Site Ratings & Reviews - Please help me fill my stat page

Author

Please help me fill my stat page

Simon

2004-08-23, 7:15 am

Hi,

After a bit of tweaking and bug fixes I have reset my Statistics database.
I would appreciate if some of you could have a look at it so I could gather
some new data.

http://www.schoolsofafrica.com

Your opinion is of course greatly appreciated.

Simon

2004-08-23, 7:15 am

Simon wrote:

> Hi,

Er, G'day.

> After a bit of tweaking and bug fixes I have reset my Statistics database.
> I would appreciate if some of you could have a look at it so I could
gather
> some new data.

> http://www.schoolsofafrica.com

Done.

> Your opinion is of course greatly appreciated.

It would be helpfull if I could read the site. The default light blue on
white does not work for me. The light blue on light purple menu (I assume it
is) is totally unreadable. Font size is also specified in pixels for much of
the site (but not all) so it is by default unresizable by 80%+ of your
audience.

--
Cheers
Richard.

Simon

2004-08-23, 7:15 am

>
>
> Done.
>
>
> It would be helpfull if I could read the site. The default light blue on
> white does not work for me. The light blue on light purple menu (I assume
it
> is) is totally unreadable. Font size is also specified in pixels for much
of
> the site (but not all) so it is by default unresizable by 80%+ of your
> audience.
>

Really?, I thought it was readable.
What browser are you using so I can change it, I don't seem to have a
problem with Opera/Mozilla etc...

As for the pixels, I will hunt around for them and replace them with %'s.

Simon

2004-08-23, 7:19 pm

Simon wrote:

assume[color=darkred]
> it
much[color=darkred]
> of
>
> Really?, I thought it was readable.

Are you referring to the colour of the font size? You have not clipped my
post correctly so I don't know which bit you are replying to.

> What browser are you using so I can change it,

Sorry, you can't change the browser I am using :-)

> I don't seem to have a
> problem with Opera/Mozilla etc...

You might not. I do.

If you are talking about the colour then you should be considering my eyes,
not my browser. Maybe my eyes are a little bit colour blind so light blue
may look almost exactly like light purple to me. I am a bloke after all and
3%+ of us are a bit colour blind.

Perhaps my screens are a little out of adjustment. <checks/>. Yep, the one I
happened to use to view your page on is a little defficient in the red arena
and the only difference between blue and purple is a little red. <tweaks
screen>. That is not a very old screen (two or three years) so if I have
problems what happens to those whose screens are several years old?

> As for the pixels, I will hunt around for them and replace them with %'s.

Oh, you were not talking about the pixels after all. I see that now. Great
that you are moving to %. Makes a lot of sense. You *are* using 100 of them
aren't you :-)

By the way, what is this:

"17 visitors online."

How do you know I am "online". Sure, you can sometimes tell when I arrive at
your site but you can never tell when I leave it. The best you can say is
that (at the moment) you have somewhere between 0 and 422 "online".

Last time this was seriously mentioned here it was a shopping site which
declared that it had 334 visitors currently online. A little delving
revealed a bit of javascript that pumped out a random number between 200 and
400 for "visitors online" :-)

--
Cheers
Richard.

Simon

2004-08-23, 7:19 pm

>
> Are you referring to the colour of the font size? You have not clipped my
> post correctly so I don't know which bit you are replying to.

Sorry, I was referring to the colour.

>
>
> Sorry, you can't change the browser I am using :-)

I can always try :)

>
>
>
> If you are talking about the colour then you should be considering my
eyes,
> not my browser. Maybe my eyes are a little bit colour blind so light blue
> may look almost exactly like light purple to me. I am a bloke after all
and
> 3%+ of us are a bit colour blind.
>
> Perhaps my screens are a little out of adjustment. <checks/>. Yep, the one
I
> happened to use to view your page on is a little defficient in the red
arena
> and the only difference between blue and purple is a little red. <tweaks
> screen>. That is not a very old screen (two or three years) so if I have
> problems what happens to those whose screens are several years old?

I am still a bit confused, maybe I should change the colour.
I can understand the light blue writing over the 'purple' background but I
still don't know why you cannot see the blue over white.

