Обсуждение: Colours & sizes
OK, I hacked about the stylesheets a bit and came up with this http://pgweb.pgadmin.org/ Putting the font at 100% makes it even bigger than the current large size, so I just tweaked it a bit... Comments? /D
Dave Page wrote: > OK, I hacked about the stylesheets a bit and came up with this > http://pgweb.pgadmin.org/ > > Putting the font at 100% makes it even bigger than the current large > size, so I just tweaked it a bit... The font size doesn't need changing. Larger fonts look less professional and are actually *harder* to read for most people (note that 67% of survey respondents are happy with the current default). Whichever default is chosen, there will *always* be some people who are not happy - but they can simply choose the "larger" option and have their preference remembered. While it may be a one-time inconvenience, it makes more sense to inconvenience a minority rather than the majority of site visitors (who are obviously satisfied with the current default). By the way, the method we've employed for font sizing in the CSS is best practice. We've used percentages that were specifically chosen as they equal standard web font sizes; they have been tested extensively and look the same on every browser/platform. It's not possible to just "tweak" the percentages to change font sizes. The method we've used is also the best for accessibility as it does not override the user's preferences and allows font resizing in every browser. Emily
> -----Original Message----- > From: pgsql-www-owner@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-www-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Emily Boyd > Sent: 16 January 2005 06:52 > To: PostgreSQL WWW Mailing List > Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Colours & sizes > > Dave Page wrote: > > OK, I hacked about the stylesheets a bit and came up with this > > http://pgweb.pgadmin.org/ > > > > Putting the font at 100% makes it even bigger than the current large > > size, so I just tweaked it a bit... > > The font size doesn't need changing. Larger fonts look less > professional > and are actually *harder* to read for most people (note that 67% of > survey respondents are happy with the current default). Yes, I did see that. The feeling on the list seems to be contrary to that however. That is why I did a mockup rather than just change it. > Whichever default is chosen, there will *always* be some > people who are > not happy - but they can simply choose the "larger" option and have > their preference remembered. While it may be a one-time > inconvenience, > it makes more sense to inconvenience a minority rather than > the majority > of site visitors (who are obviously satisfied with the > current default). Why do we need such an option though? The majority of sites I'm aware of use a *slightly* larger standard font size, and then leave any customisation to the browser. *** In addition, as Peter has pointed out - the switching code does not work in all browsers. *** > By the way, the method we've employed for font sizing in the > CSS is best > practice. We've used percentages that were specifically > chosen as they > equal standard web font sizes; they have been tested extensively and > look the same on every browser/platform. It's not possible to just > "tweak" the percentages to change font sizes. The method > we've used is > also the best for accessibility as it does not override the user's > preferences and allows font resizing in every browser. Err, all I did was tweak your percentages. I didn't make any changes that would prevent the browser changing sizes. Regards, Dave.
Emily Boyd wrote: > Dave Page wrote: > > OK, I hacked about the stylesheets a bit and came up with this > > http://pgweb.pgadmin.org/ > > > > Putting the font at 100% makes it even bigger than the current large > > size, so I just tweaked it a bit... > > The font size doesn't need changing. Larger fonts look less professional > and are actually *harder* to read for most people (note that 67% of > survey respondents are happy with the current default). That's a pretty big generalization. Are you saying 1% is easier to read than 100%. I doubt that. The fact is that PostgreSQL's web site has a smaller default font than any other web site I normally visit. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Bruce Momjian wrote: > The fact is that PostgreSQL's web site has a smaller default font than > any other web site I normally visit. I can't speak for the sites that *you* visit, but we're using a default font size that's a web standard - Microsoft, IBM, and many others use *exactly* the same font. Emily
Emily Boyd wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > The fact is that PostgreSQL's web site has a smaller default font than
> > any other web site I normally visit.
>
> I can't speak for the sites that *you* visit, but we're using a default
> font size that's a web standard - Microsoft, IBM, and many others use
> *exactly* the same font.
That helps me greatly. I did a side-by-side comparison of fonts from
the three sites:
http://candle.pha.pa.us/tmp/web.jpg
The page on the left is PostgreSQL, the middle is IBM, the right is
Microsoft.
You are right the fonts seem to be the same size. The 'o' is the same
size on all of them as far as I can tell. However, those comparisons
are for the font itself. The difference is that the non-PostgreSQL
sites seem to have more space between letters, and certainly more space
between the lines.
They are using that small font for bullet lists and menus, while we are
using that font for paragraph text, and a even smaller font for the
News/Events section.
Looking at their sites they use larger text/images to highlight
information and the small text for menus and stuff. I don't see any
similar large text/images on our site.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
Bruce Momjian wrote: >>>[snip] >>I can't speak for the sites that *you* visit, but we're using a default >>font size that's a web standard - Microsoft, IBM, and many others use >>*exactly* the same font. > > That helps me greatly. I did a side-by-side comparison of fonts from > the three sites: > > http://candle.pha.pa.us/tmp/web.jpg > > The page on the left is PostgreSQL, the middle is IBM, the right is > Microsoft. I also did a side-by-side comparison (and threw in a couple of extras): http://postgresql.tinysofa.com/files/body_text_comparison.png I compared body text to body text to body text. Unlike your comparison, which was body text to navigation text to navigation text - not exactly a useful comparison. > You are right the fonts seem to be the same size. The 'o' is the same > size on all of them as far as I can tell. However, those comparisons > are for the font itself. The difference is that the non-PostgreSQL > sites seem to have more space between letters, and certainly more space > between the lines. There's no difference. Space between letters is identical. Space between lines is identical between PostgreSQL and IBM (slightly larger for Microsoft). > They are using that small font for bullet lists and menus, while we are > using that font for paragraph text, and a even smaller font for the > News/Events section. Incorrect. As you'll see in my comparison, all three sites (and many others) are using that so-called "small font" for body text. Incidentally, IBM uses the exact same "smaller font" as PostgreSQL to link to their news items. Emily
Emily Boyd wrote: > Incorrect. As you'll see in my comparison, all three sites (and many > others) are using that so-called "small font" for body text. I think the use of grey rather than black for the text color may contribute to the legibility problems that some people perceive. The combinaton of a small font and a pale color almost makes it appear as though we don't want people to find the text. The shade of blue isn't particularly powerful either. It might also help if the content were anchored to the left (as is done on the sites cited as examples) so that it is easier for the eye to navigate. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Hello, To be honest I think this whole font size argument is silly. 1. It is an opinion and guess how many of those everyone has? 2. I run in 1280x1024 at work, and can view the site without issue. I run 1600x1200 at home and can view the site without issue. Perhaps the people who are having problems with the font size should: 1. **gasp** get their eyes checked? 2. Make sure their monitor is running above 60HZ 3. Decrease their resolution and give up on the fact that they are not 16 and their eyes just are not as good as they used be. 4. Look at almost EVERY other professional site and see that the font size is comparable. Including: Microsoft Novell IBM RedHat LinuxWorld www.idg.com www.oreilly.com Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL