E-mail List Archives

You are here: Home > Community > E-mail List Archives > View Thread

Thread: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)

Number of posts in this thread: 74 (In chronological order)

From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Tue, Jan 10 2006 3:40PM
Subject: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
No previous message | Next message →

> Is it useful to users to make them learn to use _your_
> widget, as opposite to learning ways that work on the
> billions of pages on the Web?

In my experience, Yes.

They are at least aware of my widget. They often have no idea about the
web browser preferences/tools to enable that functionality.

And if the widget is made well, it can accommodate the untrained user
and not interfere with the trained one.

-Darrel

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Tue, Jan 10 2006 6:20PM
Subject: Re: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

Malcolm Wotton wrote:

> But they're not :(

So pressure needs to be applied to browser manufacturers. We're getting
WCAG 2.0 and ATAG 2.0 ... where's UAAG 2.0? Why do web developers have
to shoulder the burden once again?

> remember that nearly all web
> standards were once innovations by software developers or site designers.
> While I am in favour of standards, I am also in favour of innovation, and it
> seems to me that this innovation (if implemented well) does not degrade the
> experience for anyone, if anything it draws attention to the fact that fonts
> can be resized.

Innovation? You call a workaround to compensate for bad browser UI (and,
at the time when text resize widgets first came out, a means to use
pixel based text sizes and let IE users resize them anyway) an innovation?

--
Patrick H. Lauke
___________
re

From: Malcolm Wotton
Date: Tue, Jan 10 2006 9:00PM
Subject: RE: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

Chris Heilmann said
> it. If the browser controls were be more obvious -

But they're not :(

in my experience there is is a developing iconography for Font Resizers, if
you see a graphic 'A' in a box it generally represents a font feature, this
is reinforced if there are a range of similar icons at different sizes.

so in a practical world what's more accessible? remember that nearly all web
standards were once innovations by software developers or site designers.
While I am in favour of standards, I am also in favour of innovation, and it
seems to me that this innovation (if implemented well) does not degrade the
experience for anyone, if anything it draws attention to the fact that fonts
can be resized.

Malcolm

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Wed, Jan 11 2006 12:00AM
Subject: Re: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

Patrick H. Lauke wrote:

> Innovation? You call a workaround to compensate for bad browser UI (and,
> at the time when text resize widgets first came out, a means to use
> pixel based text sizes and let IE users resize them anyway) an innovation?

Meant to add: it's a stop-gap solution at best...a workaround, a hack.
But certainly not an innovation...

--
Patrick H. Lauke
___________
re

From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Wed, Jan 11 2006 1:00AM
Subject: Re: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

> > Is it useful to users to make them learn to use _your_
> > widget, as opposite to learning ways that work on the
> > billions of pages on the Web?
>
> In my experience, Yes.
>
> They are at least aware of my widget. They often have no idea about the
> web browser preferences/tools to enable that functionality.
>
> And if the widget is made well, it can accommodate the untrained user
> and not interfere with the trained one.

That is a bit narcistic IMHO. Yes, your site might be more accessible
to that user, but there is no repeat learning experience coming from
it. If the browser controls were be more obvious - especially in MSIE
- this whole thing wouldn't be a problem at all.

--
Chris Heilmann
Blog: http://www.wait-till-i.com
Writing: http://icant.co.uk/
Binaries: http://www.onlinetools.org/

From: L
Date: Wed, Jan 11 2006 3:00AM
Subject: RE: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

Darrel Austin wrote:

"> Is it useful to users to make them learn to use _your_ widget, as
> opposite to learning ways that work on the billions of pages on the
> Web?

In my experience, Yes.

They are at least aware of my widget. They often have no idea about the web browser preferences/tools to enable that functionality."

Then why not provide the user with the information they need to use their browser fully, and give them the knowledge to make changes beyond the boundaries of your own web site?

A few simple instructions will serve the user far better than an individual mechanism on an individual site.

Regards,
Tink.

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Austin, Darrel
Sent: Tuesday, 10 January 2006 20:47
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: Font Resizers (WAS RE: [WebAIM] back to top)

> Is it useful to users to make them learn to use _your_ widget, as
> opposite to learning ways that work on the billions of pages on the
> Web?

In my experience, Yes.

They are at least aware of my widget. They often have no idea about the web browser preferences/tools to enable that functionality.

And if the widget is made well, it can accommodate the untrained user and not interfere with the trained one.

-Darrel

From: Penny Roberts
Date: Wed, Jan 11 2006 3:40AM
Subject: Re: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

Christian Heilmann wrote:

> Let's not forget that a font resizing widget only comes into
> consideration if your type is not big enough. So why not solve that
> problem, it is so much easier.

That isn't the case. Some people need a font far bigger than most of us
would be comfortable with.

Penny

From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Wed, Jan 11 2006 4:20AM
Subject: Re: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

> there are occasions where it is. For some examples consider what you would
> do to make www.csszengarden.com accessible.

Actually I tried that: http://www.csstoolshed.com :-)

--
Chris Heilmann
Blog: http://www.wait-till-i.com
Writing: http://icant.co.uk/
Binaries: http://www.onlinetools.org/

From: Patrick Lauke
Date: Wed, Jan 11 2006 5:00AM
Subject: RE: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

> Malcolm Wotton

> Patrick H. Lauke said
>
> > Why do web developers have
> > to shoulder the burden once again?
>
> Because browser developers do not care about your website and
> never will,

Did I say *my* website? I'm advocating a feature that will work on *all* sites, and that's the point...

> Perhaps you should ask why we want accessibility, to be
> brutally honest for
> websites I run it is not because I have a significant user
> population that
> need the features, it is because I want to be able to say to
> sponsors it is
> accessible.

Same thing applied to browsers: being able to say "the most user friendly browser".

P
________________________________
Patrick H. Lauke
Web Editor / University of Salford
http://www.salford.ac.uk
________________________________
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
________________________________

From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Wed, Jan 11 2006 5:40AM
Subject: Re: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

> > Let's not forget that a font resizing widget only comes into
> > consideration if your type is not big enough. So why not solve that
> > problem, it is so much easier.
>
> That isn't the case. Some people need a font far bigger than most of us
> would be comfortable with.

That still does not prove that there is a need for a font sizing
widget on your site, if anything it proves that you should leave it to
the browser to deal with that issue.

--
Chris Heilmann
Blog: http://www.wait-till-i.com
Writing: http://icant.co.uk/
Binaries: http://www.onlinetools.org/

From: Penny Roberts
Date: Wed, Jan 11 2006 6:20AM
Subject: Re: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

Patrick Lauke wrote:
>>Penny Roberts
>
>
>>That isn't the case. Some people need a font far bigger than
>>most of us
>>would be comfortable with.
>
>
> But would they just need it on *your* site, or would they not need it across all sites,

> and even across all their other applications and system dialogs etc? That's one of the
>
> things I had a bit of a discussion with Joe Clark over a while ago: having a "zoom text"
>
> stylesheet with very large fonts wouldn't really serve users who need large type, as
>
> they'd already have their system's default font size set to be large enough to be
>
> comfortable, have their resolution set to 800x600 or smaller, or would already be using
>
> a screen magnifier. Same with providing an inverted colours sheet...if you need it,
>
> you'd have your entire OS set to show high contrast/inverted, and your browser set to
>
> ignore author defined colours.

That only works if the user is always at their own system. Our public
workstations are (deliberately) set up so that settings cannot be
changed. We also have PCs used by numerous members of staff so each
member of staff would have to reset to their own preference every time.
It just isn't practical.

Penny

From: Malcolm Wotton
Date: Wed, Jan 11 2006 7:00AM
Subject: RE: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

Patrick H. Lauke said

> Why do web developers have
> to shoulder the burden once again?

Because browser developers do not care about your website and never will,
they only care about market share. The driver for browser developers is
market share, features are only a factor in as much as it drives that.
Anecdotally it seems tabbed browsing (a la Firefox) is such a feature, I
don't believe font resizing will be.

Perhaps you should ask why we want accessibility, to be brutally honest for
websites I run it is not because I have a significant user population that
need the features, it is because I want to be able to say to sponsors it is
accessible.

So for me any design features I can add that increase the value of the site
are valid, it just so happens that in the current climate accessibility is
valuable. Also for features like the icons, the appearance of accessibility
is more important than actual accessibility.

I know that sounds brutalm and I do believe in accessibility and I am
putting accessibility features in, but I do want to stress this has a
commercial element not just an altruistic.

Malcolm

From: Malcolm Wotton
Date: Wed, Jan 11 2006 7:40AM
Subject: RE: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

Christian wrote

> Let's not forget that a font resizing widget only comes into
> consideration if your type is not big enough. So why not solve that
> problem, it is so much easier.

Of course and I'll also give them a button to upgrade to a 20in monitor as
well ;) I know in the accessibility world changing the design is part of the
everyday business of accessibility, but changing the design is also a
compromise (ie a reduced visual impact for some). I agree the compromise is
often worth it (and actually in some cases it's no compromise at all). BUT
there are occasions where it is. For some examples consider what you would
do to make www.csszengarden.com accessible.