>
%'s.[color=darkred]
>
> Oh, you were not talking about the pixels after all. I see that now. Great
> that you are moving to %. Makes a lot of sense. You *are* using 100 of
them
> aren't you :-)
>
> By the way, what is this:
>
> "17 visitors online."

It's nothing very scientific, I check every new 'Agent'. If it is not a
robot of some sort then I assume that it is a real person.
If you are using cookies the values are only updated every 5 minutes
otherwise they are checked all the time.
Users that are inactive for 60 minutes are 'removed' and no longer counted
as 'online'.

>
> How do you know I am "online". Sure, you can sometimes tell when I arrive
at
> your site but you can never tell when I leave it. The best you can say is
> that (at the moment) you have somewhere between 0 and 422 "online".
>

I agree that it is not an exact science, but I also believe that it is just
for eye catching more than anything else.
It will never be accurate but I believe it is as close as can be without
bringing my system to a crawl.
An as you say it is impossible for me to tell when a user leaves the site.

>
> --
> Cheers
> Richard.
>

Simon

Frogleg

2004-08-23, 7:19 pm

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 10:59:46 +0100, "Simon"
<spambucket@schoolsofafrica.com> wrote:

(and someone was quoted without attribution saying)[color=darkred]
[color=darkred]
>it
>
>Really?, I thought it was readable.

Really, it isn't.

2004-08-23, 7:19 pm

Simon wrote:

>
> I can always try :)

Full points for persistance ;-)

[colours]

> I am still a bit confused, maybe I should change the colour.
> I can understand the light blue writing over the 'purple' background but I
> still don't know why you cannot see the blue over white.

I didn't say I could not *see* the blue on white. I said <checks/> "it does
not work". By that I mean that it causes me discomfort to squint at it. That
is why I changed the font size to my largest available (happened to be using
IE at the time, that's how I spotted the pixel problem). If the text is
difficult for me to read I am more likely to move on to a site with nice
black on white text. I *can* read yours but I don't *like* reading it.

>
> It's nothing very scientific, I check every new 'Agent'. If it is not a
> robot of some sort then I assume that it is a real person.
> If you are using cookies the values are only updated every 5 minutes
> otherwise they are checked all the time.
> Users that are inactive for 60 minutes are 'removed' and no longer counted
> as 'online'.

Yep. I had anticipated that. I, for one, do not *look* at a site for 60
minutes and I have cookies disabled so you won't get me there either. I
suspect that you are more likely to have one, or perhaps two people "online"
at any given moment. The net uses a stateless protocol and it should be
treated that way.

This stuff is right up there with counters which are usually started from
10102 :-) That is, little or no credence. You would be far better off by
stating up front that "you have had 17 visitors during the last hour". Don't
forget that some visitors wont get counted (they live behind a proxy) and
some will get counted more than once (different IP address for each get
request).

--
Cheers
Richard.

Simon

2004-08-23, 7:19 pm

>
>
> Full points for persistance ;-)

Cheers.

>
> [colours]
>
I[color=darkred]
>
> I didn't say I could not *see* the blue on white. I said <checks/> "it
does
> not work". By that I mean that it causes me discomfort to squint at it.
That
> is why I changed the font size to my largest available (happened to be
using
> IE at the time, that's how I spotted the pixel problem). If the text is
> difficult for me to read I am more likely to move on to a site with nice
> black on white text. I *can* read yours but I don't *like* reading it.

I see now, I will change the colour to something a bit darker.
I like the blue colour, but that's my personal choice, so I will compromise
by making it darker.
Hopefully it will make it easier to read.

I made the blue writing a bit darker and change the css to remove pixels in
the font size.
I haven't had time to really think about it but I don't think that the text
colour #002266 is the best choice, maybe I should give up and make it black.

>
> Yep. I had anticipated that. I, for one, do not *look* at a site for 60
> minutes and I have cookies disabled so you won't get me there either. I
> suspect that you are more likely to have one, or perhaps two people
"online"
> at any given moment. The net uses a stateless protocol and it should be
> treated that way.
>
> This stuff is right up there with counters which are usually started from
> 10102 :-) That is, little or no credence. You would be far better off by
> stating up front that "you have had 17 visitors during the last hour".
Don't
> forget that some visitors wont get counted (they live behind a proxy) and
> some will get counted more than once (different IP address for each get
> request).

