Over on Digital Web Magazine, Nick has a pointer to this article: Font Size: No Happy Medium. In it, Dave Shea argues that, at some point, it stops being the designer's fault if people aren't happy with text sizes on web pages:

The current standards movement seems to place an awful lot of responsibility on the designer. It’s up to the designer to work around browser flaws by not using pixel-value text. It’s up to the designer to consider people with perfect vision, low vision, and no vision. It’s up to the designer to account for different monitor sizes and resolutions. It’s up to the designer to make sure their layout doesn’t break when fonts are at 100%, or 150%, or 200%.

Which, when you consider the history of the web, is the way it’s always been, except that no one used to do it. And now that we are starting to, by way of alternate style sheets and relying on relative font sizing, it’s becoming clear that while CSS offers answers, sometimes the answers aren’t good enough for some users.

Yes, it’s important for the designer to keep all these things in mind, and with a developed social conscience, cater to the largest audience possible. But, and here’s the whole point of what I’m trying to say, when the designer does this to the best of his or her knowledge and ability, and it’s still not enough, perhaps it stops being his or her responsibility.

Reading the comment trail (at 44 so far) has been quite interesting. I'm very sympathetic to the point that Jim Dabell is trying to make:

The issue of avoiding the user’s font size isn’t about too small fonts. It’s about the difference between font sizes on different websites. I have a good browser. I have a good font size. I don’t like having to adjust the font size for every new website I visit just because lots of different designers have lots of different ideas on what the best font size is for me.

I have to admit, this has been a bit of a pet peeve of mine. I'm happily surfing along with my 11pt Verdana type and all of a sudden, I'm on an unreadable site. Here's how this looks...you're at a website like Digital Web, which is very readable:



and then you click off to mezzoblue and the fuzzy type that apparently looks quite nice on Dave Shea's 1600x1200 17” monitor with ultra-small pixels:

And yes Virginia, I know how to resize type in my browser (I have to...bloug is too tiny for me to read by default as well). But I wish I didn't have to manually set it and unset it while surfing.

However, unlike Jim, I'm actually quite happy with the workaround that Jeroen Coumans provided -- set a minimum type size in Mozilla. For me, Verdana just isn't readable at 8 pts or less on my monitor (1280x1024, 20"). But 9 will do in a pinch. As Jim points out though, this may cause the page to lose relative sizes between styles. Unlike him, I'm willing to put up with this to make my life easier.

07:52 PM | linkme | home