Site Ratings & Reviews - Critique request

Author

Critique request - dumpage.net

Andrew Cameron

2006-03-11, 6:17 pm

http://dumpage.net/

This is my new technology blog (a bigger explanation is on the site),
designed and coded by myself using CS2 and Textpad. I'm not overly
concerned about accessibility with this one, but I've covered the
basics, and am planning to introduce an audio alternative for the
CAPTCHA soon.

Things I already know:

1. The world doesn't really need another blog. But I want one.
2. You shouldn't start sentences with "but".
3. The CSS doesn't validate because I used an IE hack. I live in the
real world, so I'm not bothered about that at all. The markup is valid
though.
4. It has small fonts, yes. However, the design holds together when you
up the font size and can also handle two "smaller" clicks in Firefox and
still be legible (this is my own personal opinion on what defines "too
small").
5. It's green. I'll have to live with that for at least a few months.

Feedback on the design and your "User Experience" appreciated; also
comments on how readable you found the CAPTCHA. Thanks.

Andrew Cameron

Adrienne Boswell

2006-03-12, 6:26 pm

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Andrew Cameron <tags2k@XXXXXXXXXX>
writing in news:ZOIQf.77293$Fj7.24751@fe09.news.easynews.com:

> http://dumpage.net/
>
> This is my new technology blog (a bigger explanation is on the site),
> designed and coded by myself using CS2 and Textpad. I'm not overly
> concerned about accessibility with this one, but I've covered the
> basics, and am planning to introduce an audio alternative for the
> CAPTCHA soon.
>
> Things I already know:
>
> 1. The world doesn't really need another blog. But I want one.
> 2. You shouldn't start sentences with "but".

But, you can start them with However...

> 3. The CSS doesn't validate because I used an IE hack. I live in the
> real world, so I'm not bothered about that at all. The markup is valid
> though.

Why are you using Transitional? The page validates as Strict, and
transitional puts browsers into quirks mode.

> 4. It has small fonts, yes. However, the design holds together when you
> up the font size and can also handle two "smaller" clicks in Firefox and
> still be legible (this is my own personal opinion on what defines "too
> small").

Yes, I must be getting old, that is uncomfortable for me. I resized 120%.

> 5. It's green. I'll have to live with that for at least a few months.

It's not really green, it's tones of beige. Point is, I like it.

>
> Feedback on the design and your "User Experience" appreciated;

In Opera the images in the #menu are bleeding out of their container. In
FF, increasing text size also skews these same images.

> also
> comments on how readable you found the CAPTCHA. Thanks.

I read the CAPTCHA with interest, as this is something I have had to deal
with. I have to say that as measures are taken to thwart CAPTCHA hackers,
the images get more and more difficult to read. I would certainly welcome
something audible.

--
Adrienne Boswell
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

Jim Moe

2006-03-12, 6:26 pm

Andrew Cameron wrote:
> http://dumpage.net/
>
Is "dumpage"
- as in roughage?
- as in dump age, the era of dumping?
- as in dum page, not-so-smart site?
A bit ambiguous. Is that your intent?
>
> 4. It has small fonts, yes. However, the design holds together when you
> up the font size and can also handle two "smaller" clicks in Firefox and
> still be legible (this is my own personal opinion on what defines "too
> small").
>
Then why insult me with your preference in font size? If you want the
font to look small, reduce it on your display, not mine. It is set at 70%
of what I find comfortable. I do not like to squint or be forced to resize
to 150%.
The blogs/articles/... menu: "articles" is not aligned with the other
three items. (Well, it is when images are disabled.) Probably because it
is 13px in height while the others are 19px. And because they are images,
they do not resize with the rest of the text.
The fixed width design is unfortunate. At least the blog part should
adjust with the viewport.

I like the layout. It is clean and regular. And the green header image
blends nicely with the other colors below it.
Why is "green" a problem?

--
jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

Andrew Cameron

2006-03-12, 6:26 pm

Adrienne Boswell wrote:
>
> But, you can start them with However...

However, "however" seemed a bit much for a sentence that short.

> Why are you using Transitional? The page validates as Strict, and
> transitional puts browsers into quirks mode.

Because (dammit, did it again!) BRs and such "unclean" markup aren't
allowed in Strict, and because I've basically got a CMS on there and
will be able to post from multiple clients on multiple devices, who
knows what code could end up in there. If I need to do the star hack
for IE once in my CSS to keep validity, so be it. Think of it as
putting as many bolts on the door as possible, rather than worrying
about health and safety ;-)

> I resized 120%.

Based on comment by yourself and Jim, I've upped the main body size by
ten percent. I think this is fair to most people, and doesn't make the
page look too clunky. The body was styled to 70% before it's now 80% and
I've reduced the size of the headings a little bit to compensate.

I tried at 100% but sorry guys, I just couldn't let that be the default.
Hardly anyone (I'm talking 1%, maybe less than 1%) will browse with
their font size set on small just incase they come across a
mega-accessible site with large fonts and they want it to look a bit
nicer. Most people (90% and over) will browse with the default font
size and when they come across a site with huge fonts will say "ugh,
that looks crap". At no point will the majority of people think "you
know what, this design would look nicer if I sized my fonts down -
that's better, must have been what the author intended". On the other
hand, people who can't read the font are more likely to hit Ctrl+Wheel
or be browsing with larger fonts on anyway (or leave, but that's the
risk I'm willing to take based on the law of averages) because they
probably come across this kind of issue all the time.

> It's not really green, it's tones of beige. Point is, I like it.

Good, I'm glad you like it. I liked it when I first mocked it up in
Photoshop, but with the content in and the sidebar colours I suddenly
had a "woah that's green" moment. A few picture-laden posts and it
should even itself out.

> In Opera the images in the #menu are bleeding out of their container.

It sounds mean but I couldn't care less about Opera. If the programmers
involved in that operation want to be part of our world then they need
to get out of their ivory towers and work for it. Then again, I would
say that, being a FF user. I made sure it worked in IE6 though, for the
crazy 70% of visitors. Ick.

> In FF, increasing text size also skews these same images.

Yeah, I can't work that one out. The menu is absolutely positioned so
in my mind it shouldn't happen, but I'll have another look later today.
It is a Sunday, and small CSS bugs are what Sundays were made for.

> I read the CAPTCHA with interest, as this is something I have had to deal
> with. I have to say that as measures are taken to thwart CAPTCHA hackers,
> the images get more and more difficult to read. I would certainly welcome
> something audible.

Yup. The only problem is that you'd have to get someone to read out the
alphabet for you, then splice it up (I'd be using my girlfriend for this
and I don't think she'd want those files distributed freely, although
she'd be okay for it being on the blog). I might make it customisable
instead so you can pick words from any sound samples and throw them in
there to choose from. There's always the chance of someone not being
able to understand.

Anyway, thanks for looking at the site. It tried to look at yours but
Firefox couldn't resolve the name.

--
Regards,
Andrew Cameron
http://dumpage.net/

Andrew Cameron

2006-03-12, 6:26 pm

Jim Moe wrote:
> - as in dump age, the era of dumping?

Close. I meant it like a dumping ground; the stuff there has been
dumped (as in brain dump, not discarded), therefore it is dumpage. I
guess nouning weirds language, too. It's there so I can have a space to
fire my thoughts and rants, which also happens to be the definition of a
blog :-)

> A bit ambiguous. Is that your intent?

Well, it was the best I could think of when I registered that hosting
account, but I quite like it and it's an apt name IMO.

> Then why insult me with your preference in font size?

I wouldn't say it's an insult. See my reply to Adrienne for more on
this. I have upped the font size though, but probably not by as much as
you'd like. :-)

> "articles" is not aligned with the other three items.

That should be fixed now, thanks for pointing that out.

> The fixed width design is unfortunate.

I was considering a fluid design but it is a lot of extra effort,
especially with the header image. What would happen there? Would I
fade into a solid colour? Would that even look nice? What about my
menu - would its transparency effect be lost when it wasn't over the
image part of the header? How would I get the transparent background to
line up with the header? So many questions, just not enough time, sadly.

> Why is "green" a problem?

On overview last night, it just looked "a bit too green". This morning
I'm a bit happier with it. I'm not generally a fan of green when I do
it (I definately wouldn't refer to myself as a "designer"), but it's not
too shabby in the cold light of day!

Thanks for your comments.

--
Regards,
Andrew Cameron
http://dumpage.net/

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2006-03-12, 6:26 pm

Andrew Cameron wrote:

> I tried at 100% but sorry guys, I just couldn't let that be the default.

Why penalize _any_ of your visitors? If you think it (100%) is too
large, reset your own default size, but leave me to have mine. Maybe
your font size is set too large not only in your browser, but with your
operating system desktop.

> Hardly anyone (I'm talking 1%, maybe less than 1%) will browse with
> their font size set on small

Even with your recent increase to 80%, I still have to choose Larger in
IE6 to comfortably read your page. And my eyes are fairly good.

Why is the footer sized larger than the content? That's the opposite of
the norm.

Well, waitaminnit. The *appearance* of the footer is smaller than the
content, even though the font size is set larger. At this point, I am
guessing you have some improper <div> nesting, and the 80% of your
content is 80% of something less than the <body>. There is an
inheritance problem.

> just incase they come across a mega-accessible site with large fonts
> and they want it to look a bit nicer. Most people (90% and over)
> will browse with the default font size

90% is a good estimate. Why not endeavor to teach those folks about how
to resize?

> and when they come across a site with huge fonts will say "ugh, that
> looks crap".

You think 100% is huge?

> At no point will the majority of people think "you know what, this
> design would look nicer if I sized my fonts down - that's better,
> must have been what the author intended". On the other hand, people
> who can't read the font are more likely to hit Ctrl+Wheel or be
> browsing with larger fonts on anyway (or leave, but that's the risk
> I'm willing to take based on the law of averages) because they
> probably come across this kind of issue all the time.

So ... the bottom line is you are writing the site for yourself and not
your visitors. Well, I can understand that; I have a Back button. <g>

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer

Andrew Cameron

2006-03-12, 6:26 pm

Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> Maybe your font size is set too large not only in your browser,
> but with your operating system desktop.

Nope. I use the default XP size (although I revert the GUI back to
classic mode) with the default font size in Firefox. I also view at
1280x1024, which makes my fonts even smaller than on the majority of
1024x768 or 800x600 screens. People viewing in 1600x1200 can't justify
using such a resolution unless they *do* have perfect vision.

It just happens to be that 80% of the default size on what is the
majority of browser settings, is what I want my site to look like. That
is how I designed it. If you want it to look different, perhaps you
should have a custom stylesheet set up for when the design choices of
others don't match your own?

I will agree that if I was going for a AA-accessible site, I'd use a
larger setting (not to mention a fluid layout), but in this case it's
not needed. Not every site needs to be ultra-accessible, and I haven't
checked but I would guess the site passes WCAG Level 1. I even have an
RSS feed which you can import into your own reader and view the textual
content in your own settings. Turn off CSS and view a structurally
marked-up page of pure content.

It's not discrimination to not sacrifice my own aesthetic preferences
when the options are there. If I added a further option in the form of
a high-contrast large-font text-only mode, would that make my original
font choice acceptable?

> Well, waitaminnit. The *appearance* of the footer is smaller than the
> content, even though the font size is set larger. At this point, I am
> guessing you have some improper <div> nesting, and the 80% of your
> content is 80% of something less than the <body>. There is an
> inheritance problem.

Well it validates so it must be nested properly, and the content doesn't
have a font size set. The footer is set to 90%, which is 90% of the 80%
applied to the body. The content should just sit at 100% of the body's
80%. Perhaps your eyes aren't as good as you thought? ;-)

> 90% is a good estimate. Why not endeavor to teach those folks about how
> to resize?

Probably because I'm writing a technology blog and anyone who doesn't
know how to resize text in their browser will most likely have no
interest in what I write.

> You think 100% is huge?

Not in some cases, but it looks huge and clunky in the context of my
site, and since I use the default settings and so do the majority of
people (and I'm not on a crusade to try and change that), I'd like those
who have the same settings as myself to view the site in the same way.
This way, the most visitors possible will see what I want them to see.
Again, they have the options to change it should they not wish to view
in that way.

> So ... the bottom line is you are writing the site for yourself and not
> your visitors.

Untrue. I'm writing the site for myself and 80 to 90% of the visitors
to my site who will care about the content. The other 10 or 20% will
already know that most sites are too small for them to read. If they
don't want to spend 2 whole seconds flicking a setting so they can read
my content then I'll just have to live with that.

> Well, I can understand that; I have a Back button. <g>

Ah, the old "I couldn't read it so I don't see why any of the other
millions of people on the net would even visit". The grin implies that
you know it's a flawed argument, right? :-)

--
Regards,
Andrew Cameron
http://dumpage.net/

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

2006-03-12, 6:26 pm

Andrew Cameron wrote:

> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>
> Nope. I use the default XP size (although I revert the GUI back to
> classic mode) with the default font size in Firefox. I also view at
> 1280x1024, which makes my fonts even smaller than on the majority of
> 1024x768 or 800x600 screens. People viewing in 1600x1200 can't
> justify using such a resolution unless they *do* have perfect vision.
>
> It just happens to be that 80% of the default size on what is the
> majority of browser settings, is what I want my site to look like.
> That is how I designed it. If you want it to look different, perhaps
> you should have a custom stylesheet set up for when the design
> choices of others don't match your own?

I know all about custom user stylesheets and minimal default browser
font size settings. Normally, I do not set them, else I wouldn't see the
microfonts that others use in their pages.

> I will agree that if I was going for a AA-accessible site, I'd use a
> larger setting (not to mention a fluid layout), but in this case it's
> not needed. Not every site needs to be ultra-accessible, and I
> haven't checked but I would guess the site passes WCAG Level 1. I
> even have an RSS feed which you can import into your own reader and
> view the textual content in your own settings. Turn off CSS and view
> a structurally marked-up page of pure content.
>
> It's not discrimination to not sacrifice my own aesthetic preferences
> when the options are there. If I added a further option in the form
> of a high-contrast large-font text-only mode, would that make my
> original font choice acceptable?

No.

>
> Well it validates so it must be nested properly,

That only proves correct syntax. It certainly has nothing to do with
mis-set cascading font sizes, which is what I was referencing.

> and the content doesn't have a font size set. The footer is set to
> 90%, which is 90% of the 80% applied to the body. The content should
> just sit at 100% of the body's 80%. Perhaps your eyes aren't as good
> as you thought? ;-)

My eyes are fine.

>
> Probably because I'm writing a technology blog and anyone who doesn't
> know how to resize text in their browser will most likely have no
> interest in what I write.
>
>
> Not in some cases, but it looks huge and clunky in the context of my
> site, and since I use the default settings and so do the majority of
> people (and I'm not on a crusade to try and change that), I'd like
> those who have the same settings as myself to view the site in the
> same way. This way, the most visitors possible will see what I want
> them to see. Again, they have the options to change it should they
> not wish to view in that way.
>
>
> Untrue. I'm writing the site for myself and 80 to 90% of the
> visitors to my site who will care about the content. The other 10 or
> 20% will already know that most sites are too small for them to read.
> If they don't want to spend 2 whole seconds flicking a setting so
> they can read my content then I'll just have to live with that.
>
>
> Ah, the old "I couldn't read it so I don't see why any of the other
> millions of people on the net would even visit". The grin implies
> that you know it's a flawed argument, right? :-)

Flawed? Perhaps not in the real world...

[leaving for the day now]

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer

Jim Moe

2006-03-12, 6:26 pm

Andrew Cameron wrote:
Add a time zone to the date/time you show. It appears to be +0100 GMT.
>
>
> I wouldn't say it's an insult. See my reply to Adrienne for more on
> this. I have upped the font size though, but probably not by as much as
> you'd like. :-)
>
No. Only 100% is appropriate. I read your defense in the other thread.
Again, if you do not like the too-large look, reduce on *your* monitor.
In this case you are simply being arrogant. You presume to know the
preferences of all those who visit your site.
This is a presentation issue that many designers and authors refuse to
comprehend. "Text looks too big and clunky on my very specific setup here.
Therefore it will look the same every else and I must fix that."

--
jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

kchayka

2006-03-12, 6:26 pm

Andrew Cameron wrote:
>
> I use the default XP size (although I revert the GUI back to
> classic mode) with the default font size in Firefox. I also view at
> 1280x1024, which makes my fonts even smaller than on the majority of
> 1024x768 or 800x600 screens. People viewing in 1600x1200 can't justify
> using such a resolution unless they *do* have perfect vision.

Um, screen size by itself is irrelevant. What size monitor do you expect
to go with any of those sizes, eh? How about dpi?

Just because you don't do something, doesn't mean no one else does, or
should for that matter.

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

Chris Beall

2006-03-12, 10:17 pm

Andrew Cameron wrote:
> Adrienne Boswell wrote:
(snip)
> Most people (90% and over) will browse with the default font
> size and when they come across a site with huge fonts will say "ugh,
> that looks crap".

Adrienne,

Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about the font size here?
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/cover.html#minitoc

Chris Beall

Adrienne Boswell

2006-03-13, 10:22 pm

Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Chris Beall
<Chris_Beall@prodigy.net> writing in news:9g4Rf.21397$tb3.17995
@newssvr24.news.prodigy.net:

> Andrew Cameron wrote:
> (snip)
>
> Adrienne,
>
> Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about the font size here?
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/cover.html#minitoc
>
> Chris Beall
>
>
>

It's fine for me because the size is not specified, so it is at the size
that I like.

--
Adrienne Boswell
http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
Please respond to the group so others can share

Ben Measures

2006-03-13, 10:23 pm

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 12:44:41 +0000, Andrew Cameron wrote:

> Nope. I use the default XP size (although I revert the GUI back to
> classic mode) with the default font size in Firefox. I also view at
> 1280x1024, which makes my fonts even smaller than on the majority of
> 1024x768 or 800x600 screens.

Computers display in pixels. XP (and Firefox) size fonts in pixels. Now,
make sure you read this twice: a pixel has only a casual relationship to
actual displayed size.

Thus, a font at 16px can (and does) vary between 5mm and 2.5mm. In
other words, it can be up to twice as small or twice as large as it
appears to you.

Since you have absolutely no way of knowing how big it'd actually look,
the only reasonable thing to do is set it at 100% of the user's preference.

--
Ben Measures
$email =~ s/is@silly/@/

Chris Beall

2006-03-13, 10:23 pm

Adrienne Boswell wrote:
> Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Chris Beall
> <Chris_Beall@prodigy.net> writing in news:9g4Rf.21397$tb3.17995
> @newssvr24.news.prodigy.net:
>
>
>
>
> It's fine for me because the size is not specified, so it is at the size
> that I like.
>
Of course. Now I'll ask Andrew the same question, which is what I
intended...

Chris Beall

Chris Beall

2006-03-13, 10:23 pm

Andrew Cameron wrote:

(snip)

> Most people (90% and over) will browse with the default font size and
> when they come across a site with huge fonts will say "ugh, that
looks > crap".

Andrew,

Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about the font size here?
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/cover.html#minitoc

How do you feel about the fontsize HERE, i.e. in this newsgroup?

Chris Beall

Andrew Cameron

2006-03-13, 10:23 pm

Ben Measures wrote:
> Computers display in pixels. XP (and Firefox) size fonts in pixels. Now,
> make sure you read this twice: a pixel has only a casual relationship to
> actual displayed size.

Okay, okay, okay, come on now folks. I've been doing this whole web
thing for almost a decade now, I do web development for a living and
have been for several years - I know about pixels, resolution and
monitor sizes; please don't patronise me.