I could always check for active users over the last 5/10 minutes?
Giving a message "you have had 17 visitors during the last hour" is a good
idea but simply too long given the space I have.

But, I agree that the value is pretty meaningless, and more for eye candy
than anything else really.

>
> --
> Cheers
> Richard.

Simon

Simon

2004-08-23, 7:19 pm

>
>
> (and someone was quoted without attribution saying)
>
on[color=darkred]
assume[color=darkred]
>
> Really, it isn't.

Thanks.

Robert Frost-Bridges

2004-08-23, 7:19 pm

rf wrote:

> It would be helpfull if I could read the site. The default light blue
> on white does not work for me. The light blue on light purple menu (I
> assume it is) is totally unreadable. Font size is also specified in
> pixels for much of the site (but not all) so it is by default
> unresizable by 80%+ of your audience.
>

I agree, I found it a bit of a strain. I thought the best template to
read was the 'silver' but I had to bump the font-size up a bit to make
it comfortable.

--
Robert
http://brightonfixedodds.net

Simon

2004-08-23, 7:19 pm

>
> I agree, I found it a bit of a strain. I thought the best template to
> read was the 'silver' but I had to bump the font-size up a bit to make
> it comfortable.
>

Thanks, for that.

Are you suggesting that I move 'one size up' everything?
By that I mean make my default size from small-> medium, my x-small->small
and so on?

Simon

2004-08-23, 7:19 pm

Simon wrote:

[font size]

> Are you suggesting that I move 'one size up' everything?
> By that I mean make my default size from small-> medium, my x-small->small
> and so on?

font-size: 100%; is most appropriate as that is the font size that your
viewer has chosen as most suitable for her. Anything else you specify is in
discord to this choice.

Given this, the absense of font-size completely is most appropriate.

--
Cheers
Richard.

Simon

2004-08-23, 7:19 pm

> [font size]
>
x-small->small[color=darkred]
>
> font-size: 100%; is most appropriate as that is the font size that your
> viewer has chosen as most suitable for her. Anything else you specify is
in
> discord to this choice.
>
> Given this, the absense of font-size completely is most appropriate.
>

But is it really possible to achieve what you are suggesting for a good
website design?
What I mean, to make the site look nice we will need some characters smaller
that others, a menu or a footer for example.

Otherwise everything will be the same size and not really appealing to
visit.

If I use the css "font-size ..." then the user can always change it using
their browser.
I have already changed my css to remove the fixed font sizes and I am quite
sure you can change the size as you please using your browser.

Simon

Jim Higson

2004-08-23, 7:19 pm

Simon wrote:

> Hi,
>
> After a bit of tweaking and bug fixes I have reset my Statistics database.
> I would appreciate if some of you could have a look at it so I could
> gather some new data.
>
> http://www.schoolsofafrica.com
>
> Your opinion is of course greatly appreciated.
>
> Simon

1) IMO the base size of text on this site is too small.
You see this quite a lot these days and it almost always anoys me!

Basically, I like to browse with the fonts quite small, because I'm wearing
my glasses and have a nice big TFT monitor. When you squash it down futher
it becomes difficult to read.

I would just use one or two font sizes on the site, and trust that if the
user wants to see the text smaller than usual, they have the browser set up
that way already.

It's better to have everything at the normal size, and scale a few things up
than scale a load of stuff down. That way everyone can read it comfortably
because it is never smaller than their prefered size.

2) Personally I don't like the idea of themes much. IMO you should just
deliver one look that everyone can read and use that all the time. It's
neat trick but doesn't really add anything from the POV of an end user.

It also takes away from the recognisability of your site. If I saw someone
browsing in bright red, thought the site looked interesting and jotted down
the URL, then a few days later went to the site I'd think I'd visited the
wrong place because it looks so different.

Accessiblity is important. What if the theme selector thingy is too small
for someone to be able to select a theme they can comfortably read?

3) The site only renders OK in Dillo. Dillo is the best browser for low-spec
machines (I use it to test my paes on a 486). Maybe I'm showing ignorance
here, but I'd imagine a lot of African computers are quite old or low spec
so I'd do my best to have the site work well on such platforms.

4) ...but it looks very nice in elinks!

5) The heading bits are almost impossible to read in black and white. Try
reading it through a 'colourblindnes simulator' - ie looking through a
piece of red/green cellophane! Or try reading it with your browser's
saturation turned to zero.

6) Too much italic text on the main page. Italics should be used to
emphasise the important bits, when everything is italic the emphesis is
lost and it just becomes difficult to read.

7) When I goto the stats section I get a bit that says:
"Welcome to my own little section of the web.
You probably got here by mist..."
cutting off mid-word probably isn't a good idea. Also, you could have just
wrote the whole thing out instead of making me follow a link to see the
rest. "...take but welcome anyways." wouldnt' have broken the bank!

8) How do you do your browser detection? Do you try to catch browsers
pretending to be MSIE? You can do this by putting a tiny css file in
 tags and seeing who downloads it, it will only be fetched
if the browser really is IE.

Jim Higson

2004-08-23, 7:19 pm

Simon wrote:

[absense of font size]

> But is it really possible to achieve what you are suggesting for a good
> website design?

No, not really I'm just stirring up the pot. I usually fight for nothing,
then allow a few bits to be changed... as we are doing right now. Just
remember to be judicious in your choice of font size.

> What I mean, to make the site look nice we will need some characters
smaller
> that others, a menu or a footer for example.

It's IMHO perfectly acceptable to use slightly smaller text if you are
producing some footer fineprint that you don't expect your reader to be
usually able to read, a copyright notice for example. Don't go below 90%
though. If it is legalese then use 80% as this is usually expected to be
totally unreadable.

For a menu a smaller font size would be IMNSHO silly. The menu should be the
most readable thing on the entire page, as large as an <h2> even. Think
about it: If I can't see where you may want send me within your site I will
not go there, I will go this way <--. A menu element should be LARGER,
preferably 120%

> Otherwise everything will be the same size and not really appealing to
> visit.

Then go up from 100%, not down, but with care.

> If I use the css "font-size ..." then the user can always change it using
> their browser.

Not when you specify font-size in pixels or points and your viewer is using
IE at its default settings! Other browsers do not have this problem but
authors often fall into the trap of designing for IE and then complain when
the page falls apart when the viewer changes her font size. This often
happens with "fixed width" or "paper" designs. Design fluidly for non-IE
(Mozilla or whatever) and then merely check that it works with IE.

> I have already changed my css to remove the fixed font sizes and I am
quite
> sure you can change the size as you please using your browser.

We have then come into complete agreement :-)

--
Cheers
Richard.

Simon

2004-08-23, 7:19 pm

>
database.[color=darkred]
>
> Oh, and it seems a bit odd that 28% of visitors are "Unix Based" but only
1%
> are "Linux" - is it possible you are counting Linux users as Unix becuase
> their browser ID string contains "X11"?

Well, yes and no.
I am counting Dillo as Linux although it is not technically right, (they can
run on *nix machines but Dillo claims that they only develop it with Linux
in Mind).

So because of the portability of *nix almost all browsers that run on Linux
can run on *nix.
I should also note that I am only guessing users that are hiding their
operating system in the agent string.

I am not counting X11 as it is often hidden/spoofed.

Simon

Simon

2004-08-23, 7:19 pm

> >
database.[color=darkred]
>
> 1) IMO the base size of text on this site is too small.
> You see this quite a lot these days and it almost always anoys me!

The default is 'small' and x-small', i will wait a while before i change it
so i can get more input form others.

>
> Basically, I like to browse with the fonts quite small, because I'm
wearing
> my glasses and have a nice big TFT monitor. When you squash it down futher
> it becomes difficult to read.
>
> I would just use one or two font sizes on the site, and trust that if the
> user wants to see the text smaller than usual, they have the browser set
up
> that way already.

Yes but, how can i guess what font size you have it set as?

