Home » Eclipse Projects » Eclipse Website » Constructive criticism
| Constructive criticism [message #11780] |
Thu, 27 October 2005 13:03  |
 Eclipse Webmaster
Messages: 607343
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
Susan sent me this e-mail, where someone suggests improvements to our
website. This individual didn't know about Phoenix, but it was an
interesting exercise to look through the suggestions to see if Phoenix
is on track.
For those of you who want to check up on us, visit
http://phoenix.eclipse.org. The Downloads section is pretty much
complete, as are portions of "membership". The front page, however, is
simple a bogus draft.
> - Navigation: highlight the currently selected menu item, indicate to
> the user where he is
This may or may not make it into Phoenix for 1.0.
> - Navigation: why not do a submenu-like structure for the menu? (When
> clicking community, the local navigation with all resources could be
> placed directly below the global "community" navigation entry.)
This is addressed by Phoenix.
> - Navigation (big change): global navigation horizontally in banner,
This is addressed by Phoenix.
> local navigation on left side as-is and sublocal navigation as-is in
> the frame.
Three levels of nested navigation are available in Phoenix (see
Downloads). Frames are removed in Phoenix.
> - Navigation: why is "home" smaller than the rest of the nav?
This is addressed by Phoenix.
> - Landing page (eclipse.org/index.html):
> - too much information (actually too much text) on the first page
> - missing overview[1]
> - no clear structuration into subprojects
> - Translations? Planned?
This is addressed by Phoenix.
> And a general issue:
> - Replace all fixed font sizes with relative ones. (10pt->1em) This
> makes the fonts scalable over all platforms and increases accessibility.
This is addressed by Phoenix. We're using em as our unit of measure,
and all fonts are in a CSS. Please see http://phoenix.eclipse.org/. It
is a work in progress.
> About fonts in general: Font sizes are very good for clarifying on
> structure, but small fonts before bigger fonts after big fonts are quite
> irritating (happening on front page in the welcome section).
As per above, we'll be using standard <h1> .. <h6> with appropriate font
sizes and styles throughout the site.
> Extra:
> - Make the pages valid HTML 4.01 (strict).
This is *not* going to happen. If only one or two people authored the
site, we could aim for strict, but we have hundreds of authors with
varying knowledge on web design. For phoenix we are using XHTML 1.0
Transitional
> Use CSS, drop the frames..
As above.
>
> [1] This is one of my main issues with the website. A (new) user landing
> on the index page expects some information about eclipse. A general
> overview (why not graphical?!) over the eclipse structure with all the
> projects and what they are would be very helpful. (Don't ask how long it
> took for me to understand what you understand by "Eclipse", "Eclipse
> project", "Eclipse tools" or how "JDT" comes into it..)
>
I've started a data-driven process by which we define categories (or
groups) for projects based on their topic, so that our userbase need not
understand the Project structure of Eclipse. Please see
http://phoenix.eclipse.org/downloads/index_topic.php for a draft. Susan,
I believe this type of view would be useful for the Projects page.
Denis
|
|
|
| Re: Constructive criticism [message #11815 is a reply to message #11780] |
Thu, 27 October 2005 18:26  |
|
/Eclipse WebMaster (Denis Roy)/:
>> And a general issue:
>> - Replace all fixed font sizes with relative ones. (10pt->1em) This
>> makes the fonts scalable over all platforms and increases accessibility.
>
> This is addressed by Phoenix. We're using em as our unit of measure,
> and all fonts are in a CSS. Please see http://phoenix.eclipse.org/. It
> is a work in progress.
Relative units as percentages and 'em' can also be misused as
visible from the current state - please, do not bother with the
user's default font (both: family and size) for the main text and
use relative font sizes (generally greater than '1em' and '100%')
for the rest of the elements (headings) which need it. Try to use
smaller (than the default) font size only for some notes (in which
case is sensible to change the font family to 'sans-serif' since
serif fonts could become ineligible at smaller sizes on screen).
I already have my default font set to a sans-serif family and
smaller (than the "usual" of 12pt) font size thus I see pretty tiny
fonts at http://phoenix.eclipse.org/ . What I see is 'font-size:
75%' for the BODY element - why 75% than the preferred is better
than just the preferred? Even with a "default" of 12pt font size the
text is too small (given the current style rules).
