Hi Måns, Below: On 2015-04-23 07:51, Måns Nilsson wrote: > Subject: Re: comments on newly generated html draft format and font sizes Date: Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 07:09:33PM +0200 Quoting Henrik Levkowetz (henrik@xxxxxxxxxxxxx): >> Hi Joel, >> >> On 2015-04-22 18:06, Henrik Levkowetz wrote: >>> Hi Joel, >>> >>>> On 22 Apr 2015, at 17:49, Joel M. Halpern <jmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> I have to agree that 12pt produces too large a default. Is there an easy way for me as a user to experiment with what 10pt would look like, so I can comment on that? And is there an easy way for me to try that size on my phone, to see if it seems equally readable there? >>> >>> I'll set up a bunch of sample pages for you to try out. >> >> Here are links to pages set up with 9pt, 10pt, 11pt and 12pt: >> >> https://tools.ietf.org/pt/ > > I've gone through the list and find the 9pt size most suitable for laptop > (rMBP15 with Chrome ) and low-end desktop (Ubuntu running Firefox with > 1280x1024 resolution on a 17" 4x3 aspect ratio screen. The others are > obnoxiously large. Comparing to some of my own web pages that discard such > print-age anachronisms as point size; instead dictating relative sizes, > I find that the 10pt probably matches those best, so I'm probably a bit > of a small-fonter. > > On my hand-portable devices, all font sizes are too small for me to read, > so I must zoom the page to get to readability. The point specification > thus is pointless. (pun intended post facto) There, the web browser > (Chrome something on screens between 5" and 7") probably is at fault > for not auto-zooming to fit to margins. Perhaps it is a setting I missed. > > Having said that, and given input as requested, I feel that I must state > that I'm > > Pro Primo: completely flabbergasted by the idea of forcing point sizes > on readers. This is the bag of tricks used by advertising and design > agencies nostalgic for the printed page; and I feel it does not belong > on web pages published by a group of people that IMNSHO ought to try to > eat dogfood. > > Pro Secundo: used to have lived in the false belief that setting point > sizes was something of the "Under Construction" animated gif Web 1.0 > (with BLINK tags) and not really cool in the CSS era. Apparently I've > viewed too little source. > > Thus, I oppose the change; relative should return. The reader should > decide. The page creator can impossibly keep up with all wishes and > devices and preferences. Better to hint than dictate. Do you have any comments on how this displays for you? https://zin.tools.ietf.org/pt/draft-ietf-idr-error-handling-19-responsive.html Henrik
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature