And then the rest of us are faced with the
decision of either matching that, or being left with a font size that
looks too large (regardless of the rights or wrongs of this).

Maybe it is your age.

Could be... I am actually over 45.

Never quite understood why my parents would get

so upset when I would shove something 6 inches from there noses to read
as a kid. Then, let's see it was about 45... Now I understand the
extreme frustration of not being able to see the directions on the
bottle! I want to (CTRL +) my world! But the label is printed and the
size is fixed. A webpage is not, so do not impose paper-restrictions on
the web, the web is *not* paper... Don't get me started on the other
paper-constraint usually *imposted* on web pages...fixed layout.
>

And I recently had to get reading glasses for the first time. But why
is my web site suddenly unreadable and so different from others, and why
can't you (CTRL +) it too?

[Kevin Scholl]

Re: Complex Menus

On Jun 12, 9:22 am, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.nony.m...@ex ample.invalidwr ote:

The concept of using the visitors preferred size is very slowly catching
on. It is unfortunate that such a concept is not taught in schools.

That depends rather significantly on one's point of view. While I
agree in principle with the idea, the simple fact is that the *vast*
majority of users have no idea that user style sheets even exist, much
less utilize them. In my experience (which is both lengthy and broad),
the only people I've come across who knew of user-defined style sheets
in browsers were other designers/developers, and few of them
bother(ed) with them.

There are so many variables involved with regard to this discussion,
that I truly do not believe there is a clear "wrong" or "right". I've
done sites with defined font size and not, using at different times
percentage, ems, pixels, etc. And you know what? Not one time have I
gotten any negative feedback from testers or real users. Most users
know how to resize the text in their browsers, if they have need
to ... even in IE6. I just don't think it's such a big issue. Not a
moot point by any stretch, but no so earth-shattering as some people
think.

[Bergamot]

Re: Complex Menus

David Morris wrote:

>
The font sizing issue has been addressed by making the the web site and
the menu scalable (in the change font size sense) in all supported
browsers including IE.
>
< http://www.netwiz.com.au/home.html >.

Ugh. The problem now is:
body {font-size:62.5%}

Then over-specifying font-size (and family and other font properties) on
every bloody element, with most text at 1.4em. This is soooooooooooo
unbelievably *STUPID*, not to mention what happens when a minimum font
size is set in some browsers. To me, it looks like the page is screaming
because text is overly large. On top of that, the page has a
min-width:75em, which results in a *huge* amount of horizontal
scrolling. Usability is seriously degraded for those of us who use a
large default text size.

Set body text to 100% and get rid of *all* other font-size settings.
After that, adjust headings and other specific elements like legalese as
needed, but leave the bulk of the text alone. If you insist on using
type size smaller than 100% for the main text, set a percent value on
..bodydivision and be done with it. And change that 75em min-width to
max-width, please.

Your HTML and CSS are both loaded with excess class selectors and
repeated properties, most of which is totally unnecessary and just adds
bloat, plus makes it a PITA to maintain, let alone debug. If your editor
is generating all that cruft, either make it stop or get a better editor.

--
Berg
now killing all posts from google groups

[Jonathan N. Little]

Re: Complex Menus

David Morris wrote:

And I recently had to get reading glasses for the first time. But why
is my web site suddenly unreadable and so different from others, and why
can't you (CTRL +) it too?

I can, but having to CTRL + and CTRL - every other site I visit is a
PITA whereas if all sites used

body {font-size: 100% }

this would be *totally* unnecessary. The font size would *always* be
*my* default whatever I choose for *my* default. And most importantly,
whatever your *users* default it. It is all about *relativity*.

body {font-size: 100% }

Means that the base of your page font size starts with the users base
default size and all other font sizes should be relativity to that base
and not any absolute value. That way user preference, hardware device,
DPI, resolution will not mater.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO

http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[David Morris]

Re: Complex Menus

Kevin Scholl wrote:

On Jun 12, 9:22 am, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
<a.nony.m...@ex ample.invalidwr ote:
>
percentage, ems, pixels, etc. And you know what? Not one time have I
gotten any negative feedback from testers or real users. Most users
know how to resize the text in their browsers, if they have need
to ... even in IE6. I just don't think it's such a big issue. Not a
moot point by any stretch, but no so earth-shattering as some people
think.