--
Stanimir
|
|
| |
| Re: Constructive criticism [message #11885 is a reply to message #11851] |
Thu, 27 October 2005 20:53 |
|
/Eclipse WebMaster (Denis Roy)/:
> 12pt is not the preferred, it's the *default* on most browsers.I think
> it's just too big if we leave it at 100%. The default font on most
> browsers is Times New Roman, or some variant. I think that lacks style.
You know, what's stylish to you is ugly to me. That's not serious
argument against accessibility, IMO. If you don't like your default
- change it. The colors, the graphics and the visual layout give
pretty much branding as one may need. One could style the larger
font elements (all kind of headings) with exact font family since
the larger font size gives pretty much insurance the text would be
comfortable (means won't be too small) to read.
> Of all the people who visit eclipse.org, how many change their browser's
> default font settings? I think you're an exception rather than a rule.
> Most people stick with the browser defaults.
Yes, how you could know how many people do not bother to adjust
their settings to their most likely preference? While you can't be
sure how many, it is much more logical to think people do it or will
do it if they know they could do it and how to do it.
> We could set the default font to 9pt instead, but if you're reducing the
> size from 75% you'll still see it as too small.
I think setting an absolute size, if you aim to set a specific
*absolute* size on your and everybody's screen, is preferable over
decreasing the default one. Also using a 'pt' over 'px' unit should
be better since larger resolution screens may have their dots per
inch setting adjusted which may render the text at more appropriate
pixel size.
But then you hit an Internet Explorer bug where setting an absolute
font size disables the accessibility feature to increase the text
size - otherwise why you have chosen to use '75%' over '9pt'?
And, again in my opinion, 9pt is far too small - you could create a
poll accessible from the front page where people could vote for
their preferred font size to get better idea of what's preferred at
least to the Eclipse.org audience.
> I'm not sure if there's a solution that will please everyone.
The best solution: I've already pointed it.
Partial "solution":
1. Since adjusting the font size in Internet Explorer is not an easy
task, set the main font size using relative unit (so it will match
*your* preference, relative to the "default") - this will give you
equal absolute size to all Internet Explorer users while keeping
their ability to use the text zoom feature.
2. Then provide a style declaration, setting the font size using an
absolute unit (which again will match *your* preference), but "hide"
that declaration from Internet Explorer using "CSS hacks" (known
bugs and limitations in Internet Explorer's CSS support), like:
body { font-size: 75% }
html > body { font-size: 9pt }
3. Make sure the font size is easily adjusted by means of user
stylesheets, i.e. it is doable with a single CSS style rule like:
body { font-size: 100% !important }
The last point seems already in place but I mention it as to be kept
like that in future.
--
Stanimir
|
|
|
| Re: Constructive criticism [message #12454 is a reply to message #11885] |
Fri, 28 October 2005 15:24 |
Eclipse Webmaster
Messages: 607343
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
> You know, what's stylish to you is ugly to me. That's not serious
> argument against accessibility, IMO. If you don't like your default -
> change it.
I think it's much easier (and logical) to achieve a common, specific
style by changing the site instead of assuming the user will set their
font themselves, and I think that using a relative size (as opposed to a
fixed size) is more considerate of your personalized settings. If you
set your default font size to your minimum threshold for readability,
you are creating an issue for yourself.
Likewise, the person who sets their font to the maximum threshold for
readability will complain about the fonts that I increase in size;
however, according to your statements, increasing a font is acceptable
while decreasing it is not.
I visited a dozen large commercial websites - microsoft.com, hp.com,
ibm.com, dell.com to name a few - all of them changed the relative font
size and font face. Microsoft sets the font to 70%. Dell's text is 8pt
on the front page. Intel have 92.5% for the body, and 75% in the TD. I
am assuming these companies, in their commercial interests, have
performed usability and accessibility studies for their website design.
Are they all wrong?
One site that I visit frequently and that has consistently kept the
default font is Slashdot. And it gets constant criticism for being a
site with a 1990's look.
[snip]
> The best solution: I've already pointed it.
It's the best solution - in your opinion. I don't agree with it. But
please, do open a Bug against Phoenix/UI so we can get community
feedback on the issues.