>
> It's better to have everything at the normal size, and scale a few things
up
> than scale a load of stuff down. That way everyone can read it comfortably
> because it is never smaller than their prefered size.

What is the normal size? medium or small?

>
> 2) Personally I don't like the idea of themes much. IMO you should just
> deliver one look that everyone can read and use that all the time. It's
> neat trick but doesn't really add anything from the POV of an end user.
>
> It also takes away from the recognisability of your site. If I saw someone
> browsing in bright red, thought the site looked interesting and jotted
down
> the URL, then a few days later went to the site I'd think I'd visited the
> wrong place because it looks so different.
>
> Accessiblity is important. What if the theme selector thingy is too small
> for someone to be able to select a theme they can comfortably read?

I fully agree, the theme was more for me to play with, once I am
happy/comfortable with the site I will remove it.
This whole site is more a learning curve, i also want to share the CMS at a
latter stage so themes will be needed.

>
> 3) The site only renders OK in Dillo. Dillo is the best browser for
low-spec
> machines (I use it to test my paes on a 486). Maybe I'm showing ignorance
> here, but I'd imagine a lot of African computers are quite old or low spec
> so I'd do my best to have the site work well on such platforms.

I am in London, but I can assure you that Africa is not as far behind as you
make it sound.
In fact countries like South Africa are level, if not in front, of most
western countries.

>
> 4) ...but it looks very nice in elinks!

thanks.

>
> 6) Too much italic text on the main page. Italics should be used to
> emphasise the important bits, when everything is italic the emphesis is
> lost and it just becomes difficult to read.

Ok, I removed all the italic. I agree that it looks better.

>
> 7) When I goto the stats section I get a bit that says:
> "Welcome to my own little section of the web.
> You probably got here by mist..."
> cutting off mid-word probably isn't a good idea. Also, you could have just
> wrote the whole thing out instead of making me follow a link to see the
> rest. "...take but welcome anyways." wouldnt' have broken the bank!

I agree, I will look at a logical way to fix that problem.

>
> 8) How do you do your browser detection? Do you try to catch browsers
> pretending to be MSIE? You can do this by putting a tiny css file in
>  tags and seeing who downloads it, it will only be fetched
> if the browser really is IE.

Most browsers pretending to be MSIE include their own 'signatures' so it is
possible to check that way.
I think your hint is not 100% foolproof, but I will double check it.

Simon

kchayka

2004-08-23, 7:19 pm

Simon wrote:
>
> The default is 'small' and x-small', i will wait a while before i change it
> so i can get more input form others.

Remove Verdana from your font-family properties. Once you get rid of it,
you may be not so inclined to set font-size so dang small.

As it stands, the text in the sidebar is so tiny I have to zoom text to
at least 150% to read it comfortably, then the text on the rest of the
page is overly large. It's poor readability either way.

> What is the normal size? medium or small?

"normal" size is font-size:100%

BTW, I find that purple/blue background too dark, there isn't enough
contrast with the text color to be very readable unless the text size is
large. The Juicy Studio contrast checker says your choices are
borderline, at best.
<URL:http://www.juicystudio.com/services/colourcontrast.asp>

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

Simon

2004-08-23, 7:19 pm

> >> >
it[color=darkred]
>
> Remove Verdana from your font-family properties. Once you get rid of it,
> you may be not so inclined to set font-size so dang small.

err., ok, so what font do you propose so it does not look "so dang small".
do you have a site in mind so I could compare with my font size with?
Because, although I agree that it is smaller than most sites, I still do not
believe that the text is totally un-readable.

>
>
> "normal" size is font-size:100%

AFAIK it's 'small' in IE, Opera and Mozilla.

>
> BTW, I find that purple/blue background too dark, there isn't enough
> contrast with the text color to be very readable unless the text size is
> large. The Juicy Studio contrast checker says your choices are
> borderline, at best.
> <URL:http://www.juicystudio.com/services/colourcontrast.asp>
>

I have changed the colour, (barely just to make it 'sufficient), without
changing the colour too radically.

Regards.

Simon

kchayka

2004-08-23, 11:16 pm

Simon wrote:

> kchayka wrote:
>
> err., ok, so what font do you propose so it does not look "so dang small".

