Martin Heiden, starting a new thread, wrote Mon, 20 Feb 2006 11:14:13 +0100: > I read a lot of threads about font-sizing lately, but I still did > not catch the point of best practice yet.
Among designers, I don't think you'll ever find a consensus on what it is. Among usability and accessibility experts, I'll think you'll find them pretty unanimous in saying in essence don't mess with user defaults. Don't expect all the latter to practice what they preach though. > On the other hand, I don't know anyone who changed the default > font-size in his/her browser, As Lachlan Hunt wrote shortly after you asked, how many have is irrelevant. There's not only the issue of not knowing how many have, but also of not knowing how many knowing that they could and how to do it wouldn't change anything anyway, or at least, not the same as the designer would. > but lot's of people (mostly designers) > who prefer smaller font-sizes. It may be a high proportion of web designers who do, little short of 100% it seems, but they constitute but a small fraction of people using the web. OTOH, I'll bet as a group they use larger than average computer displays to do their work, and also as a group, they don't have worse than average vision. > Well, the question is: Which group of people is more important? Or I prefer to prefer those who have to use a site over those who simply own it. Generally there are far more of the former than the latter. > better: Is there a way to please both groups? I don't think you can dichotomize into only two groups. I think you have to determine on your own what the "right thing to do" is based upon what you know and can readily learn, what you're trying to do, and who you're trying to do it for. We know some things, we have a gut feeling for some things, and we speculate about other things. As it happens, there have been published studies that show what web users prefer in size, and there's no correlation between the results of those studies and the text size on the average web site other than the average web site having smaller size text (typically 7.5-10pt) than the studies show users want (~12pt on average, larger among seniors). Here's my definition of user default-based (subject to adjustment for things I forget about): A-relative sizes only, either keywords, % or em, plus pt at 11.0 or above may be considered when a close correlation between onscreen and printed is highly desirable; subject to exceptions below B-text smaller than CSS small permitted only for: superscripts, subscripts, math equations, copyright notices, "footers" (except for contact information), captions for very small images, and very small blocks of "fine print". In addition, pt may be specified at 8.0 or above when printed output is particularly important. C-text smaller than medium but no smaller than CSS small permitted only for: large blocks of "fine print", navlists/menus, breadcrumbs, captions for small images, necessarily wide code blocks, very large tables of numerical data, selects, contact information in "footers", headings for items in B above. In addition, pt may be specified for these items at 9.5pt or above when printed output is particularly important. D-notwithstanding B & C, examples of particular text sizes may be whatever size the demonstration attempts to show, and incidental text in images not meant to be read may be considered as just a portion of the image instead of real text. E-high contrast color scheme suitable for people with common manifestations of color blindness. F-As font-family interplays heavily with font-size, a non-generic font-family may not be specified for main content paragraphs unless its x-height is common-web-font-average or more. This means none of the common Times families are large enough. Specifying no font-family at all for main content paragraphs is preferable. Specifying Times New Roman at 1em is roughly equivalent to .8em to someone whose default is Verdana. http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/tmp/test.html Here's what I know: 1-When you don't design user default-based, you're guaranteed to displease the unknowable non-zero number of those who have affirmatively adjusted their settings according to their preferences/requirements for pages that respect their settings. 2-When you don't design user default-based, you're virtually guaranteed to displease the unknowable non-zero number of those who find the hand they were dealt acceptable. This includes many in corporate environments where the sysadmins have preconfigured all systems to something other than factory settings, and many users of windoze systems set by the vendor or manufacturer to settings other than the traditional doze defaults of 96 DPI and 800x600. 3-When you don't design user default-based, the number and character of those who find your design perfectly acceptable will exclude the two groups above, and otherwise be a random and unknowable number that includes many who really don't care one way or another, unlikely to ever give anyone any feedback about your design. Here's what I suspect: 1-The people paying the designers and web carpenters mostly have little or no clue of the ramifications of their choices of what they want in a site, and rarely actually use them themselves. Most of the few who do actually use them will not admit to anyone when they find their own site difficult, because this would be an expensive admission of a mistake in the line of duty. 2-The designers and web carpenters, being largely artists and detail oriented, are mostly less than stellar in the sales and educating clients skill departments. -- "Love your neighbor as yourself." Mark 12:31 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/auth ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