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/
Thanks for your feedback,
Denis
--
Eclipse WebMaster - webmaster@eclipse.org
Questions? Consult the FAQ at
http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Webmaster_FAQ
View my status at http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/WebMaster
|
|
| |
| Re: Constructive criticism [message #12500 is a reply to message #12454] |
Sat, 29 October 2005 11:55 |
|
/Eclipse WebMaster (Denis Roy)/:
> I think it's much easier (and logical) to achieve a common, specific
> style by changing the site instead of assuming the user will set their
> font themselves,
You assume all browsers/systems have the same defaults which is not
logical, therefore you assUme you achieve a common style while you
don't.
> and I think that using a relative size (as opposed to a
> fixed size) is more considerate of your personalized settings.
It is not my personalized settings - it something you can't really
know. It is just undetermined to you.
> If you
> set your default font size to your minimum threshold for readability,
> you are creating an issue for yourself.
I don't set the default font size to my minimum threshold for
readability, see for yourself:
http://stanio.info/my_default.png (11pt)
http://stanio.info/your_style.png (75% of 11pt)
Now display those on a 17" LCD monitor with resolution of 1280x1024
to see the physical size I get (and I'm certainly not the only one).
My default of 11pt is just 1pt below your 12pt default. Your
preference is 9pt which is 3pt below your default and 2pt below my
default and my preference. Your style rules makes the text even
smaller than 9pt on my system.
I set my default at size comfortable to me for reading large amounts
of text (UI labels/captions are another story).
> Likewise, the person who sets their font to the maximum threshold for
> readability will complain about the fonts that I increase in size;
> however, according to your statements, increasing a font is acceptable
> while decreasing it is not.
I haven't said increasing the font size is good - could you cite me?
I've mentioned bothering with the default font could be permissible
for elements which usually have their text size bigger (than the
normal text) - such as headings. The headings don't constitute the
main/most of the text and I've explicitly stated: "do not bother the
default font for the main text".
> I visited a dozen large commercial websites - microsoft.com, hp.com,
> ibm.com, dell.com to name a few - all of them changed the relative font
> size and font face. Microsoft sets the font to 70%. Dell's text is 8pt
> on the front page. Intel have 92.5% for the body, and 75% in the TD. I
> am assuming these companies, in their commercial interests, have
> performed usability and accessibility studies for their website design.
> Are they all wrong?
They are certainly wrong in that aspect as you could get the opinion
of a community like "comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets".
You get the same opinion by the W3C (Microsoft being one of its main
contributors), "Quality Tips for Webmasters - Care With Font Size"
<http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/font-size>:
> A certain trend among designers, believing that small text gives a
> Web page a sleek appearance and provides more space per "page" for
> actual content, sometimes results in the use of unreasonably small
> font sizes.
> [...]
> *Good usage of CSS's font properties*
> [...]
> * Avoid sizes in em smaller than 1em for text body, except maybe
> for copyright statements or other kinds of "fine print."
> * If using a small font-size, prefer a legible font-family with
> a high aspect value (see the section on font-size-adjust in the CSS2
> specification for an explanation of the aspect value), which are
> more likely to be legible at such small sizes.
You may read the section about 'font-size-adjust' property of why
different fonts (even of same generic family) could look so
different at same sizes. Microsoft.com and many others rely mostly
on the greater eligibility of the "Verdana" font at smaller sizes,
which is still not sufficient and one can't assume Linux people have
"Verdana", for example. You could also see the
http://www.theregister.co.uk/ - why they have chosen not to use such
tiny fonts?
Off the "Fonts" topic: You might have noticed the screenshot of
"your_style.png" doesn't have white background, so you could also
see another tip <http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/>:
"If You Pick One Color, Pick Them All" <http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/color>
/Eclipse WebMaster (Denis Roy)/:
> It's the best solution - in your opinion. I don't agree with it. But
> please, do open a Bug against Phoenix/UI so we can get community
> feedback on the issues.
Done:
Bug 114288 "The Eclipse web-site should use larger font size for the
main text" <https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=114288>
You might consider opening a counter-opinion issue so you could get
votes for your decision too.
--
Stanimir
|
|
|
| Re: Constructive criticism [message #12520 is a reply to message #12454] |
Sat, 29 October 2005 12:01 |
|
/Eclipse WebMaster (Denis Roy)/:
> One site that I visit frequently and that has consistently kept the
> default font is Slashdot. And it gets constant criticism for being a
> site with a 1990's look.
Again, it is because of your preferences, in this case the defaults
of your browser. You probably see it with a Serif font, but AFAIK
Konqueror and Mac's Safari have their default to a Sans-serif font.
