Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: packages.gentoo.org lives!

[Robin H. Johnson]

On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 10:57:04PM -0600, Ryan Hill wrote:
> Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > Having small fonts isn't common, at least not amongst folk that I've
> > directly observed in usability testing. Having text at sizes that don't
> > strain the eyes is more common.
> It doesn't seem unreasonable that the site be readable despite the font
> size.  The logo overlaps the text at any point size under 16, at least in
> my browser, which is quite big.  My screenshot was with size 12, which is
> what I use everywhere and I'm sure I'm not alone.  I don't know anything
> about HTML but is it possible to set a minimum font size or force it to 16?
DPI (dot pitch to the metric world) makes a big difference here.
Your screenshot, displayed on my system, is hard to read, and I still
have 20/20 eyesight.

For my normal use, I use Bitstream Vera {,Sans,Mon}, 12pt (minimum
enforced), 100dpi, 1586x994 (1680x1050 screen, but my browser is the
aforementioned size).

> Moving the text in the middle column down so it begins under the logo
> would also work, wouldn't it?  All of our other pages (except b.g.o)
> have either the plain purple banner or black banner with links across
> the top, and it works fine there.  Is there some reason it can't be
> done here also?
ViewCVS, glsamaker, bugday, there are plenty that don't have the banner.
For a site that needs to provide dense information, I actually strongly
dislike the waste of space that is the black area at the top of g.o, but
I'll try to come up with a more compact version.

My usability design range in testing this spans: 
1024x768 to 1680x1050, at both 72dpi and 100dpi.
However it seems that I didn't take into account fonts that render
extremely small :-(.

I'll try to make a smaller logo with the SVG that nightmorph pointed
out.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux Developer & Infra Guy
E-Mail     : robbat2@g.o
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85