__/ [dorayme] on Monday 31 October 2005 09:05 \__
> I was showing a customer a website (not his) I am reworking. He
> was one who made a bit of a fuss over the font-size I used on
> /his/ site a while back (he complained, diplomatically, that his
> site looked "non-standard" in terms of the size of the text.
> Still, after he listened to various speeches and intimidation by
> me, he thought he "would like it a bit smaller"! I reduced it -
> from the former generally 100% - and he was as happy as a koala
> on a newly sprouting gum). Well, I have been working on him a
> while and he finally said about this (not his) site: "I must
> say, it is easy to read! Comfortable from even a metre away, and
> it is all there..." (he meant by the latter, certainly no side
> scrolling needed and on the screen we were looking at, no any
> scrolling except maybe a footer...)
The real test should involve the elderly sitting right in front of a 15"
monitor. If they squint, the font must be too small. If not, then only the
visually-impaired will suffer while voice and zooming can make up for that.
> This idea was something I have been reinforced in from the sound
> advice one hears in alt.html. I am saying a couple of things
> here: one, maybe many of you should take a bow. And two, it is
> sometimes hard to see good quality for its worth when it is
> unusual - take a look at sites at random and see how many
> actually try to dictate smaller than default...
I am guilty of doing that. 80% for font-size is quite common, but I heard
some arguments over that value as somewhat of a norm.
> And now, I am going to seek surgery on this lump in my throat,
> have a good cry and maybe a chuck in the corner...
...good luck with /allll/ that...
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Seeing bad movies only encourages them"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E