If you look at the site with a Sans-serif font and it still looks as
from 1990 to you, then the font is not the reason (perhaps the site
style hasn't changed since then?).
--
Stanimir
|
|
| | |
| Re: Constructive criticism [message #12582 is a reply to message #12500] |
Mon, 31 October 2005 14:14 |
Eclipse Webmaster
Messages: 607343
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
>> however, according to your statements, increasing a font is acceptable
>> while decreasing it is not.
> I haven't said increasing the font size is good - could you cite me?
acceptable != good.
Here's what led me to believe you think larger fonts are *acceptable*.
"use relative font sizes (generally greater than '1em' and '100%') for
the rest of the elements (headings) which need it".
> You might consider opening a counter-opinion issue so you could get
> votes for your decision too.
Thanks, but I will not. It's not my word against yours, or against
anyone else's.
Your opinion certainly counts, but we've been gathering feedback on
Phoenix since June, and if many people don't like the font, we will
change it. Am I going to change it because *you* don't like it? The
answer is no, no matter how much you want to argue.
Thanks for your feedback,
Denis
--
Eclipse WebMaster - webmaster@eclipse.org
Questions? Consult the FAQ at
http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Webmaster_FAQ
View my status at http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/WebMaster
|
|
|
| Re: Constructive criticism [message #12602 is a reply to message #12582] |
Mon, 31 October 2005 18:16 |
|
/Eclipse WebMaster (Denis Roy)/:
> Here's what led me to believe you think larger fonts are *acceptable*.
>
> "use relative font sizes (generally greater than '1em' and '100%') for
> the rest of the elements (headings) which need it".
Sorry, it is probably my bad English since it is not my native
language, but I really don't see what could be misinterpreted: "the
rest of the elements" given the previous "main text" context skipped
in the above quotation.
> Am I going to change it because *you* don't like it? The
> answer is no, no matter how much you want to argue.
I'm not arguing for you to change something on my demand - I'm just
outstanding my opinion giving arguments and you were stating yours
against it. Given I haven't saw much feedback on the font size
issue, apart from casual "the font is too small", I felt I must
state my arguments about it.
--
Stanimir
|
|
| | | |
| Re: Constructive criticism [message #14508 is a reply to message #11815] |
Sun, 11 December 2005 10:27 |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: zhangzhihua--2.163.com
Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:
> /Eclipse WebMaster (Denis Roy)/:
>>> And a general issue:
>>> - Replace all fixed font sizes with relative ones. (10pt->1em) This
>>> makes the fonts scalable over all platforms and increases accessibility.
>>
>> This is addressed by Phoenix. We're using em as our unit of measure,
>> and all fonts are in a CSS. Please see http://phoenix.eclipse.org/. It
>> is a work in progress.
> Relative units as percentages and 'em' can also be misused as
> visible from the current state - please, do not bother with the
> user's default font (both: family and size) for the main text and
> use relative font sizes (generally greater than '1em' and '100%')
> for the rest of the elements (headings) which need it. Try to use
> smaller (than the default) font size only for some notes (in which
> case is sensible to change the font family to 'sans-serif' since
> serif fonts could become ineligible at smaller sizes on screen).
> I already have my default font set to a sans-serif family and
> smaller (than the "usual" of 12pt) font size thus I see pretty tiny
> fonts at http://phoenix.eclipse.org/ . What I see is 'font-size:
> 75%' for the BODY element - why 75% than the preferred is better
> than just the preferred? Even with a "default" of 12pt font size the
> text is too small (given the current style rules). good job
|
|
|
| Re: Constructive criticism [message #565991 is a reply to message #11780] |
Thu, 27 October 2005 18:26 |
|
/Eclipse WebMaster (Denis Roy)/:
>> And a general issue:
>> - Replace all fixed font sizes with relative ones. (10pt->1em) This
>> makes the fonts scalable over all platforms and increases accessibility.
>
> This is addressed by Phoenix. We're using em as our unit of measure,
> and all fonts are in a CSS. Please see http://phoenix.eclipse.org/ It
> is a work in progress.
Relative units as percentages and 'em' can also be misused as
visible from the current state - please, do not bother with the
user's default font (both: family and size) for the main text and
use relative font sizes (generally greater than '1em' and '100%')
for the rest of the elements (headings) which need it. Try to use
smaller (than the default) font size only for some notes (in which
case is sensible to change the font family to 'sans-serif' since
serif fonts could become ineligible at smaller sizes on screen).