Um, why don't you just take Verdana out of the stylesheet (or remove
that font from your pc) and see how your fall-back font looks at the
sizes you set for Verdana? The text will no doubt look somewhat smaller
than before, perhaps some of it will now seem too small to you, too,
like the text in the sidebar.

> do you have a site in mind so I could compare with my font size with?

What other sites do is generally irrelevant. If I compare your site with
microsoft.com, your text might even seem larger. However, I find
virtually all MS sites are unreadable without zooming text to at least
150%, sometimes more. This only goes to show that just because a big
site does something doesn't necessarily mean it is A Good Thing. In
fact, most big sites do things rather poorly in this respect.

> Because, although I agree that it is smaller than most sites,

Most sites set font-size in px units, which is also the Wrong Thing To
Do. Don't be a lemming.

> I still do not believe that the text is totally un-readable.

The text in the sidebar is. "xx-small" is far too small if you expect
most of your visitors to read it. I think you would be better off using
% values instead of the size keywords.

>
> AFAIK it's 'small' in IE, Opera and Mozilla.

No, 100% is the default size in all browsers. The keywords "small" etc.
are rendered inconsistently across different browsers, so I don't
recommend using them. You should get more consistent results across
browsers using % instead.

>
> I have changed the colour, (barely just to make it 'sufficient)

It is better, thank you.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

Simon

2004-08-23, 11:16 pm

>
> Um, why don't you just take Verdana out of the stylesheet (or remove
> that font from your pc) and see how your fall-back font looks at the
> sizes you set for Verdana? The text will no doubt look somewhat smaller
> than before, perhaps some of it will now seem too small to you, too,
> like the text in the sidebar.

Ok, I will have a look at it now.
simply removing it from my css does not make any difference really. Maybe I
need to remove the font itself.

As a matter of fact I changed all the values to 100% and it seems to be
barely bigger than what I normally see.

>
>
> What other sites do is generally irrelevant. If I compare your site with
> microsoft.com, your text might even seem larger. However, I find
> virtually all MS sites are unreadable without zooming text to at least
> 150%, sometimes more. This only goes to show that just because a big
> site does something doesn't necessarily mean it is A Good Thing. In
> fact, most big sites do things rather poorly in this respect.

Sorry I was not clear, I don't want to do what other sites do.
But there seem to be a problem with what appear on _my_ screen.
So all I was asking was a site whose font I could compare to what is on _my_
screen.
As I said it appears that what a see, (on both my computers), is not what
everybody seem to see.

>
>
> Most sites set font-size in px units, which is also the Wrong Thing To
> Do. Don't be a lemming.

I am not using 'px' , i am using 'font-size' small, x-small ...

>
>
> The text in the sidebar is. "xx-small" is far too small if you expect
> most of your visitors to read it. I think you would be better off using
> % values instead of the size keywords.
>
>
> No, 100% is the default size in all browsers. The keywords "small" etc.
> are rendered inconsistently across different browsers, so I don't
> recommend using them. You should get more consistent results across
> browsers using % instead.

I am not going to change it until I can see what is wrong with all my
browsers.
Because my fonts, (in the side menu or in the body), do not seem that much
smaller than all the web sites I go to.

I am not been a lemming, all I am saying is that the size of what _I_ see in
front of me is not that different from other sites.
for example the site you mentioned,
http://www.juicystudio.com/services/colourcontrast.asp does not seem to be
that much bigger font from what I see.

Simon

C.W.

2004-08-23, 11:16 pm

On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 00:35:54 +0100, "Simon"
<spambucket@schoolsofafrica.com> wrote:

[snip]

>As I said it appears that what a see, (on both my computers), is not what
>everybody seem to see.

If it is just going to be you reading the content - then don't worry
about it. If other people, using different settings and browsers, are
sharing there is a problem in reading ease of the text then perhaps
what you see isn't all there is to "see"? :)

>
>I am not using 'px' , i am using 'font-size' small, x-small ...

Small would be around, let's say, 10px ... x-small would be around 9px
in font size.