And I think you have nailed it. It is the real users that count.

[David Morris]

Re: Complex Menus

Bergamot wrote:

size is set in some browsers. To me, it looks like the page is screaming
because text is overly large. On top of that, the page has a

So I should make the font smaller?

[Bergamot]

Re: Complex Menus


David Morris wrote:

Bergamot wrote:

>size is set in some browsers. To me, it looks like the page is screaming
>because text is overly large. On top of that, the page has a

>
So I should make the font smaller?

Heavens, NO! You should stop using that ridiculous, convoluted clagnut
method of font sizing. *That* is the cause of the oversized text.

--
Berg

[David Morris]

Re: Complex Menus

Bergamot wrote:

David Morris wrote:

>Bergamot wrote:

>>size is set in some browsers. To me, it looks like the page is screaming
>>because text is overly large. On top of that, the page has a

>So I should make the font smaller?

>
Heavens, NO! You should stop using that ridiculous, convoluted clagnut
method of font sizing. *That* is the cause of the oversized text.
>

Ah, I think I have found an article that explains this all very clearly.
< http://tinyurl.com/boyuz >. ;)

[David Morris]

Re: Complex Menus

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:

yet you continue to debate the topic with those of us who have been
writing web pages for ten years. (Sorry, that's not meant to be harsh.)
>

Yes, strange isn't it...

Thank goodness I am not just a normal user. I would have no right to an
opinion at all then ...

cf <http://en.wikipedia.or g/wiki/Appeal_to_autho rity>.

[Bergamot]

Re: Complex Menus


David Morris wrote:

Bergamot wrote:

>David Morris wrote:

>>Bergamot wrote:
>>>To me, it looks like the page is screaming
>>>because text is overly large.
>>So I should make the font smaller?

>>
>Heavens, NO! You should stop using that ridiculous, convoluted clagnut
>method of font sizing. *That* is the cause of the oversized text.
>>

Ah, I think I have found an article that explains this all very clearly.
< http://tinyurl.com/boyuz >. ;)

No, you just don't get it.

http://www.bergamotus.ws/misc/sensible-css-text-sizing.html

clagnut is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen come from
dee-ziners.

--
Berg

[Jonathan N. Little]

Re: Complex Menus

David Morris wrote:

Bergamot wrote:

>David Morris wrote:

>>Bergamot wrote:
>>>size is set in some browsers. To me, it looks like the page is
>>>screaming
>>>because text is overly large. On top of that, the page has a
>>So I should make the font smaller?

>>
>Heavens, NO! You should stop using that ridiculous, convoluted clagnut
>method of font sizing. *That* is the cause of the oversized text.
>>

Ah, I think I have found an article that explains this all very clearly.
< http://tinyurl.com/boyuz >. ;)

No, clagnut is just wrong and based on flawed logic.

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO

http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

Re: Complex Menus

David Morris wrote:

Kevin Scholl wrote:

>On Jun 12, 9:22 am, "Beauregard T. Shagnasty"
><a.nony.m...@e xample.invalidw rote:
>[Beauregard did NOT write this. Please attribute correctly. Thanks.]

>percentage, ems, pixels, etc. And you know what? Not one time have I
>gotten any negative feedback from testers or real users. Most users
>know how to resize the text in their browsers, if they have need to
>... even in IE6. I just don't think it's such a big issue. Not a
>moot point by any stretch, but no so earth-shattering as some people
>think.

>
And I think you have nailed it. It is the real users that count.

I've never gotten any negative feedback from visitors, either. That
premise has been discussed in these groups numerous times. What is
likely to have happened is the visitor/user has simply hit the good old
Back button and gone to some other site.

It's what I do.

I'd have to be really pissed to bring up their contact form and write,
"Did you know the clagnut method is a really bad choice of design?" And
I still don't understand why you (an admitted new web designer) dispute
the advice of those of us who have been doing it for many years.

--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Windows

[David Morris]

Re: Complex Menus

Bergamot wrote:

David Morris wrote:

http://www.bergamotus.ws/misc/sensible-css-text-sizing.html

>

Ok I had a read of this, and I can see that you have a point with
Minimum Font size in FireFox - finally something I can actually see!
(For the first time here - everything else has just looked like an
emotional sound off, relatively devoid of content -- I am totally
unimpressed by "I know more than you, so do it my way sorts of arguments").