I already have my default font set to a sans-serif family and
smaller (than the "usual" of 12pt) font size thus I see pretty tiny
fonts at http://phoenix.eclipse.org/ . What I see is 'font-size:
75%' for the BODY element - why 75% than the preferred is better
than just the preferred? Even with a "default" of 12pt font size the
text is too small (given the current style rules).
--
Stanimir
|
|
| |
| Re: Constructive criticism [message #566032 is a reply to message #11851] |
Thu, 27 October 2005 20:53 |
|
/Eclipse WebMaster (Denis Roy)/:
> 12pt is not the preferred, it's the *default* on most browsers.I think
> it's just too big if we leave it at 100%. The default font on most
> browsers is Times New Roman, or some variant. I think that lacks style.
You know, what's stylish to you is ugly to me. That's not serious
argument against accessibility, IMO. If you don't like your default
- change it. The colors, the graphics and the visual layout give
pretty much branding as one may need. One could style the larger
font elements (all kind of headings) with exact font family since
the larger font size gives pretty much insurance the text would be
comfortable (means won't be too small) to read.
> Of all the people who visit eclipse.org, how many change their browser's
> default font settings? I think you're an exception rather than a rule.
> Most people stick with the browser defaults.
Yes, how you could know how many people do not bother to adjust
their settings to their most likely preference? While you can't be
sure how many, it is much more logical to think people do it or will
do it if they know they could do it and how to do it.
> We could set the default font to 9pt instead, but if you're reducing the
> size from 75% you'll still see it as too small.
I think setting an absolute size, if you aim to set a specific
*absolute* size on your and everybody's screen, is preferable over
decreasing the default one. Also using a 'pt' over 'px' unit should
be better since larger resolution screens may have their dots per
inch setting adjusted which may render the text at more appropriate
pixel size.
But then you hit an Internet Explorer bug where setting an absolute
font size disables the accessibility feature to increase the text
size - otherwise why you have chosen to use '75%' over '9pt'?
And, again in my opinion, 9pt is far too small - you could create a
poll accessible from the front page where people could vote for
their preferred font size to get better idea of what's preferred at
least to the Eclipse.org audience.
> I'm not sure if there's a solution that will please everyone.
The best solution: I've already pointed it.
Partial "solution":
1. Since adjusting the font size in Internet Explorer is not an easy
task, set the main font size using relative unit (so it will match
*your* preference, relative to the "default") - this will give you
equal absolute size to all Internet Explorer users while keeping
their ability to use the text zoom feature.
2. Then provide a style declaration, setting the font size using an
absolute unit (which again will match *your* preference), but "hide"
that declaration from Internet Explorer using "CSS hacks" (known
bugs and limitations in Internet Explorer's CSS support), like:
body { font-size: 75% }
html > body { font-size: 9pt }
3. Make sure the font size is easily adjusted by means of user
stylesheets, i.e. it is doable with a single CSS style rule like:
body { font-size: 100% !important }
The last point seems already in place but I mention it as to be kept
like that in future.
--
Stanimir
|
|
|
| Re: Constructive criticism [message #566066 is a reply to message #11885] |
Fri, 28 October 2005 15:24 |
Eclipse Webmaster
Messages: 607343
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
> You know, what's stylish to you is ugly to me. That's not serious
> argument against accessibility, IMO. If you don't like your default -
> change it.
I think it's much easier (and logical) to achieve a common, specific
style by changing the site instead of assuming the user will set their
font themselves, and I think that using a relative size (as opposed to a
fixed size) is more considerate of your personalized settings. If you
set your default font size to your minimum threshold for readability,
you are creating an issue for yourself.
Likewise, the person who sets their font to the maximum threshold for
readability will complain about the fonts that I increase in size;
however, according to your statements, increasing a font is acceptable
while decreasing it is not.
I visited a dozen large commercial websites - microsoft.com, hp.com,
ibm.com, dell.com to name a few - all of them changed the relative font
size and font face. Microsoft sets the font to 70%. Dell's text is 8pt
on the front page. Intel have 92.5% for the body, and 75% in the TD. I
am assuming these companies, in their commercial interests, have
performed usability and accessibility studies for their website design.
Are they all wrong?
One site that I visit frequently and that has consistently kept the
default font is Slashdot. And it gets constant criticism for being a
site with a 1990's look.
[snip]
> The best solution: I've already pointed it.
It's the best solution - in your opinion. I don't agree with it. But
please, do open a Bug against Phoenix/UI so we can get community
feedback on the issues.
https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/
Thanks for your feedback,
Denis
--
Eclipse WebMaster - webmaster@eclipse.org
Questions? Consult the FAQ at
http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Webmaster_FAQ
View my status at http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/WebMaster
|
|
| |
| Re: Constructive criticism [message #566110 is a reply to message #12454] |
Sat, 29 October 2005 11:55 |
|
/Eclipse WebMaster (Denis Roy)/:
> I think it's much easier (and logical) to achieve a common, specific
> style by changing the site instead of assuming the user will set their
> font themselves,
You assume all browsers/systems have the same defaults which is not
logical, therefore you assUme you achieve a common style while you
don't.
> and I think that using a relative size (as opposed to a
> fixed size) is more considerate of your personalized settings.
It is not my personalized settings - it something you can't really
know. It is just undetermined to you.
> If you
> set your default font size to your minimum threshold for readability,
> you are creating an issue for yourself.
I don't set the default font size to my minimum threshold for
readability, see for yourself:
http://stanio.info/my_default.png (11pt)
http://stanio.info/your_style.png (75% of 11pt)
Now display those on a 17" LCD monitor with resolution of 1280x1024
to see the physical size I get (and I'm certainly not the only one).
My default of 11pt is just 1pt below your 12pt default. Your
preference is 9pt which is 3pt below your default and 2pt below my
default and my preference. Your style rules makes the text even
smaller than 9pt on my system.
I set my default at size comfortable to me for reading large amounts
of text (UI labels/captions are another story).
> Likewise, the person who sets their font to the maximum threshold for
> readability will complain about the fonts that I increase in size;
> however, according to your statements, increasing a font is acceptable
> while decreasing it is not.
I haven't said increasing the font size is good - could you cite me?
I've mentioned bothering with the default font could be permissible
for elements which usually have their text size bigger (than the
normal text) - such as headings. The headings don't constitute the
main/most of the text and I've explicitly stated: "do not bother the
default font for the main text".
> I visited a dozen large commercial websites - microsoft.com, hp.com,
> ibm.com, dell.com to name a few - all of them changed the relative font
> size and font face. Microsoft sets the font to 70%. Dell's text is 8pt
> on the front page. Intel have 92.5% for the body, and 75% in the TD. I
> am assuming these companies, in their commercial interests, have
> performed usability and accessibility studies for their website design.
> Are they all wrong?
They are certainly wrong in that aspect as you could get the opinion
of a community like "comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets".
You get the same opinion by the W3C (Microsoft being one of its main
contributors), "Quality Tips for Webmasters - Care With Font Size"
<http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/font-size>:
> A certain trend among designers, believing that small text gives a
> Web page a sleek appearance and provides more space per "page" for
> actual content, sometimes results in the use of unreasonably small
> font sizes.
> [...]
> *Good usage of CSS's font properties*
> [...]
> * Avoid sizes in em smaller than 1em for text body, except maybe
> for copyright statements or other kinds of "fine print."
> * If using a small font-size, prefer a legible font-family with
> a high aspect value (see the section on font-size-adjust in the CSS2
> specification for an explanation of the aspect value), which are
> more likely to be legible at such small sizes.
You may read the section about 'font-size-adjust' property of why
different fonts (even of same generic family) could look so
different at same sizes. Microsoft.com and many others rely mostly
on the greater eligibility of the "Verdana" font at smaller sizes,
which is still not sufficient and one can't assume Linux people have
"Verdana", for example. You could also see the
http://www.theregister.co.uk/ - why they have chosen not to use such
tiny fonts?
Off the "Fonts" topic: You might have noticed the screenshot of
"your_style.png" doesn't have white background, so you could also
see another tip <http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/>:
"If You Pick One Color, Pick Them All" <http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/color>
/Eclipse WebMaster (Denis Roy)/:
> It's the best solution - in your opinion. I don't agree with it. But
> please, do open a Bug against Phoenix/UI so we can get community
> feedback on the issues.