I meant relatively, on the same size of monitor. Sheesh. It's a
scalable thing, too - I mean, you guys don't know how big my monitor is.

The only reason I posted in here was for comment on the design as we
have designers at work and it's not my best area, but I should have
guessed that I would be jumped on by the Every Site On The Web Must Be
AAA Complaint Brigade.

--
Regards,
Andrew Cameron
http://dumpage.net/

Andrew Cameron

2006-03-13, 10:23 pm

Chris Beall wrote:
> Andrew,

Yes, Chris?

> Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about the font size here?
> http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/cover.html#minitoc

Well, I don't find it very easy to read, to be honest. If I flick the
font size down one click in Firefox, it suits my preferences nicely and
makes it a lot friendlier to my eyes. I'm not just saying that.

That page is not designed to be pretty (it doesn't seem to have been
designed at all); its purpose is its function - link heavy and
content-rich, but that's why people provide text-only modes and make
their otherwise visually-attractive sites degrade gracefully for text
browsers.

I think the W3C's design skills (or rather, lack of) are not only
counter-productive to what people like Dave Shea, Doug Bowman, Cameron
Moll etc are trying to do, but impractical in the real world where
clients want pretty and we have to provide both accessibility and "The
Shiny". I guess that's a rant for another thread, really.

The bottom line is: if I design something in a certain way, that's how I
want it to look. Some will agree with me, some will not. If we all
used 100% font size everywhere then the web would look boring.

> How do you feel about the fontsize HERE, i.e. in this newsgroup?

Oh, you card.

--
Regards,
Andrew Cameron
http://dumpage.net/

Greg N.

2006-03-13, 10:23 pm

Andrew Cameron wrote:

> Ben Measures wrote:
>
>
> Okay, okay, okay, come on now folks. I've been doing this whole web
> thing for almost a decade now, I do web development for a living and
> have been for several years - I know about pixels, resolution and
> monitor sizes; please don't patronise me.

OK, but you're dodging the key part of Ben's post. Ben's bottom line was:
[color=darkred]

--
Gregor mit dem Motorrad auf Reisen:
http://hothaus.de/greg-tour/

Ben Measures

2006-03-14, 6:15 am

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 22:28:35 +0000, Andrew Cameron wrote:

> If we all used 100% font size everywhere then the web would look boring.

You don't need to make sure it's 100% everywhere, just that the
weighted average size is 100% of the user's preference.

--
Ben Measures
$email =~ s/is@silly/@/

Chris Beall

2006-03-14, 10:17 pm

Andrew Cameron wrote:

> Chris Beall wrote:
>
>
>
> Yes, Chris?
>
>
>
> Well, I don't find it very easy to read, to be honest. If I flick the
> font size down one click in Firefox, it suits my preferences nicely and
> makes it a lot friendlier to my eyes. I'm not just saying that.

OK. Now, how did you feel about having to make an adjustment in order
to optimize the site to your preferences? (not frustrated, at least,
since you COULD make such an adjustment.)

Suppose you left your browser set 'one click down'. Would you then find
that text on other sites was too small, requiring you to return the
setting to its default position? If so, who is responsible for that,
W3C or the other sites?

(snip)
>
> The bottom line is: if I design something in a certain way, that's how I
> want it to look. Some will agree with me, some will not. If we all
> used 100% font size everywhere then the web would look boring.

I don't think anyone has advocated that. When folks here have advocated
a rule-of-thumb, it has generally been:
- Use 100% for body text.
- Use larger percentages where appropriate to get greater attention.
- Use smaller percentages (but not less than 85%) for small quantities
of less important information, such as copyright and other legal notices.

>
>
> Oh, you card.

Hey, it was a serious question, even if it was baited. Lots of useful
information gets communicated here, yet we manage to do that without
authors being able to determine font sizes. But, just as with web
pages, YOU can adjust the font size (if your newsreader supports it;
mine does). And, because WE can't override that setting, EVERY message
you see here will be readable, to you, without further changes being
required. Boring, if you think, but efficient.

Chris Beall