Re: CSS-P ? Is it really any good for SERPS ?

"Els" <els.aNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1hp9rhu7x4rxy$.dlg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> John Bokma wrote:
>> Els <els.aNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> John Bokma wrote:
>>>> "Wÿrm" <nomailstodragon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>>>>> For IE, people find much easier ___"View => Font Size"___ than they
>>>>> do find how to override static fontsize by using ___"Tools =>
>>>>> Internet Settings => General => Accessibility => ignore fontsize
>>>>> settings"___,
>>>>
>>>> Can you give me figures? Or you just make this up ;-)
>>>
>>> It's called logical thinking. See below.
>>
>> No, it's not. It's just repeating what a very very small crowd thinks is
>> the only right and justified way of "design". And most people of that
>> same crowd just repeat what the others have been yelling for years
>> *without* thinking.
>
> Do /not/ again accuse me of not thinking about this matter.
>
> And also: back up your statements with figures. The "techies" you
> think just follow the techie crowd's believes, have actually thought
> about it, examined it in real life studies, and formed conclusions
> that are valid. You have not done that.

Even if you did provide figures, he wouldn't take them. He would say you can
find anything to support your answer on the internet and visa versa.

It isn't a point for figures, or one doesn't have to think logical for this
but with some plain common sence.

Why make it harder for people visiting your site? It makes sense to make a
site that is easiest for people to read and navigate. If someone has to move
that mouse button to the top to change the settings so they can read it they
will probably be hitting the back button.

>>> Stop irritating me (and probably others but I have no facts nor
>>> figures).
>>
>> Exactly. People who state that 100% is the only valid option always seem
>> to speak for people with poor eyesight. Have they done any research? Or
>> are they just repeating? I am afraid that it's the latter. Oh, and been
>> there, done that.
>
> Yet, you accuse people of things /you/ are guilty of.
> How about /you/ give us some real life figures about accessibilty
> tests then.

Yes, of course. That is how it is done.:-)

>>> John, you know that that's not true at all. Wÿrm is not the type of
>>> person that thinks in losing and winning, and what he says about pixel
>>> sizes is perfectly true and correct. Heck, I'm a clued browser user,
>>> and I find it a hassle to set a minimum size font in IE.
>>
>> As I stated before, people who can't find that setting don't need to
>> find it, others have already done so, or they use a browser that *can*
>> resize pixels.
>
> And here you snip my valid reasoning. Why? You don't have any
> arguments to counter my findings?
>
> Let me repeat it for you:
>
> <quote>
> When I see a
> page with small fonts, I want to be able to use my scrollwheel. I
> don't want to dive into my advanced options to find a nice minimum
> size. Also: let's say my preferred font-size is 14px, but I can manage
> to read 7px. (assuming Verdana ;-) ).
> Now, if I set my miminum font-size in my browser to 14px, this means
> that even footers and other smallprint are 14px in my view. I don't
> want that! It screws up virtually all designs. Now, if I leave it at
> 7px, I can't comfortably and temporarily change the font-size while
> I'm reading something interesting in some page's body text.
> </quote>

I agree. You want someone to be able to read your site from the start with
no changes. Even if someone knows how to change it do they want to go
through the trouble?

It can go with the same logic as stating I don't have hidden text, *all
someone has to do* is view the source, or highlight it with the mouse. So,
it really isn't hidden.:-)

> And let me add: Some pages are perfectly readable in 10px, others are
> difficult to read in 14px. Trust me, no one likes to have a one-time
> setting of 14px so the font-size becomes inflexible. Oh, sorry, I
> didn't do a research. Well, you can do that. Give me the names of 5
> people who like their fonts to be 12px always, even when the colours
> or backgrounds on the page require 16px occasionally. And then give me
> the names of 5 people who explicitly say that they want their font to
> be /not/ scalable in IE, no matter what.

Well, I agree with you and Wÿrm. So that is 3 to 1 so far.:-)

<snip>

>> I've done. As I stated, I was a liquid design rules, and everything
>> *has* to be 100%, 1 em advocate for years. And then I started to
>> *listen*
>
> Yes. You started to listen to flawed reasoning. You failed to see the
> flaws, John. You could have a point if you started to use 80% instead
> of 100%. Not that I agree, but you'd still leave choice to the
> visitor.
> Pixels don't.

Right like a person can run in the middle of the road with loads of traffic
*all someone has to do* it move their car.

The thing is the thinking is *all someone has to do* why make the someone
have to do it? Of course they will probably move on to the next site, and
not probably have to find it on page 34 in Google...are all the sites above
page 34 not able to be read without changing the settings? LOL!

>>> instead of saying "I've thought this
>>> over more than you so I am right". Try proclaiming what you're saying
>>> in alt.html and see how many gurus agree with you.
>>
>> Yup, like I said, some techies who think they can change the world.
>> Looks cool on paper, but in reality you have to go with the flow.
>
> It's reality that you can't handle: you haven't given any reality
> related figures on any of your statements. Do not accuse others of
> what you are guilty of.
>
> Anyway, I know that you will just come back with the same thing, so
> I'm quitting this conversation. (no matter what you come back with
> btw)

OK, maybe here is an anaology that maybe can be understood by John. Stating
that someone can change the settings can be the same as most saying the size
of a penis doesn't matter. Hogwash, if it is to small move on.........wait
all someone has to do is.....change the settings with a penal
enlargement.:-)

Stacey


.