From: Fabio Fracassi (f.fracassi_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-08-09 07:53:18
Rob Stewart wrote:
> From: Aleksey Gurtovoy <agurtovoy_at_[hidden]>
>> Rob Stewart writes:
>> > From: Aleksey Gurtovoy <agurtovoy_at_[hidden]>
>> >> Rob Stewart writes:
>> >> a sense that once you start reading it, you concentrate all your
>> >> attention on the flow and simply don't notice what's around it (much
>> >> as you don't notice the ads and the likes when you are reading a news
>> >> site). IMO from usability standpoint the larger size is an
>> >> improvement.
>> > Did you find the smaller text somehow unreadable?
I think that even the enlarged version is still a tad to small. I find the
links extremly hard to read.
I think that the links should be the same font size as the main text, or if
you must, only marginaly smaller.
I also don't think it can possibily be confusing or distracting, since the
Links are well separated by the (very nice looking) shadowed frames.
Most sites I know have link text in either:
Same font size:
Only a little bit smaller:
Smaller but bolt faced:
On a sudden inspiration I checked with Internet Explorer. There the font
sizes are ok, but IIRC IE is known to show fonts larger than it should.
>> > Yes, they are distinguishable. The problem is, they are harder
>> > to read because of the lower contrast.
>> Lower contrast between the links and the text or the links and the
> THe problem is low contrast relative to the background; it makes
> the text harder to read, something Rene mentions in another
> reply in this thread.
Well, but blue on white is fairly standard for the web (look at google,
wikipedia, ...), and I can't see anybody who is not visually impaired
having problems with it.
In the case of visually impaired they probably have a custom Stylesheet in
place which changes the colors and layout anyway.
By the way I really like the new layout.
Just my 2 cent.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk