| 1 |
Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 2 |
> Having small fonts isn't common, at least not amongst folk that I've |
| 3 |
> directly observed in usability testing. Having text at sizes that don't |
| 4 |
> strain the eyes is more common. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
It doesn't seem unreasonable that the site be readable despite the font |
| 7 |
size. The logo overlaps the text at any point size under 16, at least in |
| 8 |
my browser, which is quite big. My screenshot was with size 12, which is |
| 9 |
what I use everywhere and I'm sure I'm not alone. I don't know anything |
| 10 |
about HTML but is it possible to set a minimum font size or force it to 16? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> CSS 'min-width' isn't usable, because it interferes with the rest of the |
| 13 |
> layout, and the folks with tiny fonts then have a massive gap between |
| 14 |
> their text, and the middle column. |
| 15 |
> What the actual solution is, is a narrower logo. I've been |
| 16 |
> asking and looking, but have not yet found, a version of the logo |
| 17 |
> without the spotlight effect on the background. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Moving the text in the middle column down so it begins under the logo |
| 20 |
would also work, wouldn't it? All of our other pages (except b.g.o) |
| 21 |
have either the plain purple banner or black banner with links across |
| 22 |
the top, and it works fine there. Is there some reason it can't be |
| 23 |
done here also? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
looks like christmas at fifty-five degrees |
| 28 |
this latitude weakens my knees |
| 29 |
EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 (0xF9A40662) |
Archives