12px is minimum IMHO. And it's not relative size either.Code:
font-family: Verdana, Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif;
I suspect this option exists becomes enough people have insisted on it, and they want something like a pdf or postscript file, the form of which is immutable. But that is not a good model to apply on the web, with the restrictions of the client-server setup*.
* me personally, I don't think the restriction is so bad. Fonts are for letters, letters are for words, words are for writing, writing is for CONTENT. If you are a bad writer with little content to convey, you are bound to be obsessed with "fonts" to disguise your air-head products as real work. Some people will be distracted by anything, no matter how inconsequential or irrelevant.
For a background color of #101010 and a foreground color of #626262 which i think is used for the content part of the OP's website,
Juicy Studio: Luminosity Colour Contrast Ratio Analyser
says that the font size should be larger. So now the question is, are you a bot? :p
A representative portion of the web is made up of carefully "drawn" websites that try to explore at most all aspects of presentation. This is true of many corporate websites including publicity, art, fashion, or games, to name a few. Many of these websites try to enforce very specific font choices so they can "visually work".
Meanwhile, and taking that aside for the moment, the decision to make of the website a visual experience is a legitimate one. Carefully planned fonts, and font sizes is perfectly acceptable as a practice, under this context. Web Standards aren't broken in any way because of this choice. At most, accessibility rules may. But this is a perfectly legitimate decision. And sometimes even a necessary one. Not that it matters though; No browser will stop render a webpage because the defined font wasn't found on the user machine.
As for the web standards themselves... anyone wanting to create 100% Web Standard obeying websites should be the one having their head examined.
Just because you decide to use an absurd example, that doesn't mean all cases of specific font usage are absurd.Quote:
2) probably have not "moved on" from their intro at the Crayola School...it is essentially like #including a whole bunch of non-standard libraries for no good reason, such that the user has to download all that crap just to see the small "g" from someone's fav font -- ridiculous, you are wasting your time, learn how to do some real programming instead please)
I appreciate the art* and I enjoy web programming. Once again WRT a bit of text, you still have
- font style
- font color
- relative size
- various forms of emphasis
- background color
* in which composition includes the concept of clutter, eg "myspecialfont 17"
Whether 12 pixels is too small depends on the DPI of the display device and the quality of the font itself. This is one of the reasons why specifying font sizes in pixels is completely bogus in the first place.
If you meant 12 POINTS, a measurement which actually has some physical significance, then again I disagree -- 12 point text is for children. It's a pointless waste of screen and page real estate and it makes me feel like I'm reading from a 4th grade ruled notebook. If you have vision problems, you can use the browser zoom feature, or install a local stylesheet as described below.
At any rate, since the site is using CSS the point is moot. You can install a local stylesheet which overrides the base font size entirely. That's the whole point of stylesheets. If you don't like the designer's choices you can override them.
The decision to make a website design depend on a specific font is made often based on practical and aesthetical needs. Practical, because the font style may help establish an environment or emotion and this is for some reason deemed important, or even because it follows the official guidelines (many companies use specific fonts in other media). And aesthetical,... because.
This in fact has been a limitation of the HTML/CSS combination. Contrary to what you seem to imply, the push is exactly to try and create a more structured usage to fonts on the web. Right now, there's only two options available to designers; Either get away from HTML/CSS and design using other technologies like Flash, or provide an alternative website. I can't blame anyone who decides against both.
I do remember having this personality defect once (pouring over different fonts looking for "just the right one") and I am very happy to be over it now. There are many, many, many more expressive and significant ways to get creative with web pages. As I said, if you turn off "site specific fonts" in your browser you won't miss them after about 10 minutes -- except for sites which are nothing but a collection of dippy fonts.
The site you refer to seems to be recommending consuming more bandwidth just so the browser can download the proper fonts for a page. This will have to be optional, so fortunately I can disable that sad joke if it ever comes to pass.
Well, I guess not all of us can be idealists sitting in our basements producing nothing of value...
wow I never expected so many replies, and thanks for all the suggestions ill definitely be making some modifications.
People are willing to wait for about ~5 seconds on average for a website to load. Isn't it easier for them to hit the "back" button than to change the font setting?Quote:
I would much rather people use fonts as small as they prefer, since this can be over ridden very very easily, than that they start deciding they need to use a larger font which everyone would then be forced to read.
There are so many sites on the Internet now, that people get to be very picky (except for a few very important sites, for them).
For me, for example, I almost always hit the "back" button immediately when I see "Please view the site in Internet Explorer", even if most of them do work with firefox.
Likewise, when I see a site with small fonts, I hit "back", since that's 1 less keypress than "ctrl-+" (and "ctrl--" to change it back when I leave the site).
Rule of thumb - don't expect the user to change their browser settings (or change browser, or screen resolution, or browsing behaviour) to view your site. Most people view a few hundred sites every day. They don't have time for that.
If your site hosts the best pr0n on the internet, users MAY be willing to give you an extra 30 seconds. But when it's just 1 out of a few million search results...
My eyesight is perfect (and clue: I want to keep it that way), but I know people who are not so lucky who use minimums of like 28 or 30 pts. That is why *all* browsers make it *easy* to set a minimum size, and I promise there is a significant number of users who do. I'm kind of baffled and amazed that people who are software programmers are ignorant of this and twice as baffled that they seem to have such a problem grasping the concept.