[thelist] [Site Review] Gemsnjewelry.com

Shawn K. Quinn skquinn at frogger.kicks-ass.net
Thu Jun 26 16:41:36 CDT 2003


On Thursday June 26 2003 16:21, Jeff Howden wrote:
> shawn,
>
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > From: Shawn K. Quinn
> >
> > > naw, i didn't forget.  it's for the footer text.  i
> > > don't like how small it is when set to 75% and the
> > > user's font settings are at small or smaller. the
> > > difference in size isn't really though much between
> > > medium and large and larger so i don't see any real
> > > gain from using a relative size.  so, 10px it'll
> > > stay.
> >
> > The problem with this is it's not user-friendly.
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>
> and it also isn't a necessity to be able to read it to use the site.

It's still user-hostile and a bad habit to get into.

> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > What if the rest of the text is 6px (very possible on
> > hand-held units)? Is it really your intent that the
> > footer might be *larger* than the rest of the text?
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>
> the rest of the text isn't going to be 6px, even on a handheld unit. 
> why? well, because it takes a minimum of 7 pixels 

7 pixels doesn't have to be 7px. It could be 6px or even 5px.

> to render characters of the alphabet so they're legible.  besides, 
>if it's on a unit that scales the fonts down that much, it's likely
> that a) the unit doesn't understand css making this moot 

How do you know?

> and b) if it does, it'll just render the text smaller anyway.
>
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > It's also quite possible that on a very high-res screen,
> > 10px is nearly illegible.
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>
> possible, but simply not true, unless it's an absolutely enormous
> resolution.  i'm running 1600x1280 on a 15" flat screen and it's
> plenty legible for me.

And all your users have vision at least as good as yours, right?

> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > You might want to take a look at
> > <URL:http://css.nu/faq/ciwas-aFAQ.html#QA02>.
> ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
>
> that faq contains arguments* that are reasonable for body text, but
> hardly relevant to legalese type stuff that you find in a footer. 
> something that needs to be understood is that arguments for relative
> vs absolute font sizes is not a blanket statement.  relative sizes
> are good in most cases, but not in all.

There are two cases I know of in which absolute font sizes make some 
sense. One is in a user (not author) style sheet. The other is in a 
stylesheet for print (not screen display).

> again, i fail to see how using 75% makes it any better than it
> currently is. if anything, i think it makes it worse.  it makes the
> text about 8px at small and an unreadable 7px at smaller.  At medium
> (the default), renders the text at the same 10px i've chosen to
> specify instead of the percentage. however, changing the text size in
> the browser to large or larger (there's no difference) results in a
> negligible change to 11px.  the almost indistinquishable change in
> size between medium and larger doesn't make it worth it to risk the
> text being completely illegible at smaller or smaller.

Some browsers actually let you change the font size to more than just 
one of "smaller", "small", "medium", "large", and "larger". With my 
usual browser, for example, I can have 72 point default text if I want 
it.

If 75% might be too small, maybe try 80% or 85%?

> * (no supporting evidence is included with the arguments, some of
> which are quite outdated)

Which arguments would these be?

-- 
Shawn K. Quinn



More information about the thelist mailing list