CSS is supposedly used to increase accessability but every time I mention that CSS Zen Garden has many poor examples of usability and accessability, I get the same reply "It's about what can be done, not about what should be done." People learn by looking at reference sites and if what they see is static div sizes, multiple nested divs, poorly contrasted link/text to backgrounds, header images that take up 1/3 of the "above the fold" space, funky navigation schemes, then that's what they're going to emulate.
Which is more intuitive for the typical internet user? Resizing their own browser window, or disabling CSS, or finding an extension to their browser that allows them to edit the CSS and then editing the CSS for each div on each page that is setting static div widths? Why bother using CSS at all?
Just because "others" have a "belief" that long text lines are bad for me, that doesn't make it true. A web designer has no idea how a user is using their browser window. I may have toolbars open vertically or horizontally, I may have multiple windows open and arranged side by side. I may be sitting close to my monitor, I may be several feet away. I may be using a Blackberry.
Every site design that strives for usability and accessibility is a compromise. A compromise between the needs of the many vs the needs of a few. Many of those compromises are based on assumptions. The text line width issue is one of those untested assumptions.
I have found Reading Text Online but note that when that study was done there weren't very many large monitors in use. Also note how the preferences change when scrolling is factored in.
The last time this site, Good Documents, was edited was 1998-99 but I've found that following it's recommendations continue to be very useful.
Christie Mason
Christie Mason
Posts made by Christie Mason
That is my number one pet peeve. Static sizing of content. Why should I have a bigger monitor if most of the page is white space? The web/CSS standardistas insist on doing it that way with the rationalization that browsers don't handle positioning correctly, or even consistently. The other justification is that *some* people have larger monitors which allow lines of text to be too wide for comfortable reading. Instead they embed nested divs, browser specific hacks and use these static sizing approaches.
http://www.csszengarden.com/ is the site most referenced by the standardistas. I find most of the designs to lack even basic usability because they focus on the designer's need to show "look at what I can do" instead of focusing on supporting their user's needs. It's the control issues of the paper/print world replicated online.
As I user, I will resize my browser window if the text stretches too wide for my comfort. Control of the presentation should rest in the hands of the user. The designer controls the content and creates a framework that support the user's access to the content.
Christie Mason
http://www.csszengarden.com/ is the site most referenced by the standardistas. I find most of the designs to lack even basic usability because they focus on the designer's need to show "look at what I can do" instead of focusing on supporting their user's needs. It's the control issues of the paper/print world replicated online.
As I user, I will resize my browser window if the text stretches too wide for my comfort. Control of the presentation should rest in the hands of the user. The designer controls the content and creates a framework that support the user's access to the content.
Christie Mason
CSS is supposedly used to increase accessability but every time I mention that CSS Zen Garden has many poor examples of usability and accessability, I get the same reply "It's about what can be done, not about what should be done." People learn by looking at reference sites and if what they see is static div sizes, multiple nested divs, poorly contrasted link/text to backgrounds, header images that take up 1/3 of the "above the fold" space, funky navigation schemes, then that's what they're going to emulate.
Which is more intuitive for the typical internet user? Resizing their own browser window, or disabling CSS, or finding an extension to their browser that allows them to edit the CSS and then editing the CSS for each div on each page that is setting static div widths? Why bother using CSS at all?
Just because "others" have a "belief" that long text lines are bad for me, that doesn't make it true. A web designer has no idea how a user is using their browser window. I may have toolbars open vertically or horizontally, I may have multiple windows open and arranged side by side. I may be sitting close to my monitor, I may be several feet away. I may be using a Blackberry.
Every site design that strives for usability and accessibility is a compromise. A compromise between the needs of the many vs the needs of a few. Many of those compromises are based on assumptions. The text line width issue is one of those untested assumptions.
I have found Reading Text Online but note that when that study was done there weren't very many large monitors in use. Also note how the preferences change when scrolling is factored in.
The last time this site, Good Documents, was edited was 1998-99 but I've found that following it's recommendations continue to be very useful.
Christie Mason
Which is more intuitive for the typical internet user? Resizing their own browser window, or disabling CSS, or finding an extension to their browser that allows them to edit the CSS and then editing the CSS for each div on each page that is setting static div widths? Why bother using CSS at all?
