[thelist] Site check please rocky-hills.com

[Scott Glasgow]

Felix Miata wrote:
> Scott Glasgow wrote Sun, 18 Sep 2005 01:38:04 -0400:
>
>> Felix Miata wrote:
<<::SNIP::>>

> Well if I inferred wrong I'm sorry, but your statement above that I
> was replying to was "that level of lack of visual acuity".

My remark quoted above was referring to user(s) who might have to zoom in 
four levels (as I had done in experimentation) in order to read the text on 
the site (the degree of zoom required before the physical layout of the site 
began to breakdown). As I stated following that statement, I feel that 
anyone whose visual acuity is that limited will probably be using reader or 
magnification software. I still believe that to be true.

>
> So, let me reconstruct the subthread to provide a complete context,

<<::SNIP extensive thread reconstruction::>>

> http://lists.evolt.org/archive/Week-of-Mon-20050912/175781.html]
> Glad to see your response; I was wondering if it was just me. I had
> to zoom in four times (Firefox) before serious layout degradation
> occurred, and the defaults looked just fine to me in FF, Opera, and
> IE. I would think that most users with that level of lack of visual
> acuity might be using either a reader or a magnifier in any event. I
> was also kinda curious as to how one designs _any_ layout that
> survives zoom to essentially any arbitrary level of magnification.
> Seems like the old "10 pounds in a 5 pound bag" problem, ya know.
> [end paste]
>
> Now that everyone can see in one place the entire portion of the
> subthread to which you replied (with attribution), what other
> inference than the one I made was possible for your meaning of "that
> level of lack
> of visual acuity"? Exactly what did you mean by "that level of lack of
> visual acuity"?
>

[Explained above]

> NAICT within the context of the subthread, is seems to me that your 4X
> zoom was an attempt to approximate the text size in my screenshot, in

No, as I explained above, I was zooming the page to see at what point *in my 
browser, at my settings* the layout began to break down. I made no reference 
to your screenshot, no did I even take it into consideration, as it was not 
material to what I was trying to determine.

<<::SNIP::>>

> While you're explaining, how exactly is it that a screenshot can be
> "asinine"? All any screenshot is is an opportunity for others to see

I will take this opportunity to admit that that statement was itself 
asinine. I regret having used the adjective and wish that I had edited the 
message more closely before sending it.

> exactly what someone else saw exactly as it was seen, albiet "exactly"
> requires that it be viewed on the same size display at the same
> resolution from the same distance to do so.
>
>>> The simple fact is that 12px (set on body in
>>> http://www.rocky-hills.com/sample/mfh/style.css) at 1792x1344
>>> resolution is less than half the size of typical newspaper front
>>> page copy on my 19" CRT and probably even also on a 22" CRT

The Web is not print, and readability comparisons between fonts and font 
sizes for transmissive media such as displays are not valid when compared to 
reflective media such as newsprint.

>>> display. Even at a much more common 1280 wide resolution 12px is
>>> far too small, making the page painful if stuck using IE
>
>> Well, plainly and simply, horsepucky. In my remark about visual
>> acuity I speak from some small experience. I'm in my mid-50's
>
> As I....
>
>> and have been wearing glasses for presbyopia for 10 years.
>
> ...have been doing considerably longer than 10 years.
>
>> I viewed the page at 1600 x 1200 on my
>> ThinkPad R50p's 15" LCD screen, in its native format and without any
>> zooming, and it was sharp, clear, and entirely legible.
>
> Well then your definition of "entirely legible" isn't the same as
> everyone else's. Neither does your reply refer to any comfort level,

Nor did I attempt to say that it was the same as anyone else's. In fact, I 
had taken pains to establish my own (less than ideal) level of visual acuity 
and then simply stated that *I* viewed the page and found it sharp, clear, 
and legible. If anyone inferred that I meant that everyone else would find 
it so, the problem lay in their inference from my statement, not in what I 
said.

> which is a better measure of user experience than legibility level.
> Best comfort level should be the same size as the user preference,
> which should in turn be the same as the browser preference setting.
> By setting text size in px you ensure that a user can experience his
> maximum comfort level only as a matter of chance.
>

I'm truly not sure just what you mean here. Perhaps I should have said 
"sharp, clear, and comfortably legible," which is in fact how I found it to 
be. Sharpness, clarity, and legibility to me imply comfort in reading. As is 
the case with any implication, you are free to take a different inference 
from that description. I did not feel it necessary to add the term 
"comfortably" to my evaluation of viewing the page at the settings normally 
used on my systems.

> Here's a screenshot that should be really close to what you saw on
> your laptop, but using the actual DPI of 1600x1200 on a true 15"
> diagonal display of approximately 133, which makes the pt sized UI
> controls
> larger than the 96 DPI doze standard or the 120 DPI "large font"
> option that high resolution laptops typically have enabled by their
> manufacturers: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/rocky3.png . When I view
> that image on a 16" true diagonal display (the smallest display I have
> connected to anything here ATM), I measure the capital letters in the
> center paragraph to be 1.5mm tall. Compare that to the superior
> letterforms of front page newspaper copy (St Petersbug Times is
> 2.5mm). While it may be "entirely legible" by pasting my nose up
> close enough to the display, 60% of the height of newspaper copy is
> far from
> comfortable. For reference, I quit buying newspapers several years ago
> because their 2.0mm-2.5mm copy was just too tiring to deal with.
>

Then you are making a subjective evaluation based upon your own level visual 
acuity. That's OK, since you've made it clear that that is your criterion. 
But that does not mean that your evaluation of readability will be 
applicable to others.

Quite frankly, I can say honestly that I have never measured the physical 
height of display characters. I can't imagine a circumstance in which I 
would, in fact, since such a measurement would apply only to *my* display, 
using *my* display adapter, and would be meaningless in any other context.

And again, the Web is not print and comparisons to Web font sizes or pixel 
densities are irrelevant.

<<::SNIP::>>

I appears that we will simply have to agree to disagree. I have no brief 
with those who would strive for the objectives you espouse, should they wish 
to do so. I simply do not agree that there is only one approach to design or 
to accessibility objectives, nor that if there were "one best way," yours is 
necessarily it. Having worked recently on two very large projects for IBM, 
spanning 18 months, I can attest that the needs, limitations, expectations, 
budgets, and demands of the client frequently obviate the possibility of 
approaching Web development in the way that you propose everyone should.

In an ideal world, every browser would be 100% standards-compliant, 
accessibility flexibility would be built into the standards, and producing 
fully-compliant, fully-accessible sites would be simply a matter of adhering 
to the available standards when designing pages. Unfortunately, no single 
browser is 100% compliant, standards themselves are not 100% internally 
consistent, and accessibility requirements are late-comers to the Web scene, 
with all of the integration difficulties of such features which come with 
being "tacked on" to semi-standard standards a decade following their 
initial establishment.

Hew to your somewhat absolutist principles, if you wish. But please try to 
avoid berating others who do not agree with your approach, or who are 
constrained by time, budget, client expectations, etc. from doing so.

Cheers,
Scott