Done:
Bug 114288 "The Eclipse web-site should use larger font size for the
main text" <https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=114288>
You might consider opening a counter-opinion issue so you could get
votes for your decision too.
--
Stanimir
|
|
|
| Re: Constructive criticism [message #566131 is a reply to message #12454] |
Sat, 29 October 2005 12:01 |
|
/Eclipse WebMaster (Denis Roy)/:
> One site that I visit frequently and that has consistently kept the
> default font is Slashdot. And it gets constant criticism for being a
> site with a 1990's look.
Again, it is because of your preferences, in this case the defaults
of your browser. You probably see it with a Serif font, but AFAIK
Konqueror and Mac's Safari have their default to a Sans-serif font.
If you look at the site with a Sans-serif font and it still looks as
from 1990 to you, then the font is not the reason (perhaps the site
style hasn't changed since then?).
--
Stanimir
|
|
| | |
| Re: Constructive criticism [message #566187 is a reply to message #12500] |
Mon, 31 October 2005 14:14 |
Eclipse Webmaster
Messages: 607343
Registered: July 2009 |
Senior Member |
|
|
>> however, according to your statements, increasing a font is acceptable
>> while decreasing it is not.
> I haven't said increasing the font size is good - could you cite me?
acceptable != good.
Here's what led me to believe you think larger fonts are *acceptable*.
"use relative font sizes (generally greater than '1em' and '100%') for
the rest of the elements (headings) which need it".
> You might consider opening a counter-opinion issue so you could get
> votes for your decision too.
Thanks, but I will not. It's not my word against yours, or against
anyone else's.
Your opinion certainly counts, but we've been gathering feedback on
Phoenix since June, and if many people don't like the font, we will
change it. Am I going to change it because *you* don't like it? The
answer is no, no matter how much you want to argue.
Thanks for your feedback,
Denis
--
Eclipse WebMaster - webmaster@eclipse.org
Questions? Consult the FAQ at
http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/Webmaster_FAQ
View my status at http://wiki.eclipse.org/index.php/WebMaster
|
|
|
| Re: Constructive criticism [message #566205 is a reply to message #12582] |
Mon, 31 October 2005 18:16 |
|
/Eclipse WebMaster (Denis Roy)/:
> Here's what led me to believe you think larger fonts are *acceptable*.
>
> "use relative font sizes (generally greater than '1em' and '100%') for
> the rest of the elements (headings) which need it".
Sorry, it is probably my bad English since it is not my native
language, but I really don't see what could be misinterpreted: "the
rest of the elements" given the previous "main text" context skipped
in the above quotation.
> Am I going to change it because *you* don't like it? The
> answer is no, no matter how much you want to argue.
I'm not arguing for you to change something on my demand - I'm just
outstanding my opinion giving arguments and you were stating yours
against it. Given I haven't saw much feedback on the font size
issue, apart from casual "the font is too small", I felt I must
state my arguments about it.
--
Stanimir
|
|
| | | |
| Re: Constructive criticism [message #567186 is a reply to message #11815] |
Sun, 11 December 2005 10:27 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: zhangzhihua--2.163.com
Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:
> /Eclipse WebMaster (Denis Roy)/:
>>> And a general issue:
>>> - Replace all fixed font sizes with relative ones. (10pt->1em) This
>>> makes the fonts scalable over all platforms and increases accessibility.
>>
>> This is addressed by Phoenix. We're using em as our unit of measure,
>> and all fonts are in a CSS. Please see http://phoenix.eclipse.org/ It
>> is a work in progress.
> Relative units as percentages and 'em' can also be misused as
> visible from the current state - please, do not bother with the
> user's default font (both: family and size) for the main text and
> use relative font sizes (generally greater than '1em' and '100%')
> for the rest of the elements (headings) which need it. Try to use
> smaller (than the default) font size only for some notes (in which
> case is sensible to change the font family to 'sans-serif' since
> serif fonts could become ineligible at smaller sizes on screen).
> I already have my default font set to a sans-serif family and
> smaller (than the "usual" of 12pt) font size thus I see pretty tiny
> fonts at http://phoenix.eclipse.org/ . What I see is 'font-size:
> 75%' for the BODY element - why 75% than the preferred is better
> than just the preferred? Even with a "default" of 12pt font size the
> text is too small (given the current style rules). good job
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Fri Apr 19 18:41:07 GMT 2024
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.04828 seconds |
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