Malcolm

From: Penny Roberts
Date: Wed, Jan 11 2006 8:20AM
Subject: Re: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

Christian Heilmann wrote:
>>>Let's not forget that a font resizing widget only comes into
>>>consideration if your type is not big enough. So why not solve that
>>>problem, it is so much easier.
>>
>>That isn't the case. Some people need a font far bigger than most of us
>>would be comfortable with.
>
>
> That still does not prove that there is a need for a font sizing
> widget on your site, if anything it proves that you should leave it to
> the browser to deal with that issue.

That only works for people who can and/or will use the browser's
functions. Like it or not there are people who will never learn to do
things with the browser.

Penny

From: Patrick Lauke
Date: Wed, Jan 11 2006 8:34AM
Subject: RE: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

> Cheryl D Wise

> Because what is big enough varies?

1em, and leave it up to the user's particular OS/browser settings.

> Frankly, I find browsing
> on my father's
> computer painful the fonts are so large.

But is that *all* the fonts (including the OS, menus, etc) or just the size he has set for viewing web sites?

> yet when working on my computer

So, as mentioned before, it's a user settings issue. Your father's machine is set up for his needs, your machine is set up for yours. But it goes beyond mere web pages and to the entirety of the GUI, presumably?

> I tend to bump up the text size on close to half the sites I visit.

Because half the sites you visit have set their text size below your preferred (set) size (i.e. less than 1em).

> No one size fits all.

Provided that users set their environment to be right for them, yes...one size (filtered through the user preferences) *does* fit all. But again, not all users can make changes to the environment they're forced to use (as Penny's case demonstrates...locked down open access machines and machines shared by many users, but with a single username/password?) ... or, which brings us back to the crux of the argument, most users don't know how to set up their environment. In an ideal world, all our sites' body copy would be set to 1em, and people who find that too big would just set their environment to default to a smaller size *for them*, rather than getting web designers to make *their* site 0.7em or whatever). Also, in this fictitious world, the OS/browser would be a snap to adapt to different user needs (associated with a preferences/capabilities profile that users would be carrying around with them on a USB drive, so that wherever they were they'd just plug it in and have the current machine adapt to their settings). Oops...sorry, ended up in utopia there for a second...

P
________________________________
Patrick H. Lauke
Web Editor / University of Salford
http://www.salford.ac.uk
________________________________
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
________________________________

From: Cheryl D Wise
Date: Wed, Jan 11 2006 8:34AM
Subject: RE: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

Because what is big enough varies? Frankly, I find browsing on my father's
computer painful the fonts are so large. And that's without my reading
glasses. However due to diabetes related eye damages, that's what he needs
to read the screen. Even then the length of time he can read a computer
screen is limited.

yet when working on my computer I tend to bump up the text size on close to
half the sites I visit. Designing sites is a balancing act between competing
"needs". No one size fits all.

Cheryl D Wise
http://wiserways.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Christian Heilmann

Let's not forget that a font resizing widget only comes into consideration
if your type is not big enough. So why not solve that problem, it is so much
easier.

From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Wed, Jan 11 2006 8:34AM
Subject: Re: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

> > Why do web developers have
> > to shoulder the burden once again?
>
> Because browser developers do not care about your website and never will,
> they only care about market share. The driver for browser developers is
> market share, features are only a factor in as much as it drives that.
> Anecdotally it seems tabbed browsing (a la Firefox) is such a feature, I
> don't believe font resizing will be.

Let's not forget that a font resizing widget only comes into
consideration if your type is not big enough. So why not solve that
problem, it is so much easier.

From: Patrick Lauke
Date: Wed, Jan 11 2006 8:34AM
Subject: RE: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

> Penny Roberts

> That isn't the case. Some people need a font far bigger than
> most of us
> would be comfortable with.

But would they just need it on *your* site, or would they not need it across all sites, and even across all their other applications and system dialogs etc? That's one of the things I had a bit of a discussion with Joe Clark over a while ago: having a "zoom text" stylesheet with very large fonts wouldn't really serve users who need large type, as they'd already have their system's default font size set to be large enough to be comfortable, have their resolution set to 800x600 or smaller, or would already be using a screen magnifier. Same with providing an inverted colours sheet...if you need it, you'd have your entire OS set to show high contrast/inverted, and your browser set to ignore author defined colours.

Patrick
________________________________
Patrick H. Lauke
Web Editor / University of Salford
http://www.salford.ac.uk
________________________________
Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force
http://webstandards.org/
________________________________

From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Wed, Jan 11 2006 8:34AM
Subject: Re: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

> yet when working on my computer I tend to bump up the text size on close to
> half the sites I visit. Designing sites is a balancing act between competing
> "needs". No one size fits all.

And that is why browsers have the option to resize fonts, and without
any limitations. Who are we to say that our "big" font in our own
widgets is enough?

By the way, it is a good idea to quote above the answer, makes it
easier to grasp what the context of the answer is.

From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Wed, Jan 11 2006 8:50AM
Subject: RE: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

> Let's not forget that a font resizing widget only comes into
> consideration if your type is not big enough.

Not necessarily true. I often have to downsize fonts to make it more
readable for myself. Granted, that is less likely than having fonts too
small.

Even so, until browser manfucturers agree on sane default sizes,
designers agree on sane page sizes, browsers agree to make font resizing
more intuitive, and users start understanding and wanting to tweak their
own browser preferences, and operating system developers begin making
screen rendering resolution dependant, we're going to have this issue of
not being able to please everyone with one font size solution.

> So why not
> solve that problem, it is so much easier.

Because it isn't. ;o)

-Darrel

From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Wed, Jan 11 2006 9:00AM
Subject: RE: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

> And that is why browsers have the option to resize fonts, and
> without any limitations.

> 1em, and leave it up to the user's particular OS/browser settings.

Patrick/Christian:

Your arguments all make sense and are 100% true but only with one major
*if*: the end user has to be both aware AND willing to set up their
browser to their own preferenecs.

As much as I'd like to think that's the case, more often than not, my
observation shows that very, very few folks are aware of it, or even
care. This includes my dad, my mom, my wife, and all my co-workers, who
are mostly programmers or IT analysts. Yes, a small sampling. So if
anyone has done any larger observations, please let me know. ;o)

The issue with font sizing on the web has a LOT of gotchas:

- browser default sizes are arbitrary, and for some folks, actually too
big.
- not every site set's the font size to 100% so there is inconsistency
there.
- screen resolution AND dimensions completely change the size of the
type.
- using a lapto vs. your desktop can change the perceived size of the
type.
- some folks take the time to set up their favorite font size
- many folks do not take the time to set up their favorite font size
- some OSes have font size/rendering preferences as well
- etc

There is no *right* answer. In fact pretty much all the comments in this
thread are fine answers.

For our new site, this is our answer:

- implement a font resizer. Default to .8em. Allow folks to adjust
up/down from that.
- allow people to turn off the font resizer completely and have the
site obey the browser's 100% preference setting.

Is it the right answer? No. Just one of many. ;o)

-Darrel

From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Wed, Jan 11 2006 9:10AM
Subject: RE: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

> Then why not provide the user with the information they
> need to use their browser fully, and give them the knowledge
> to make changes beyond the boundaries of your own web site?'

Because they don't care. They are on my site to get whatever info they
want as fast as they can and they're not going to want to jump through
hoops to be able to read it. When people visit places (online or
otherwise) they're (usually) not looking for lectures on the proper way
to do whatever they want to do...they just want what they want and to be
able to get on with it.

> A few simple instructions will serve the user far
> better than an individual mechanism on an individual site.

Have you ever tought a computer course? Have to spend a half our
explaining the concept of right-clicking? Another half hour of cut and
paste? ;o)

To be fair, on our new site, we likely will explain how to do this via
your browser as well on an ACCESSIBILITY INFO page, but as far as the
interface on each individual page, we're going to make the font resizer
as simple and intuitive as we can./

-Darrel

From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Wed, Jan 11 2006 9:30AM
Subject: RE: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

> > That isn't the case. Some people need a font far bigger
> than most of
> > us would be comfortable with.
>
> That still does not prove that there is a need for a font
> sizing widget on your site, if anything it proves that you
> should leave it to the browser to deal with that issue.

Except that browsers are stupid. They have no idea what font size I need
unless I tell them. And until people start figuring out that they should
tell their browser this information, the font resizing widget serves a
purpose.

> I had a bit of a discussion with Joe Clark over a while ago:
> having a "zoom text" stylesheet with very large fonts
> wouldn't really serve users who need large type, as they'd
> already have their system's default font size set to be large
> enough to be comfortable

True. But their computer might be sitting at home. Or maybe they don't
have one. Many folks might be accessing your site on the road at a hotel
kiosk, a library, at school, on a shared work machine, coffee shop,
cybercafe, friend's laptop, Mom's house, etc., etc.