I now need to decide how many users have a minimum font size set high
enough for it to be a problem versus the more general it looks better
with smaller than 100% font size. BTW, I found Jakob Nielsen's font
selection too large (was he going for irony here?) and actually changed
it to smaller to make it more readable (which in my day to day browsing
I generally don't have to do).

Is this font size issue a swimming against the tide argument in the same
way I rail against the use of Javascript?

[dorayme]

Re: Complex Menus

In article <1213281762.343 625@angel.amnet .net.au>,
David Morris <dlmorrisDONTSP AM@netwizDONTSP AM.com.auwrote:

Then
along comes along a site set to 100% and it looks odd compared to others
(or you have to adjust your settings). Is this just a pragmatic versus
purity argument or am I really missing something here?

You are missing looking at the issue from a social or game theoretic
perspective. What is not a terrible thing for one or two individuals to
do is not necessarily without bad consequences if a great number of
people do the same.

The most rational thing to do for users who have widely differing ranges
of what they find comfortable to read is to leave it up to them. No one
disputes this much, neither you nor your present advisors. The question
is how best to allow them to do this without hindrance* while at the
same time causing the majority of users not to have to do anything
special for your site and, very important, contribute to a rational and
principled professional standard for website makers.

It is not a simple matter because it could be seen by you, reasonably
enough, to depend on settling various questions of fact: how many
websites are there that use less than 100% for body text? How have the
world's website users responded to the variations in their Option
settings?

To take an extreme case for illustrating a point: Suppose that 95% of
web authors make with 75% size. And this remains steady for a number of
years. And further suppose that each browser gets adjusted for its owner
to read this great majority of websites comfortably. Now, it would be
pretty daring for someone to advise you to use 100% in this world. The
text would simply be too big for most people and it would fall on deaf
ears to say that they should adjust *their* browsers rather than that
the authors should get with the crowd. Such advice would look too
radical and utopian.

However, the situation is not so bad! The battle may not have been lost
yet. There are many using 100%, not because it looks perfectly good to
most people but because it is the right thing to do to stop the
situation getting like the world sketched above. The whole point of 100%
is that it is a percentage of the normal setting for the browser and the
normal is whatever the owner is comfortable with.

If the world I sketched before were to come about then 75% would be the
normal. The figure would have lost its meaning! 75% of what? Of some
complicated thing that has a complicated history? 75% of what it was
when browsers first were made and before website developers mucked
things up by all going their own separate ways and herds forming to
change the very standard itself?

-------------------
* Obviously, setting fonts in pixels is bad because it makes it hard for
users of some browsers to operate text size choices of their own. In
Internet Explorer 6, for example, an online essay will simply not go up
in text size (from the View menu) if it is styled in pixels rather than
percentages or ems. So, this is a clear case of not leaving it to the
users. This is not to say it would be inappropriate to size (say, large)
text in pixels for decorative purposes; neither the author nor the user
is likely to feel a need for any variation.

--
dorayme

[Bergamot]

Re: Complex Menus


David Morris wrote:

Bergamot wrote:

http://www.bergamotus.ws/misc/sensible-css-text-sizing.html

>

Ok I had a read of this, and I can see that you have a point with
Minimum Font size in FireFox - finally something I can actually see!
>
I now need to decide how many users have a minimum font size set high
enough for it to be a problem versus the more general it looks better
with smaller than 100% font size.

No - you got it backwards.

Set body to font-size:100%. Period. If you insist on setting type size
to that 87% value, then set it on the content block. Period.

You end up with the exact same thing you apparently want and there are
none of the negative effects when a minimum font size or user stylesheet
is in use. Everybody wins. Nobody loses. With clagnut, some of us lose.
Why waste time analyzing how many of us are affected when there is a
risk-free alternative available, that is sooooo much simpler to manage
and maintain?

Is this font size issue a swimming against the tide argument in the same
way I rail against the use of Javascript?

body {font-size:100%} has been promoted as best practice by usability
and accessibility advocates for many years. Check the newsgroup archives
if you're that interested in its history.

--
Berg