On 2010/05/19 09:12 (GMT-0400) David Eisner composed: > On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Felix Miata <mrma...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Not even close. Arguably it's attractive, as long as you don't actually need >> to use it or read anything on it. Pray your eyes are as good as a 15 year old >> or you aren't using a high resolution device to access it if so. > I like the new design. I'm not particularly young, and I don't have a > particularly fancy monitor. I do wear glasses, though. Many people, regardless of age, even with correction, don't see particularly well, but quite well enough to use web pages that respect their defaults. These aren't the only people now being disrespected. All, regardless of eyesight, should be respected. Web designers as a group either don't understand the meaning of that word, or don't think it a necessary part of designing for the web. http://fm.no-ip.com/Inet/shame.html > The CSS sizes the fonts in px, though, which is a problem. Exactly. > The issue > isn't that your monitor has too low a resolution, it's that it's "too" > high. Hogwash: 1-The technology to design web pages with resolution independence is more than a decade old. http://fm.no-ip.com/Auth/Sites/Ksc/ is a very simple example of how it can be done. Apply zoom, or change your default larger or smaller to see how well it can work. 2-High resolution == high quality. Therefore, higher resolution _should_ mean a higher quality web experience. Web fonts are famous for marginal to poor quality. That lack of quality is proportional to DPI. The higher the DPI, the higher the quality, as each character of any given physical size has more px to be rendered with. My default of 24px has nominally 576 px per character, compared to samba's 13px at nominal 169px, which is several orders of magnitude higher quality. 3-A major reason still higher resolution isn't widely available yet is the usability factor. Web pages and software are still being designed as if people were using display hardware manufactured two decades ago. Were page and software designers incorporating resolution independence, even more advanced (still higher DPI) hardware to take advantage of it would be here already. IOW, hardware technology is being held back by anachronistic software and web page design. > Have you tried Ctrl-+ a few times? Of course. But it's necessary on virtually every page, because virtually every page is designed either without regard to user defaults (in px), or by setting some base size at a fraction of the defaults (assuming the defaults are incorrectly set "too large"). Both behaviors (without regard, and assuming wrongly large) are offensive. Ctrl-+ (and minimum font size) are _defensive_ features provided by browser makers. Absent an offense, a defense needn't be applied. Poor legibility, caused primarily by too small fonts, besides being offensive, is a widespread usability problem: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