-Darrel

From: L
Date: Wed, Jan 11 2006 10:00AM
Subject: RE: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

Darrel Austin wrote:

"> Then why not provide the user with the information they need to use
> their browser fully, and give them the knowledge to make changes
> beyond the boundaries of your own web site?'

Because they don't care. They are on my site to get whatever info they want as fast as they can and they're not going to want to jump through hoops to be able to read it."

This may possibly be true, but half the trouble we, as users, face with web site design is the collective assumptions people make about our abilities, requirements and wishes.

I don't doubt that many people will prefer an "easy option", but equally I believe that some people will be interested to discover that their browser has this functionality. I also know, from anecdotal evidence, that many people are confused by the ability to alter the display of a web site by interacting with the site itself.

Changing font size within the browser is not difficult. At best it's a couple of clicks or key presses. It is remarkable to me that we can accept that a user can turn on the computer, fire up an application, enter a URL, often manually, negotiate through links, web forms and much more, yet we believe that they are unwilling or unable to learn how to take a couple of short steps to make all of the above considerably easier.

Regards,
Tink.

From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Wed, Jan 11 2006 10:10AM
Subject: RE: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

> Changing font size within the browser is not difficult.
> At best it's a couple of clicks or key presses. It is
> remarkable to me that we can accept that a user can turn on
> the computer, fire up an application, enter a URL, often
> manually, negotiate through links, web forms and much more,
> yet we believe that they are unwilling or unable to learn how
> to take a couple of short steps to make all of the above
> considerably easier.

It's not a matter of believing. It's a matter of observation. There
isn't any faith involved here.

And it's not a matter of they can't...it's a matter of what their
priorities are.

I know I shouldn't eat ice cream and cake, and I know the grocery store
could quickly point out some healthier alternatives, but, ya know what?
I want my cake and I want it now so just let me pay for it and stop
bugging me. ;o)

So, by all means, I think it's a good idea to point things out to
people. "If you are using this site, stop using Internet Explorer and
instead go download Firefox. Now open this site up and go to Tools >>
Customize, etc, etc, and then come back and read the site!" But I also
realize not everyone is going to read and/or do that, so why not also
give them the option on the page as well? I'm not seeing this as an
either/or issue, really. Both would seem to work fine together.

-Darrel

From: L
Date: Wed, Jan 11 2006 10:30AM
Subject: RE: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

Darrel Austin wrote:

"I know I shouldn't eat ice cream and cake, and I know the grocery store could quickly point out some healthier alternatives, but, ya know what?
I want my cake and I want it now so just let me pay for it and stop bugging me. ;o)"

LOL. OK, you got me on that one :-)

Regards,
Tink.
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Austin, Darrel
Sent: Wednesday, 11 January 2006 17:09
To: WebAIM Discussion List
Subject: RE: Font Resizers (WAS RE: [WebAIM] back to top)

> Changing font size within the browser is not difficult.
> At best it's a couple of clicks or key presses. It is remarkable to me
> that we can accept that a user can turn on the computer, fire up an
> application, enter a URL, often manually, negotiate through links, web
> forms and much more, yet we believe that they are unwilling or unable
> to learn how to take a couple of short steps to make all of the above
> considerably easier.

It's not a matter of believing. It's a matter of observation. There isn't any faith involved here.

And it's not a matter of they can't...it's a matter of what their priorities are.

I know I shouldn't eat ice cream and cake, and I know the grocery store could quickly point out some healthier alternatives, but, ya know what?
I want my cake and I want it now so just let me pay for it and stop bugging me. ;o)

So, by all means, I think it's a good idea to point things out to people. "If you are using this site, stop using Internet Explorer and instead go download Firefox. Now open this site up and go to Tools >> Customize, etc, etc, and then come back and read the site!" But I also realize not everyone is going to read and/or do that, so why not also give them the option on the page as well? I'm not seeing this as an either/or issue, really. Both would seem to work fine together.

-Darrel

From: Malcolm Wotton
Date: Wed, Jan 11 2006 10:40AM
Subject: RE: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

> > Patrick H. Lauke said

> Did I say *my* website? I'm advocating a feature that will work
> on *all* sites, and that's the point...

Sounds like you care more about getting browser developers to change their
software than the visitors to your site. I'm willing to break every design
guideline, recommendation, and contradict every expert if it benefits the
users of the site - that's who the site is created for. Now I agree the
design guidance is generally good, and experts are generally . . . well
expert. So they're worth listening to, but overall I'd rather have visitors
(and positive visitor feedback) than compliance any day.

>
> Same thing applied to browsers: being able to say "the most user
> friendly browser".

This means nothing, it only matters if the user population changes to
another browser. I know that's beginning with firefox, but in the end unless
users object and switch browser the companies developing browsers won't sit
up and take notice.

Malcolm

From: Sarah Horton
Date: Wed, Jan 11 2006 1:43PM
Subject: RE: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Wed, Jan 11 2006 4:09PM
Subject: RE: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Austin, Darrel wrote:

> Have you ever tought a computer course? Have to spend a half our
> explaining the concept of right-clicking? Another half hour of cut and
> paste? ;o)

Surfing is difficult to people who haven't learned it as child, or from
their children or grandchildren. Let's not make it any more difficult.

> To be fair, on our new site, we likely will explain how to do this via
> your browser as well on an ACCESSIBILITY INFO page,

Why? If your site's purpose is to teach browser usage, fine. Otherwise,
questionable. Accessibility info page? Aren't they write-only pages?
Does someone actually _read_ them?

> but as far as the
> interface on each individual page, we're going to make the font resizer
> as simple and intuitive as we can./

Sorry, but that sounds like hubris.

People who design and implement browsers are perhaps not the brightest
people on earth, but they are professionals, and in big companies, there
are lots of them, with support from various specialists. Browsers are far
from ideal, because they are compromises between heavily conflicting needs
and goals. Yet, they they mostly do their job, and they are being
improved, they have some development control and feedback system, etc.
They also have some very nice features at times.

Now you are saying that you design something that duplicates browser
functionality in one way, and if you are logical, you won't stop there but
will create your version of many other functions as well. What makes you
think that you will have much better success? Would your strategy really
be suitable for web authoring in general? That would typically mean that
one underpaid employer, allowed to spend a small amount of his working
time to web stuff, reinvents the wheel that was designed by a large number
of computer professional over the years.

What is "simple" and "intuitive" is not a simple question at all.

--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Wed, Jan 11 2006 4:29PM
Subject: Re: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Penny Roberts wrote:

> Our public
> workstations are (deliberately) set up so that settings cannot be changed.
> We also have PCs used by numerous members of staff so each member of staff
> would have to reset to their own preference every time. It just isn't
> practical.

Do you mean that it is practical to force users to learn to use the
site-specific widgets (for font size control etc.) on each site
separately - on the minority of pages that have them, and just accept
the "one size fits all" policy on other pages? It's not just a matter of
learning the widgets and finding them but also actually using them
over and over again when moving from one site to another (or perhaps even
from one page to another).

Fixing settings is surely hostile to accessibility, and when coupled with
similar actions taken by authors (who might set font size to 9px for
example), it really creates obstacles.

If you regard it as a problem that users change the settings (and of
course it is a problem, especially as long as browsers have no easy "reset
all settings" function or, better still, a simple way to load an
individual user's preferences from somewhere), the _fixing_ them is about
the worst thing you can do - a really Procrustean move.

--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

From: Andrew Arch
Date: Wed, Jan 11 2006 4:30PM
Subject: RE: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

Hi Sarah,

The WAI website redesign tried to do this:
http://www.w3.org/WAI/changedesign

Monash University is one organisation that does it both ways (but not on the
home page - on a specific page):
http://assets.monash.edu.au/styles/change/textsize/

Another is the Dept Human Services Disability Division in Victoria:
http://hnb.dhs.vic.gov.au/ds/disabilitysite.nsf/sectionone/accessibility_tip
s?open and
http://assets.monash.edu.au/styles/change/textsize/

Cheers, Andrew
_________________________________
Dr Andrew Arch
Vision Australia - Accessible Information Solutions
454 Glenferrie Rd, Kooyong 3144, Australia
Ph +61 (0)3 9864 9282; Fax +61 (0)3 9864 9370
http://www.visionaustralia.org.au/ais/

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Sarah Horton
Sent: Thursday, 12 January 2006 7:44 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: RE: Font Resizers (WAS RE: [WebAIM] back to top)

L

From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Wed, Jan 11 2006 5:00PM
Subject: Re: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

> http://hnb.dhs.vic.gov.au/ds/disabilitysite.nsf/sectionone/accessibility_tip
> s?open

Good to see that not only English councils practise URL obfuscation :-)

http://hnb.dhs.vic.gov.au/ surely goes into my book for "non
memorisable URLs that should tell you something" :-)

So far my favourite was http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/ for a council called
Hammersmith and Fulham.

--
Chris Heilmann
Blog: http://www.wait-till-i.com
Writing: http://icant.co.uk/
Binaries: http://www.onlinetools.org/

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Wed, Jan 11 2006 5:20PM
Subject: Re: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

Malcolm Wotton wrote:
>>> Patrick H. Lauke said
>
>> Did I say *my* website? I'm advocating a feature that will work
>> on *all* sites, and that's the point...
>
> Sounds like you care more about getting browser developers to change their
> software than the visitors to your site. I'm willing to break every design
> guideline, recommendation, and contradict every expert if it benefits the
> users of the site

Hey, I'm willing to make house calls to every single user and
read+explain a site to them. Seriously though, I'm arguing (some might
say on a very academic level, but one that needs to be taken into
account nonetheless) for a *sustainable* solution to the problem. As
developers we can obviously try to overcome any sort of problem at our
end for the sake of "it's best for our users"...but that doesn't mean
it's the right thing to do. So, should we avoid the fundamental
discussions on the list, and simply accept that browsers will never work
towards fulfilling the user's needs?

--
Patrick H. Lauke
___________
re

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Wed, Jan 11 2006 5:20PM
Subject: Re: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

Austin, Darrel wrote:
>>> That isn't the case. Some people need a font far bigger
>> than most of
>>> us would be comfortable with.
>> That still does not prove that there is a need for a font
>> sizing widget on your site, if anything it proves that you
>> should leave it to the browser to deal with that issue.
>
> Except that browsers are stupid. They have no idea what font size I need
> unless I tell them. And until people start figuring out that they should
> tell their browser this information, the font resizing widget serves a
> purpose.

Which then becomes a circular argument: as long as there is a resizing
widget on a page, users will remain blissfully ignorant and assume that,
without such a widget, there is no way for them to resize the text,
which then perpetuates the whole issue.

> True. But their computer might be sitting at home. Or maybe they don't
> have one. Many folks might be accessing your site on the road at a hotel
> kiosk, a library, at school, on a shared work machine, coffee shop,
> cybercafe, friend's laptop, Mom's house, etc., etc.

Wonderful. They may also be 90% visually impaired and access the web on
a deaf friend's machine without any speakers. Let's cater for that
scenario at *our* end as well then...

--
Patrick H. Lauke
___________
re

From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Wed, Jan 11 2006 5:20PM
Subject: RE: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

> Why? If your site's purpose is to teach browser usage, fine.
> Otherwise, questionable. Accessibility info page? Aren't they
> write-only pages?
> Does someone actually _read_ them?

Right. Good point. ;o)

(FYI, our's will actually be read and write...there will be some
preferences folks can set there if they so choose to so do).

> Now you are saying that you design something that duplicates
> browser functionality in one way, and if you are logical, you
> won't stop there but will create your version of many other
> functions as well.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying this particular browser functionality is
rather useful, and not apparent to a lot of folks that will be visiting
our site.

> What makes you think that you will have
> much better success?

Well, for starters, it will be visible by default. Which gives us a
slight advantage already.

Secondly, observation. We implemented this feature on our intranet and
within a week we had a few folks...software developers for that matter,
thank us for such a great feature.

> Would your strategy really be suitable
> for web authoring in general? That would typically mean that
> one underpaid employer, allowed to spend a small amount of
> his working time to web stuff, reinvents the wheel that was
> designed by a large number of computer professional over the years.

I think that's a larger discussion...and an interesting one to be had.

Bottom line is that it depends. Yea, reinventing the wheel can often be
pointless. It can often be necessary.

> What is "simple" and "intuitive" is not a simple question at all.

Nope. But in this case, it's not too big of a stretch. As mentioned,
just showing the option on the screen puts it ahead of the built in
browser controls.

-Darrel

From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Wed, Jan 11 2006 5:34PM
Subject: RE: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

> Which then becomes a circular argument: as long as there is a
> resizing widget on a page, users will remain blissfully
> ignorant and assume that, without such a widget, there is no
> way for them to resize the text, which then perpetuates the
> whole issue.

And not having the widget does the same thing. They STILL don't know
they can resize the type.

> Wonderful. They may also be 90% visually impaired and access
> the web on a deaf friend's machine without any speakers.
> Let's cater for that scenario at *our* end as well then...

You seem to be determined to people everywhere to figure out how their
browser works. More power to you. We, though, just want to make sure our
customers can get the information on our site as quickly and easily as
possible.

-Darrel

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Wed, Jan 11 2006 5:35PM
Subject: Re: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

Austin, Darrel wrote:

> The issue with font sizing on the web has a LOT of gotchas:
>
> - browser default sizes are arbitrary, and for some folks, actually too
> big.

Then those users can should, in my utopian fantasy world, set their
defaults accordingly.

> - not every site set's the font size to 100% so there is inconsistency
> there.

And that's because users have not been setting their sizes according to
their preferences, and developers have had to compensate for personal
tastes (or the tastes of their clients). It's a solution, born out of
necessity, which is now impeding the rectification of the original
problem, if you will.

> - screen resolution AND dimensions completely change the size of the
> type.

But they change in relation to the user's preference. Yes, some users
will have lower screen res, making their type in the web page
smaller...but it will be exactly the same size in relation to any other
type (the OS, the browser's own menus, their particular OS text size
settings, etc) on their display. If they are comfortable working working
at a certain resolution with a certain text size for all tasks other
than web browsing, then they should be comfortable with a text size in a
web site that is in direct relation to the text size they use for those
tasks. If I defined a text size of exactly 100% of the default OS text
size, how can a user complain "I can't read this"? Would that not mean
that they also can't actually read text outside of the browser? And in
that scenario, is it the duty of the web developer to compensate for it,
or is it the duty of the user to adapt his/her entire OS to specific
needs/preferences, and the browser manufacturer's duty to abide by those
settings, as well as making any controls that can still allow for case
by case tweaks of things like text size etc obvious?

> - using a lapto vs. your desktop can change the perceived size of the
> type.

Again, not just for the web site, but for the entire OS. If it's too
small in the browser, then the entire OS text is also too small to do
things like word processing etc...

> - many folks do not take the time to set up their favorite font size

And then expect a website to cater for that?

> - some OSes have font size/rendering preferences as well

Well, good, as that's the way it should be.

Ho hum (and yes, despite all the idealism I too pragmatically define my
default size for text as 0.8ish ems on most of my sites...before anybody
gets all excited about pointing out the obvious "do as I say, not as I
do" angle - I like to argue, and fight for, the ideal situation, but I'm
certainly aware of real life issues "until browsers/users do the
conceptually right thing" too)

P
--
Patrick H. Lauke
___________
re

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Wed, Jan 11 2006 5:49PM
Subject: Re: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

Sarah Horton wrote:

> Does anyone know of good resources that we could point to on our sites
> that would provide users with tips and tricks for navigating the web and
> customizing their web environment?

If I was wanting to pour more napalm on the fire, I'd say: put a notice
on the site telling users to RTFM (where F obviously stands for "fine",
and not any form of swear word) that came with their OS/browser, and/or
to view the respective help files / man pages / etc. :)

--
Patrick H. Lauke
___________
re

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Wed, Jan 11 2006 5:49PM
Subject: Re: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Wed, Jan 11 2006 7:56PM
Subject: Re: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Thu, Jan 12 2006 1:00AM
Subject: RE: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Austin, Darrel wrote:

>> Now you are saying that you design something that duplicates
>> browser functionality in one way, and if you are logical, you
>> won't stop there but will create your version of many other
>> functions as well.
>
> I'm not saying that. I'm saying this particular browser functionality is
> rather useful, and not apparent to a lot of folks that will be visiting
> our site.

But if you are logical, you will make a similar conclusion about many
other features.

Besides, you are duplicating a browser functionality _in one way_.
Your widget does _not_ have the same effect as font size control,
since your widget only affects viewing your site. Maybe the site even uses
fixed font size, with a widget to change it to another fixed font size,
thereby breaking (on IE at least) the functionality of the browser's font
size control. You would be teaching people _not_ to use that control but
to find and use a site-specific control if they can.

Suppose that NN is using a browser that has the basic font size set to
somewhat too large (this is more common than too small, though of course
too small a size is more serious when not overridden). On all pages that
do not set font size at all, or set it to 100% or 1em, NN finds himself a
little inconvenienced. Let us suppose that NN knows nothing about font
size control in browsers. Then NN visits your site and finds a font size
control there. He uses it to decrease the font size. After leaving your
site, NN notices no change on _other_ sites.

You have made it more difficult to NN to learn about the basic features
of browser usage. Before seeing a site-specific control, NN may have
thought that there might (or should) be a way to change the font size
in general. Visiting a site with a special control _inside a page_
enforces the idea that there is no general control - why else would
some pages contain their own controls for that?

>> What makes you think that you will have
>> much better success?
>
> Well, for starters, it will be visible by default. Which gives us a
> slight advantage already.

Over current browser defaults, you mean.

It is easy to make improvements to software if you take one feature and
change it one direction and declare that as an improvement. The user
interface needs to balance between different needs, such as making
functions directly and visibly accessible and making the interface simple
and easy to manage (even to people with cognitive disabilities). In user
interface, more is usually less, but there's of course a limit somewhere.

Probably we all think that it's a mistake that IE does not contain a
visible font size control by default (previous versions did not, and
future versions might). But that's mostly because we think about
accessibility. While the Microsoft decision was wrong, it was not absurd,
and it had reasons. Removing elements from a user interface tends to make
it better, except for the functionality that becomes invisible.

Thus, there is no way around the principle of customization. The real
solution is easy customization of browsers' user interfaces, either
by users themselves or by some more experienced people that help them.
People who _really_ need control over font size (such as people with
considerable vision impairment) must have the basic issue solved for them,
or they don't surf at all. Page-specific control is just a nuisance to
them. People who just _benefit_ from such control might like page-specific
controls - until they learn they have been deceived into thinking they
_need_ to use such controls because there is no general tool in the
browser.

> Secondly, observation. We implemented this feature on our intranet and
> within a week we had a few folks...software developers for that matter,
> thank us for such a great feature.

You can add almost _anything_ in terms of controls and _some_ people will
say it's great - because they are the people who need it.

Adding new controls (to a browser) is fine as long as the user stays in
control and decides what's good for him. (This typically involves removing
some other controls. Less is more. When you need a control, you find it
much more easily among six buttons than among dozens of buttons,
dropdowns, and other controls.)

>> Would your strategy really be suitable
>> for web authoring in general? That would typically mean that
>> one underpaid employer, allowed to spend a small amount of
>> his working time to web stuff, reinvents the wheel that was
>> designed by a large number of computer professional over the years.
>
> I think that's a larger discussion...and an interesting one to be had.

This _is_ the larger discussion.

>> What is "simple" and "intuitive" is not a simple question at all.
>
> Nope. But in this case, it's not too big of a stretch. As mentioned,
> just showing the option on the screen puts it ahead of the built in
> browser controls.

Assuming the builtin control is not visible. When two similar-looking
controls with similar functionality are visible, you are creating
confusion and uncertainty. Within an intranet, at least in a centrally
managed fairly homogenous company network, it would be easier to configure
the browser (IE) so that it has the font size control among the basic
buttons. This would help people in the company not only when viewing
intranet pages but also when viewing WWW pages.

And making something visible all the time means that it remains visible to
people who don't need it. So it's _always_ a decision with pros and cons.
If a company makes the decision in its browser configuration, individual
users can (unless you wish to make company police prevent that) remove
the font size control if they think they don't need it or they need it
rarely. They can't do anything about font size controls on intranet pages.
(Well, they perhaps can, using a user style sheet, but it becomes much
more difficult than simple tuning of the browser's controls.)

--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

From: Glenda Watson Hyatt
Date: Thu, Jan 12 2006 2:00AM
Subject: RE: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

> > Why this scenario is less likely?
>
> Because the obvious and natural idea is that if there is a font size
> control on the page, the page author (and the user naturally expects the
> page author know more than an ordinary user) _knows_ that there is no
> font size control in the browser.

Rimantas wote:

Ok. Is it also natural to assume that if users sees "print this page",
he will think that there is no other way to print the page?

My point is - we can speculate either way, but we can hardly prove
anything without research/testing. At least I cannot.

Glenda quips:

Why not simply hire my husband (www.enablingabilities.com) to teach all
these users how to customize their browser to meet their own specific needs?
After all, he is looking for work. Both problems solved! <grin>

Cheers,
Glenda

Glenda Watson Hyatt, Principal
Soaring Eagle Communications
Accessible websites. Accessible content. Accessible solutions.
www.webaccessibility.biz
Watch for my autobiography I'll Do It Myself due out November 2006!

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/226 - Release Date: 1/10/2006

From: Rimantas Liubertas
Date: Thu, Jan 12 2006 3:00AM
Subject: Re: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

<...>
> You have made it more difficult to NN to learn about the basic features
> of browser usage. Before seeing a site-specific control, NN may have
> thought that there might (or should) be a way to change the font size
> in general. Visiting a site with a special control _inside a page_
> enforces the idea that there is no general control - why else would
> some pages contain their own controls for that?

This is VERY bold assumption, imho...
Why not different path - before visiting said site NN had no idea
that font size can be changed. When he saw that implemented
as custom widget on the page, he might get an idea, this can be
done in browser too - and starts to look for this feature, and discovers it.
So in this case that special contro has helped NN to find out about
features of his browser.

Why this scenario is less likely?

(I'd bet that most likely scenario is for both types of control to be
ignored, but whatever....)

Rimantas
--
http://rimantas.com/

From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Thu, Jan 12 2006 4:00AM
Subject: Re: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

> > You have made it more difficult to NN to learn about the basic features
> > of browser usage. Before seeing a site-specific control, NN may have
> > thought that there might (or should) be a way to change the font size
> > in general. Visiting a site with a special control _inside a page_
> > enforces the idea that there is no general control - why else would
> > some pages contain their own controls for that?
>
> This is VERY bold assumption, imho...
> Why not different path - before visiting said site NN had no idea
> that font size can be changed. When he saw that implemented
> as custom widget on the page, he might get an idea, this can be
> done in browser too - and starts to look for this feature, and discovers it.
> So in this case that special contro has helped NN to find out about
> features of his browser.
>
> Why this scenario is less likely?

Because he'd think "why did the site maintainer bother doing an own
one if there is one in the browser?" and that wouldn't be a bad
question at all...

People add "Bookmark this page" and "print this page" links to pages
that link to browser functionality, too. We are dumbing down users -
with good intent - but still we do.

--
Chris Heilmann
Blog: http://www.wait-till-i.com
Writing: http://icant.co.uk/
Binaries: http://www.onlinetools.org/

From: Rimantas Liubertas
Date: Thu, Jan 12 2006 5:00AM
Subject: Re: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

From: L
Date: Thu, Jan 12 2006 6:00AM
Subject: RE: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

Patrick Lauke wrote:

"As developers we can obviously try to overcome any sort of problem at our end for the sake of "it's best for our users"...but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. So, should we avoid the fundamental discussions on the list, and simply accept that browsers will never work towards fulfilling the user's needs?"

One thing we should never do is avoid discussions, either onlist or anywhere else.

Until we find a solution for sustainable accessibility/usability/quality user experience, we must keep talking and exploring ideas.

I think that everybody has to do their bit. The technology vendors need to standardise code interpretation and make their interfaces more usable, site developers need to make their content more flexible and adaptable, and users need to better understand their technologies.

This might be slightly utopian, but it's the only way I can envisage things hanging together. Of course, there's an awful lot of work to be done in the meantime and for the moment it looks as though the developers are in the lead :-)

Regards,
Tink.

From: L
Date: Thu, Jan 12 2006 7:23AM
Subject: RE: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

Sarah Horton wrote:

"Does anyone know of good resources that we could point to on our sites that would provide users with tips and tricks for navigating the web and customizing their web environment?"

I haven't looked through it extensively, but this is a reasonable resource:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/accessibility/

Regards,
Tink.

From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Thu, Jan 12 2006 7:23AM
Subject: Re: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Rimantas Liubertas wrote:

> Why not different path - before visiting said site NN had no idea
> that font size can be changed. When he saw that implemented
> as custom widget on the page, he might get an idea, this can be
> done in browser too - and starts to look for this feature, and discovers it.
> So in this case that special contro has helped NN to find out about
> features of his browser.
>
> Why this scenario is less likely?

Because the obvious and natural idea is that if there is a font size
control on the page, the page author (and the user naturally expects the
page author know more than an ordinary user) _knows_ that there is no
font size control in the browser.

(And in fact, that assumption is correct in a distorted manner: the author
who added the control knows that most browsers currently have similar
control "hidden" in a dropdown menu, instead of a button-like widget.)

--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

From: John Foliot - WATS.ca
Date: Thu, Jan 12 2006 7:45AM
Subject: RE: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

Patrick H. Lauke wrote:
>
> If I was wanting to pour more napalm on the fire, I'd say: put a
> notice on the site telling users to RTFM (where F obviously stands
> for "fine", and not any form of swear word) that came with their
> OS/browser, and/or to view the respective help files / man pages /
> etc. :)

Silly me... I always thought the "F" stood for furnished - Read the
furnished manual (http://tinyurl.com/dkyhw)

JF
--
John Foliot = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca
Phone: 1-613-482-7053

From: Daniel Champion
Date: Thu, Jan 12 2006 8:15AM
Subject: Re: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

Patrick H. Lauke wrote:

> I'm arguing for a *sustainable* solution to the problem.

Which is unarguably in everyone's interests, and I would guess has the
support of all the participants in this thread. In this particular
instance I'm sure that solution will come in due course, but until it does
we can try to provide a temporary solution for those who need it, and
appreciate the need for the sustainable solution - the two aren't mutually
exlusive.

> So, should we avoid the fundamental discussions on the list,
> and simply accept that browsers will never work towards
> fulfilling the user's needs?

No.

Dan.

--
Daniel Champion - Web Dev Mgr - Clackmannanshire Council
e: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = t: 01259 452258
f: 01259 452265 w: http://www.clacksweb.org.uk

This email and any attachments have been scanned for viruses prior to leaving Clackmannanshire Council.

Clackmannanshire Council will not be liable for any losses as a result of viruses being passed on.

www.clacksweb.org.uk

From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Thu, Jan 12 2006 8:45AM
Subject: Re: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Daniel Champion wrote:

> we can try to provide a temporary solution for those who need it,

Remember that things tend to become permanent, unless designed to be
permanent.

There is a lot of "holdover" stuff on web pages: constructs that
were once regarded as necessary and perhaps avantgardistic but are now
just reminders of old times and old technologies. You know,
"Press Control-D to bookmark", "best viewed on Netscape 3.0", etc.

Whatever you put on your pages now will probably be there for years.
Even if you plan to maintain your pages, you might (as most human beings)
plan to do more than you will actually do, and you might not be the
maintainer after a few years.

--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Thu, Jan 12 2006 11:00AM
Subject: Re: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

> Patrick/Christian:
>
> Your arguments all make sense and are 100% true but only with one major
> *if*: the end user has to be both aware AND willing to set up their
> browser to their own preferenecs.

If they are not willing that is a different issue. I cannot claim
discrimination after turning my monitor off either.

The question is that IF the visitor *needs* to have larger type? If
so, then she will be very likely to have set that option already, or
how else would she end up on your site? If your type is that small
that it'll need an extra large setting when Google doesn't then
something is wrong with the size of your type, and it is a burden for
any user.

--
Chris Heilmann
Blog: http://www.wait-till-i.com
Writing: http://icant.co.uk/
Binaries: http://www.onlinetools.org/

From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Thu, Jan 12 2006 11:33AM
Subject: RE: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

> The question is that IF the visitor *needs* to have larger
> type? If so, then she will be very likely to have set that
> option already

In theory, maybe. In practice, I find that rarely true.

-Darrel

From: Kathy Keller
Date: Thu, Jan 12 2006 12:30PM
Subject: RE: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

Chris Heilmann wrote:

The question is that IF the visitor *needs* to have larger type? If so,
then she will be very likely to have set that option already, or how
else would she end up on your site? If your type is that small that
it'll need an extra large setting when Google doesn't then something is
wrong with the size of your type, and it is a burden for any user.

----

Statistics show our aging population is growing rapidly and losing their
ability to see well. A link to a version with larger type can be very
helpful to the techsavvy or non-techsavvy user.

Kathy Keller
Web Accessibility Administrator
TPWD/Communications
512-389-4885

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Thu, Jan 12 2006 1:30PM
Subject: Re: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

Kathy Keller wrote:

> Statistics show our aging population is growing rapidly and losing their
> ability to see well. A link to a version with larger type can be very
> helpful to the techsavvy or non-techsavvy user.

So, as they age, they need larger type on their web sites, but not on
their OS/GUI?

--
Patrick H. Lauke
___________
re

From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Thu, Jan 12 2006 1:45PM
Subject: Re: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

> Statistics show our aging population is growing rapidly and losing their
> ability to see well. A link to a version with larger type can be very
> helpful to the techsavvy or non-techsavvy user.

Totally true.

But we are deviating here. The talk was about widgets that allow you
to change the font size in the web page vs. using the browser
controls, not a different font size version.

--
Chris Heilmann
Blog: http://www.wait-till-i.com
Writing: http://icant.co.uk/
Binaries: http://www.onlinetools.org/

From: Daniel Champion
Date: Fri, Jan 13 2006 2:45AM
Subject: Re: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

Chris Heilman wrote:

> The talk was about widgets that allow you
> to change the font size in the web page vs. using the browser
> controls, not a different font size version.

No, it's not vs., it's in addition to. There is no conflict in having
both, it isn't a zero-sum game, it's about providing an alternative in
case it's needed.

Dan

--
Daniel Champion - Web Dev Mgr - Clackmannanshire Council
e: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = t: 01259 452258
f: 01259 452265 w: http://www.clacksweb.org.uk

This email and any attachments have been scanned for viruses prior to leaving Clackmannanshire Council.

Clackmannanshire Council will not be liable for any losses as a result of viruses being passed on.

www.clacksweb.org.uk

From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Fri, Jan 13 2006 4:30AM
Subject: Re: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Daniel Champion wrote:

> No, it's not vs., it's in addition to. There is no conflict in having
> both, it isn't a zero-sum game, it's about providing an alternative in
> case it's needed.

That's not correct.

Duplication of browser functions as page widgets means that yet another
element is added to a page - and an element that is a technicality, not
part of the message of the page. It distracts from the actual content
and makes the crowdedness problem a little more serious. Any new widgets
are a particular problem to people with cognitive difficulties. If you
have problems in concentrating on the content and in identifying the
meanings and purposes of each visible element (and many people have almost
a compulsion to find such things out), then anything new is a new enigma
that makes the puzzle more difficult.

Besides, it can be difficult to find out what a widget does. When I use my
browser's font size controls, I know what they do. They might not be that
well documented, but using them on different pages I have got some
impression, and I can study the issue and learn something more.
When I see an icon with three A's for example (which intuively looks like
a styled "AAA", and that abbreviation has many meanings), I can at best
_guess_ from my past experience that it is _probably_ for font size
control. I cannot know exactly how, so I do not know whether it is better
than my browser's function, whether it works across pages and even sites,
etc. If I were a virgin in browsing, I could well expect the control the
change font size on _all_ pages and get confused when this is not the
case.

Once you start even considering the site-specific font size control as a
potential problem, rather than blindly as a solution, and list down the
actual problems, it becomes evident that it firmly belongs to the problem
category. The problems sure overweigh the possible gains.

--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

From: ben morrison
Date: Fri, Jan 13 2006 5:00AM
Subject: Re: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

> Duplicating common user agent functionality should be considered a taboo
> (and that is quite a non-controversial rule when it comes to Web Usability).
> Why? Like already stated, it is redundant, and thus unnecessarily clutters
> pages and irritates users. The argument that such a widget /might/ help
> /some/ user does not outweigh these disadvantages, and consequently, it is
> just futile.

We use a viewing options link at the top of our website
www.poptech.coop to avoid cluttering the page - wether anyone actually
uses it or understands what its for is another matter. I tend to agree
with the opinion of empowering users to make a global change is more
usefull than a per site basis. the safari browser has text-size option
as part of the toolbar which is a welcome addition.

ben

From: Jens Meiert
Date: Fri, Jan 13 2006 5:15AM
Subject: Re: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

> > The talk was about widgets that allow you to change the font size
> > in the web page vs. using the browser controls, not a different font
> > size version.
>
> No, it's not vs., it's in addition to. There is no conflict in having
> both, it isn't a zero-sum game, it's about providing an alternative in
> case it's needed.

Duplicating common user agent functionality should be considered a taboo
(and that is quite a non-controversial rule when it comes to Web Usability).
Why? Like already stated, it is redundant, and thus unnecessarily clutters
pages and irritates users. The argument that such a widget /might/ help
/some/ user does not outweigh these disadvantages, and consequently, it is
just futile.

--
Jens Meiert
Information Architect

http://meiert.com/

| Webdesign mit CSS (O'Reilly, German)
| http://meiert.com/cssdesign/

From: Daniel Champion
Date: Fri, Jan 13 2006 5:30AM
Subject: Re: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

Jens Meiert wrote:

> Duplicating common user agent functionality should be considered a taboo
> (and that is quite a non-controversial rule when it comes to Web
Usability).
> Why? Like already stated, it is redundant, and thus unnecessarily
clutters
> pages and irritates users.

My personal experience tells me otherwise. Whether it's a
non-controversial rule or not (besides, where is this rulebook and can I
have a copy please?), I have *seen* users of my site use the control to
change the text size, because they were unaware of the browser controls.
That alone makes it useful redundancy and sufficient evidence for me to
disagree with your assertion. My concern is my users, not the theoretical
weighing of advantages and disadvantages, or conjecture as to user
abilities.

As to it 'irritating users', or cluttering a page, I've had plenty of
complaints about my site in my time, but can confidently state that not a
single one has mentioned the irritation of a small text-size widget. Of
course your experience may differ, which is fine, but it displays a
certain intolerance to consider as 'irritating' something which might help
a user with poorer eyesight than you.

> The argument that such a widget /might/ help
> /some/ user does not outweigh these disadvantages, and consequently, it
is
> just futile.

That's merely truth by assertion.

If I can try to summarise:

1. There is broad agreement that the lack of a visual text-size control in
browsers is a shortcoming, and that such a control would help users who
may not know how to access the function via keyboard shortcuts or menus.

2. There is an established convention of presenting in-page text-size
controls as icons or textual links with different sized letters. Many
users are familiar with these controls.

3. The main contentions are that these in-page controls are potentially
confusing and distracting to users, since their purpose may not be clear,
and that they only affect their host site.

4. No-one is arguing that a per-site text-sizing function should be
preferred over a global text-sizing function. The issue is purely one of
access to the function.

Is that fair if a little simplistic?

Dan

--
Daniel Champion - Web Dev Mgr - Clackmannanshire Council
e: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = t: 01259 452258
f: 01259 452265 w: http://www.clacksweb.org.uk

This email and any attachments have been scanned for viruses prior to leaving Clackmannanshire Council.

Clackmannanshire Council will not be liable for any losses as a result of viruses being passed on.

www.clacksweb.org.uk

From: Jens Meiert
Date: Fri, Jan 13 2006 6:00AM
Subject: Re: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

Daniel Champion wrote:
> > Duplicating common user agent functionality should be considered a
> > taboo (and that is quite a non-controversial rule when it comes to
> > Web Usability). Why? Like already stated, it is redundant, and thus
> > unnecessarily clutters pages and irritates users.
>
> My personal experience tells me otherwise. Whether it's a
> non-controversial rule or not (besides, where is this rulebook and
> can I have a copy please?),

I prefer professional experience. And I cannot count the times especially
Jakob Nielsen advised against it (read his books [1,2] or do a search),
since the same problem also affects duplicating "back" button functionality,
offering "print", "bookmark", and "set as homepage" links. Makes sense?

> As to it 'irritating users', or cluttering a page, I've had plenty
> of complaints about my site in my time, but can confidently state
> that not a single one has mentioned the irritation of a small
> text-size widget.

Don't listen to users [3].

By the way, you probably want to include an HTML parser in your web site as
well, just in case.

[1] http://www.useit.com/homepageusability/
[2] http://www.useit.com/jakob/webusability/
[3] http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20010805.html

--
Jens Meiert
Information Architect

http://meiert.com/

| Webdesign mit CSS (O'Reilly, German)
| http://meiert.com/cssdesign/

From: Malcolm Wotton
Date: Fri, Jan 13 2006 6:15AM
Subject: RE: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

Jens Meiert wrote

> Duplicating common user agent functionality should be considered a taboo
> (and that is quite a non-controversial rule when it comes to Web
> Usability).

The trouble is 'common functionality' is not defined anywhere - how do you
determine this (globally? for the users of your site?). If I know that many
visitors come to my site using IE 4.01 what should I do? What's more
important adding the widget and cluttering the page or omitting the widget
and reducing accessibility for a subset of users?

So even this 'non-controversial' rule is not easy to work with if you're
trying to decide what functionality should be present on the site.

Malcolm

From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Fri, Jan 13 2006 6:30AM
Subject: Re: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Daniel Champion wrote:

> If I can try to summarise:
>
> 1. There is broad agreement that the lack of a visual text-size control in
> browsers is a shortcoming,

Not really. The real problem is that users do not get sufficient help
(from browsers and people) to _configure_ their browsers' user interface
in a manner that suits them.

Whether a _browser_ should have a visual text-size control depends on the
user.

> 2. There is an established convention of presenting in-page text-size
> controls as icons or textual links with different sized letters.

Not correct. There are many styles, none of which is really obvious.
Most sites do not have such controls.

> 3. The main contentions are that these in-page controls are potentially
> confusing and distracting to users, since their purpose may not be clear,
> and that they only affect their host site.

Those are among the arguments against them, but there are more, and I
won't repeat them here.

> 4. No-one is arguing that a per-site text-sizing function should be
> preferred over a global text-sizing function.

I'm not so sure of that. If I created a per-site or per-page text-sizing
function (as I have done for some demos and presentations), I would surely
make it allow many more options that the five sizes offered by Internet
Explorer. (For most people, _none_ of the sizes is really adequate; they
would need something in-between.) And I would couple it with font face
setting, if I did it seriously. Probably line height too.

> The issue is purely one of
> access to the function.

No, it isn't. It's a _different_ function, though related.
(You _could_ create a control that works, within some limits, by
changing the _browser_ settings. But please don't. Anyway, the typical
control is something else.)

There's an important point that has probably not been mentioned in this
discussion, at least not emphatically enough:

If you do not mess around with font sizes on your site,
your users do not need to resize fonts.
No matter what they might need to do on other sites.

(Admittedly, this postulates that the font size that they have chosen for
their browsing in general, either by setting it or by accepting factory
settings by not changing them, is reasonably suitable or at least
tolerable to the user. Failing this, it is difficult to imagine how they
manage to surf around.)

--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Fri, Jan 13 2006 8:48AM
Subject: RE: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

> Duplicating common user agent functionality should be
> considered a taboo (and that is quite a non-controversial
> rule when it comes to Web Usability).
> Why? Like already stated, it is redundant, and thus
> unnecessarily clutters pages and irritates users.

We're going to go in an infinite circle here.

Some of you believe that one should never replicate a browser function
and that all users should just learn how to use their browser.

Some of us believe that people don't necessarily want to learn every
hidden option in their browser and instead just want to get on our site
and off it as fast as they can and we want to provide any assistance for
them that benefits their experience on our site.

Some of us like the Packers.

Some of us like the Vikings.

I think we're going to have to leave it at that. ;o)

-Darrel

From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Fri, Jan 13 2006 8:50AM
Subject: RE: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Fri, Jan 13 2006 8:52AM
Subject: RE: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

> > 1. There is broad agreement that the lack of a visual text-size
> > control in browsers is a shortcoming,
>
> Not really. The real problem is that users do not get
> sufficient help (from browsers and people) to _configure_
> their browsers' user interface in a manner that suits them.

If you've ever worked in the software industry, you know that 'help' is
really a complete waste of time. Only the smallest fraction of people
use it.

I would say that there is a broad agreement that the lack of a visual
text resizer in the browser is a shortcoming. Not making a highly useful
and needed function of the application not visible by default on screen
is a drawback.

> > 2. There is an established convention of presenting in-page
> text-size
> > controls as icons or textual links with different sized letters.
>
> Not correct. There are many styles, none of which is really obvious.
> Most sites do not have such controls.

I wouldn't say 'many' styles. I've seen sized 'A's 'T's and +/-
signs...usually prefaced with a 'type size: ' label.

> (Admittedly, this postulates that the font size that they
> have chosen for their browsing in general, either by setting
> it or by accepting factory settings by not changing them, is
> reasonably suitable or at least tolerable to the user.
> Failing this, it is difficult to imagine how they manage to
> surf around.)

It's not difficult at all. Go to any office and watch the folks. A lot
of people just accept their computer/monitor/OS as-is out of the box.

-Darrel

From: Christian Heilmann
Date: Fri, Jan 13 2006 8:58AM
Subject: Re: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

> > Duplicating common user agent functionality should be
> > considered a taboo (and that is quite a non-controversial
> > rule when it comes to Web Usability).
> > Why? Like already stated, it is redundant, and thus
> > unnecessarily clutters pages and irritates users.
>
> We're going to go in an infinite circle here.

And why do you start a new thread to confuse matters even further? Or
is my gmail playing silly buggers?

> Some of us like the Packers.
> Some of us like the Vikings.>
> I think we're going to have to leave it at that. ;o)

I like Vikings, Horn helmets rock.
What are you talking about? I guess American Football, right?

Agreeing to disagree seems to happen here a lot. Not necessarily a bad
thing, as long as we don't repeat it two months down the line.

I think the matter is that both sides of the argument try to argue
that their logic is a de-facto standard, which is dangerous. Browsers
and Operating Systems come with resizing tools out of the box whereas
a bespoke resizing tool is extra work and is neither a standard nor a
necessity (add all arguments brought up in here).

Clients will see this extra gadget on other sites and consider it a
necessity - and this is where it gets tricky.

I am quite sure that a lot more web sites would be easier to use and
developed a lot cheaper and with less hassle if clients would not see
quick workaround solutions that will not be feasible in their project
on other sites.

--
Chris Heilmann
Blog: http://www.wait-till-i.com
Writing: http://icant.co.uk/
Binaries: http://www.onlinetools.org/

From: Jukka K. Korpela
Date: Fri, Jan 13 2006 9:15AM
Subject: RE: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Austin, Darrel wrote:

> If you've ever worked in the software industry, you know that 'help' is
> really a complete waste of time. Only the smallest fraction of people
> use it.

That's odd, because most people ask for it. I think I know what you mean,
but there are ways to use people into being helped, e.g. by making the
first use of a browser prompt for user decisions on a few essential
configuration issues.

> I would say that there is a broad agreement that the lack of a visual
> text resizer in the browser is a shortcoming. Not making a highly useful
> and needed function of the application not visible by default on screen
> is a drawback.

What is highly useful and needed is debatable. A simple font resize in a
browser does not work against most of the cluelessness of authors who set
font sizes in pixels. An overriding font resize would be a different
issue. (There _are_ many different "font resize" functions.)

> I wouldn't say 'many' styles. I've seen sized 'A's 'T's and +/-
> signs...usually prefaced with a 'type size: ' label.

Then you haven't seen e.g. the style that is de-facto standard in many
public organizations in Finland, e.g. at the official portal
http://www.suomi.fi/suomi/
(which uses "-a" and "+a", and having reached the maximum, you still see
"+a" as an active link - so there are many designs, poor and very poor).

>> (Admittedly, this postulates that the font size that they
>> have chosen for their browsing in general, either by setting
>> it or by accepting factory settings by not changing them, is
>> reasonably suitable or at least tolerable to the user.
>> Failing this, it is difficult to imagine how they manage to
>> surf around.)
>
> It's not difficult at all. Go to any office and watch the folks. A lot
> of people just accept their computer/monitor/OS as-is out of the box.

They do, and that's part of the phenomenon accessibility fights against.

But if they do that despite not being able to read text in the factory
settings size, do they actually do some work?

They still have made their choice, and if they bear with it on the
zillions of pages that do not set font size at all and do not contain any
font size control widgets, what makes you think they need them on your
page? They might, if you have set font-size: 75% or something; but then
you are to be blamed for creating a problem and then adding a pitiful
partial solution that creates new problems.

--
Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

From: Austin, Darrel
Date: Fri, Jan 13 2006 9:54AM
Subject: RE: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

> > If you've ever worked in the software industry, you know
> that 'help'
> > is really a complete waste of time. Only the smallest fraction of
> > people use it.
>
> That's odd, because most people ask for it. I think I know
> what you mean, but there are ways to use people into being
> helped, e.g. by making the first use of a browser prompt for
> user decisions on a few essential configuration issues.

Yea, it is odd. Human's are odd. ;o)

I've worked on a few projects that have led me to the conclusion that
while 'help' is maybe a necessary part of the project, it's not going to
be used by a majority of the customers. One that comes to mind is a
database application for a niche market. We worked long and hard on
making a good interface (most of our customers say it's the best
interface amongst the competition). We spent a lot of time building a
robust help system. Clear labels. Still, people would call us/email us
asking questions that are already answered in the product itself. Then
we'd add 'tip of the day' and wizards and finally we added a 'help
center' that took people through most of the functions via wizards if
they wanted to. Still, we likely would have been better off just
spending our efforts on hiring another support staff ;o)

Everyone WANTS thorough documentation. Few use it. I'm guilty as much as
anyone. I'll search google before opening the manual most of the time.

> What is highly useful and needed is debatable.

I think we've proven that. ;o)

> Then you haven't seen e.g. the style that is de-facto
> standard in many public organizations in Finland, e.g. at the
> official portal http://www.suomi.fi/suomi/ (which uses "-a"
> and "+a", and having reached the maximum, you still see "+a"
> as an active link - so there are many designs, poor and very poor).

Sure, but poor designs doesn't mean the concept itself is bad. There's
poor built in browser text resizers as well.

Let's assume we're all talking about well designed font resizers.

> They still have made their choice, and if they bear with it
> on the zillions of pages that do not set font size at all and
> do not contain any font size control widgets, what makes you
> think they need them on your page?

Let's clarify that. I certainly don't think they NEED the option. I'm
saying some folks will take advantate of the option.

My dad squints all the time using his computer. I, of course, show him
how to use better browsers, change his window's default fonts, etc, but
he quickly reverts back to just accepting the squinting method.

So, yea, he could still squint through my site, but maybe he'd see the
resizer, and maybe he'd use it, and maybe that'd make him feel better
about the user experience we provided.

> They might, if you have
> set font-size: 75% or something; but then you are to be
> blamed for creating a problem and then adding a pitiful
> partial solution that creates new problems.

There's also the debate as to what size should web developers be
defaulting their web text sizes to. Unfortunately, there is no right
answer to that debate at this time.

-Darrel

From: John Foliot - WATS.ca
Date: Sun, Jan 15 2006 8:00AM
Subject: RE: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

Austin, Darrel wrote:
> Everyone WANTS thorough documentation. Few use it. I'm guilty as much
> as anyone. I'll search google before opening the manual most of the
> time.

Thus the relatively well-known acronym RTFM - used daily in support
centres around the world.

> My dad squints all the time using his computer. I, of course, show
> him how to use better browsers, change his window's default fonts,
> etc, but he quickly reverts back to just accepting the squinting
> method.
>
> So, yea, he could still squint through my site, but maybe he'd see
> the resizer, and maybe he'd use it, and maybe that'd make him feel
> better about the user experience we provided.

Or maybe he'd cuss under his breath (or loudly, as I often hear in my
office) about the "cruddy web site" and simply move on. There are
millions of web sites available these days, and the good ones rise to
the top, and the lousy ones sink like a rock - search engines see to
that. Given the well documented aging of our population (at least here
in North America), good design shops will understand that making "fine
print" may be esthetically pretty, but functionally useless: part of the
issue is knowing your clientele.

>
>> They might, if you have
>> set font-size: 75% or something; but then you are to be
>> blamed for creating a problem and then adding a pitiful
>> partial solution that creates new problems.
>
> There's also the debate as to what size should web developers be
> defaulting their web text sizes to. Unfortunately, there is no right
> answer to that debate at this time.
>

And here-in is the very real problem - "designers" who presume that the
browser default size is "too big", and set base font sizes to 75% or 80%
(or .75em / .8em).

The W3C has specified 16px/96ppi as a standard default text size, and
most modern browsers on the Macintosh and Windows platforms have honored
that specification since 2000*. Start there!

If power users find that text "too large" they will re-size it
accordingly in their browser. I have rarely heard people complain about
text that is too large, it's usually that it is too small. The real
problem (IMHO) is 20-something "designers" who think that the look
should trump the content - WRONG! So Darrel, not to be contradictory, I
personally think that the debate *has* been answered: start at a base
font of 100% (which according to the W3C is 16px/96ppi).

Standards are my friend!

JF
--
John Foliot = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Web Accessibility Specialist / Co-founder of WATS.ca
Web Accessibility Testing and Services
http://www.wats.ca
Phone: 1-613-482-7053

(* See the W3C CSS1 Specifications at
www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-CSS1-19990111#length-units plus the Errata Notice
correcting the original CSS1 spec.
www.w3.org/Style/css1-updates/REC-CSS1-19990111-errata.html)

From: Patrick H. Lauke
Date: Sun, Jan 15 2006 8:30AM
Subject: Re: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

John Foliot - WATS.ca wrote:

> I have rarely heard people complain about
> text that is too large, it's usually that it is too small.

It's not just designers...it's also clients who *think* they're designers.

--
Patrick H. Lauke
___________
re

From: Kynn Bartlett
Date: Sun, Jan 15 2006 11:15AM
Subject: Re: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | Next message →

On 1/15/06, Patrick H. Lauke < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
> It's not just designers...it's also clients who *think* they're designers.

Something I always meant to do was make up an inaccessibility release
form that I'd give to clients whenever they demanded something
dumbass, like making the fonts too small or ignoring my accessibility
advice.

Basically it would say something really scary, and I'd demand that
they sign it, saying, "I understand that by agreeing to designing my
site in an inaccessible manner against the advice of Idyll Mountain
Internet (DBA Kynn Bartlett), I will not hold Idyllmtn responsible for
any of the following: lawsuits resulting from inaccessibility;
customer dissatisfaction; decreased consumer base due to exclusion of
people with disabilities; poor usability resulting in increased time
in customer service and support; loss of reputation within my
industry; decline in business up to and including the loss of my
company; etc etc etc"

And really pile it on.

And hand it to them and smirk at them, and say, "I'm sorry, since you
insist on me making the font size 75 percent, you're going to need to
sign this disclaimer so I'm legally protected."

--Kynn

PS: Oh, hiya, everyone, by the way.

From: Jens Meiert
Date: Mon, Jan 16 2006 2:45PM
Subject: Re: Font Resizers (WAS RE: back to top)
← Previous message | No next message

> Basically it would say something really scary, and I'd demand that
> they sign it, saying, "I understand that by agreeing to designing my
> site in an inaccessible manner against the advice of Idyll Mountain
> Internet (DBA Kynn Bartlett), I will not hold Idyllmtn responsible for
> any of the following: lawsuits resulting from inaccessibility;
> customer dissatisfaction; decreased consumer base due to exclusion of
> people with disabilities; poor usability resulting in increased time
> in customer service and support; loss of reputation within my
> industry; decline in business up to and including the loss of my
> company; etc etc etc"

Unfortunately, that's just what's necessary. 'Like that disclaimer.

> PS: Oh, hiya, everyone, by the way.

Missed you on several lists ;)

--
Jens Meiert
Information Architect

http://meiert.com/

| Webdesign mit CSS (O'Reilly, German)
| http://meiert.com/cssdesign/