Many people, including those with 20/20 vision and even if the site
opted to use Verdana, have some problems reading 10px and smaller font
sizes. This is not factoring in desktop resolution settings.
[color=darkred]

IE's default setting is medium. Hard to say what other browsers'
default settings would be. I have my browser's default set at 12px
range.

Some have said they needed to resize to read parts of your text ...
but by resizing then other bits of your text became a bit too big for
reading comfort also. So people resizing a site using x-small and
small is not really bringing around good results either, huh? May be
better for you to drop using sizing through xx-small and such thoughts
and switch over to percentage or em instead where you can have a
little more elbow room on font sizing in the 90 to 100% range thoughts
than using the small medium or large thoughts.

Don't use Verdana as a rule of thumb on font appearance, try using
Arial instead as a rule of thumb on font size appearance instead.
Verdana is an over-sized variation of arial when you think about it -
but Verdana's larger sizing also throws people off on font size
thoughts also.

Set the body to 100% [to help override IE's penchant for taking
resized text to bold appearance] then use CSS to tweak font sizing for
other parts/sections of your site.

Going below 90% or .90em and you may encounter some people finding
bits of it hard to read - but, in my own experiences, generally I
don't feel a need to go below 94% size range [I don't use Verdana - on
one site I use Georgia, a couple others I use Arial, another I use
Century Gothic].

Carol

kchayka

2004-08-23, 11:16 pm

C.W. wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 00:35:54 +0100, "Simon"
> <spambucket@schoolsofafrica.com> wrote:
>
>
> Small would be around, let's say, 10px ... x-small would be around 9px
> in font size.

The rendered sizes depends on your browser default size. Mine happens to
be 20px, necessary for my high resolution monitor.

'small' renders at 15px which is 75% of my preferred text size.
'xx-small', used in the sidebar, is 12px or 60%.

Both are way too tiny for my reading comfort.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

Simon

2004-08-24, 4:16 am

>
> The rendered sizes depends on your browser default size. Mine happens to
> be 20px, necessary for my high resolution monitor.
>
> 'small' renders at 15px which is 75% of my preferred text size.
> 'xx-small', used in the sidebar, is 12px or 60%.
>
> Both are way too tiny for my reading comfort.
>

Well, I changed it to 100%, 95% and 90%, but _on my computers_ it does not
make a huge difference.
Also changing to Arial seems to have a small<sic> effect in the size.

Let me know if that looks a bit better.

Simon

2004-08-24, 7:15 am

Simon wrote:

> Well, I changed it to 100%, 95% and 90%, but _on my computers_ it does not
> make a huge difference.
> Also changing to Arial seems to have a small<sic> effect in the size.
>
> Let me know if that looks a bit better.

Looks *much* better _on my computers_ :-) The colour is much better as well.

I still fail to understand why your navigation, the most important bit of
your site, is smaller than the content.

BTW you really should *not* change the font size or weight on hover.

Scroll down to the "Released the CMS..." section. In there is a link to
myoddweb.com. Organise your canvas size so that the end of that link is very
nearly touching the right of the box it lives in. Do this by decreasing the
canvas width until the link wraps to the next line and then, pixel by pixel,
increase canvas width so it goes back to the top line in the paragraph.

Now mouseover the link.

It gets larger on hover and wraps to the next line. Now the mouse is no
longer over it so it gets smaller on no hover and unwraps to the first line.
Now the mouse is over it so it gets larger and wraps to the next line. Now
the mouse is not over it so it gets smaller and...

Well, you can see the effect for yourself :-)

--
Cheers
Richard.

Simon

2004-08-24, 3:19 pm

> > Let me know if that looks a bit better.
>
> Looks *much* better _on my computers_ :-) The colour is much better as
well.

Thanks, I am still a bit puzzled why I am not noticing such a difference.
If I had one computer/browser I would understand but I have 2 pc, (Win98 &&
XPpro ) and 5 of the 'top<read most popular>' browsers.

I guess it must be because I have become used to looking at the site with
fonts so small.

>
> I still fail to understand why your navigation, the most important bit of
> your site, is smaller than the content.

I know, I am still trying to make up my mind on it.
I guess, (I am guessing a lot today :)), I want some form of difference
between the two, (menu/body). Maybe a difference background might help.