Just because "others" have a "belief" that long text lines are bad for me, that doesn't make it true. A web designer has no idea how a user is using their browser window. I may have toolbars open vertically or horizontally, I may have multiple windows open and arranged side by side. I may be sitting close to my monitor, I may be several feet away. I may be using a Blackberry.
Every site design that strives for usability and accessibility is a compromise. A compromise between the needs of the many vs the needs of a few. Many of those compromises are based on assumptions. The text line width issue is one of those untested assumptions.
I have found Reading Text Online but note that when that study was done there weren't very many large monitors in use. Also note how the preferences change when scrolling is factored in.
The last time this site, Good Documents, was edited was 1998-99 but I've found that following it's recommendations continue to be very useful.
Christie Mason
That is my number one pet peeve. Static sizing of content. Why should I have a bigger monitor if most of the page is white space? The web/CSS standardistas insist on doing it that way with the rationalization that browsers don't handle positioning correctly, or even consistently. The other justification is that *some* people have larger monitors which allow lines of text to be too wide for comfortable reading. Instead they embed nested divs, browser specific hacks and use these static sizing approaches.
http://www.csszengarden.com/ is the site most referenced by the standardistas. I find most of the designs to lack even basic usability because they focus on the designer's need to show "look at what I can do" instead of focusing on supporting their user's needs. It's the control issues of the paper/print world replicated online.
As I user, I will resize my browser window if the text stretches too wide for my comfort. Control of the presentation should rest in the hands of the user. The designer controls the content and creates a framework that support the user's access to the content.
Christie Mason
http://www.csszengarden.com/ is the site most referenced by the standardistas. I find most of the designs to lack even basic usability because they focus on the designer's need to show "look at what I can do" instead of focusing on supporting their user's needs. It's the control issues of the paper/print world replicated online.
As I user, I will resize my browser window if the text stretches too wide for my comfort. Control of the presentation should rest in the hands of the user. The designer controls the content and creates a framework that support the user's access to the content.
Christie Mason
I definitely question the use of Flash in this example for navigation on the opening page. That was frustrating to figure out and the Flash based links were difficult to read and understand.
Then, after finally figuring that out, seeing the heart do its thing was somewhat interesting, but not hugely interesting, and I think some sound would have added a lot. The "tutorial" links didn't need to be mashed into the Flash, they could have been text based because they lead to tables of images, with empty alt attributes, and text. Those links could have supplied an alternative for those with visual challenges, except they were poorly designed and you'd have to be able to "see" the links in the Flash presentation in order to find them.
As long as I'm splitting hairs, I spent a few moments looking for "pop-up-menu to select the phase" as directed in the opening page. I think that refers to the "Tutorials" control?
For me, I "got" more info from the tutorials than by watching the heart go through its cycles.
Clicking on the "?" control resulted in a new window that was just ugly, Times Roman text, and full of <tr></tr><tr></tr><tr></tr><tr></tr><tr></tr>. Using empty table rows to create visual space is just wrong. Actually there was no need for a table on that page. A little application of CSS would have gone a long way. Oh, and images once again had empty alt attributes.
As far as usability I was left wondering "where do I go now"?
Christie Mason
Then, after finally figuring that out, seeing the heart do its thing was somewhat interesting, but not hugely interesting, and I think some sound would have added a lot. The "tutorial" links didn't need to be mashed into the Flash, they could have been text based because they lead to tables of images, with empty alt attributes, and text. Those links could have supplied an alternative for those with visual challenges, except they were poorly designed and you'd have to be able to "see" the links in the Flash presentation in order to find them.
As long as I'm splitting hairs, I spent a few moments looking for "pop-up-menu to select the phase" as directed in the opening page. I think that refers to the "Tutorials" control?
For me, I "got" more info from the tutorials than by watching the heart go through its cycles.
Clicking on the "?" control resulted in a new window that was just ugly, Times Roman text, and full of <tr></tr><tr></tr><tr></tr><tr></tr><tr></tr>. Using empty table rows to create visual space is just wrong. Actually there was no need for a table on that page. A little application of CSS would have gone a long way. Oh, and images once again had empty alt attributes.
As far as usability I was left wondering "where do I go now"?
Christie Mason