On 2007/09/05 09:19 (GMT-0700) Hassan Schroeder apparently typed: > I found this article >http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/custom/modernlife/bal-ml.boomer17jun17,0,5613476.story > regarding the increasing availability of large-print books, which > says in part:
> According to Lighthouse International (a group that helps > people deal with loss of vision), 17 percent of Americans > 45 and older have some form of visual impairment. > In 2010, all boomers will have reached that milestone birthday > -- a group of about 20 million -- and most will be feeling the > effects of presbyopia, the inability to focus on objects close > up. (By the time we hit our 40s or 50s, the elasticity of the > eye naturally decreases with age, and our close-up sight is > affected.) Lighthouse as more to say than just that: http://www.lighthouse.org/accessibility/ > OK, fine -- but reading a hand-held paperback book and reading a > screen a couple of feet away seem very different to me, for lots > of reasons. > So my question is: do we *know* that this applies to reading text > /on a computer screen/? Not "guess", not "believe", *know*. Maybe something like this? http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/2S/font.htm And as additional answer to issue of aging boomers: http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/3W/fontSR.htm > Personally, I find 16px text far too large for comfortable reading. That may well be, but you haven't said anything meaningful about how big that actually is. I find anything less than 24px too small for comfortable reading. To know how big 16px or 24px is requires knowing: 1-screen size 2-screen resolution 3-viewing distance Plus, there are factors besides size that affect reading comfort, such as contrast, leading, and line length. Had you written 12pt rather than 16px, one might assume that your system had a properly adjusted DPI and consequently that 12pt really meant 12pt, a physical size, and thus meaningful. Even so, without knowing your viewing distance, we still don't know the apparent size. This is why web pages need "top down" (100% based) contruction. > And before anyone pulls out the "dang whippersnappers" card, I'm 60 > years old and I've worn eyeglasses for most of 'em. :-) I'm less than that, and find 16px generally very uncomfortable or even impossible to read, depending on time of day and how tired my eyes are from squinting at mousetype, and how tired my back is from leaning forward to try to see enough to decide whether to hit my overworked zoom keys once more, or hit the back button or X the tab. > Citations of actual research would contribute more to the discussion > than unsubstantiated opinion -- IMHO! Here's where 16px (actually, 12pt) came from: http://blogs.msdn.com/fontblog/archive/2005/11/08/490490.aspx Note that it happened many many years ago when average screen DPI was much much lower than it is now. 16px isn't as big as it used to be. http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/bigdefaults.html Note also the empirical evidence that how most web pages style fonts is wrong: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html -- "It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape." Chief Justice Joseph Story Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