>
> BTW you really should *not* change the font size or weight on hover.
>
>
> Well, you can see the effect for yourself :-)

I fully agree, I too am not happy with it. But I don't like a changing
'visited' link colour nor do I like a totally different colour in the body
of the text, (I thinks it highlights the link more than I really want it
to).
And I also think that the simple underline does not emphasise the link
enough.
Maybe I should stick to an underline with a slightly different colour.

What do you think would be the best way?

>
> --
> Cheers
> Richard.
>

Thanks

Simon

Els

2004-08-24, 3:19 pm

Simon wrote:

>
> I fully agree, I too am not happy with it. But I don't like
> a changing 'visited' link colour nor do I like a totally
> different colour in the body of the text, (I thinks it
> highlights the link more than I really want it to).

You can change the weight of the links (visited and non-
visited), but not on hover only. It makes the text jump.
See on my site what it looks like if you want, all links are a
different colour, and heavier weight, and just are slightly
lightened when on hover.

> And I also think that the simple underline does not
> emphasise the link enough.
> Maybe I should stick to an underline with a slightly
> different colour.
>
> What do you think would be the best way?

Most recognizable seems to be underlined and blue in black text.
(just like the ads on the right side of your page ;-) )

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
Sonhos vem. Sonhos vão. O resto é imperfeito.
- Renato Russo -
Now playing: De Dijk - Nergens goed voor

2004-08-24, 3:19 pm

Simon wrote:

> I fully agree, I too am not happy with it. But I don't like a changing
> 'visited' link colour nor do I like a totally different colour in the body
> of the text, (I thinks it highlights the link more than I really want it
> to).

You are trying to take far too much control over what is an accepted method
of indicating links. Remember, if your viewer can not see the links they
will not follow them. I for one can not easily see the links on you site. I
have to hunt around and watch the cursor and I am reviewing your site. Think
about what your casual viewer will see.

> And I also think that the simple underline does not emphasise the link
> enough.

Then leave them alone. Let the links be links.

> Maybe I should stick to an underline with a slightly different colour.
>
> What do you think would be the best way?

Just leave it as the browser does it by default. Your viewer is used to
seeing links as links:

Links are underlined.

Un-visited links are blue.

Visited links are magenta.

Hovered links are whatever colour you choose but do not choose one of the
above colours. This is the only thing you should change.

KISS.

--
Cheers
Richard.

kchayka

2004-08-25, 4:34 am

Simon wrote:

> kchayka wrote:
>
> Well, I changed it to 100%, 95% and 90%, but _on my computers_ it does not
> make a huge difference.
> Also changing to Arial seems to have a small<sic> effect in the size.

Ah, but like rf, it is an improvement on my end. :)

If your default text size is smallish, the jumps between % sizes aren't
as noticeable as when your default size is large. Mine is large.

One thing you do need to watch out for is font-size inheritance. You are
using a number of nested elements, some of which are getting
font-size:90% (or 95%). Nested elements can get pretty small, for
example 90% of 90% of 90% = ~73%. Your sidebar menu has this problem:

table.box = 100%
tr.font_tiny = 90% (90% of 100%)
td = 90%
div.font_tiny = 81% (90% of 90%)
a = 81%
div.font_tiny = 73% (90% of 81%)
a = 73% = too small for many people.

I suggest you don't set sizes on the nested divs, just let them inherit
from the parent td and leave them at 90%. The submenu is already
separated by the different indent, that makes it noticeable enough.

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

Adrienne

2004-08-26, 12:27 pm

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed "Simon"
<spambucket@schoolsofafrica.com> writing in
news:2ou6tcFe2ftrU1@uni-berlin.de:

> I see now, I will change the colour to something a bit darker.
> I like the blue colour, but that's my personal choice, so I will
> compromise by making it darker.
> Hopefully it will make it easier to read.
>

You might be interested in Visicheck
http://www.vischeck.com/vischeck/vischeckURL.php .

--
Adrienne Boswell
Please respond to the group so others can share

Simon

2004-08-30, 4:16 am

Simon

2004-08-31, 7:16 am

kchayka

2004-09-01, 4:16 am