| LED Digest 2064: Typography & Line Length |
|
|
|
================================================== The LED Digest Moderated Discussion List "Effective Online Advertising, Since 1997" pair Networks: The LED's Web Host Hosting and Domain Reg. from a Trusted Leader pair.com for Hosting | pairNIC.com for Domains ================================================== List Moderator: Published by: Adam Audette LED Digest post, led-digest.com http://www.led-digest.com .............................................. December 29, 2005 Issue #2064 .............................................. .....IN THIS DIGEST..... ======= NEW ==================== <Moderator Comment> ~ To a Prosperous New Year --== Typography & Line Length ==-- ~ Ian Petrie "A common conclusion is that the ideal line length is 66 characters." ==== CONTINUING ================= --== Screen Display Sizing ==-- ~ Peter D'Aprix "...the sequence of the design process should start with the...target audience..." ~ Karl L. Baldwin "...if you're not using the highest resolution that your monitor can provide, you're missing out..." ~ Ed Clark "I have found that 750 px is a good figure." ==== BILLBOARD =================== --== The 'Net Habit of Skimming ==-- ~ Tom Aman =========== NEW ================================== <Moderator Comment> Greetings LEDer, Since the New Year is approaching I think we owe it to ourselves to take Friday off. That's it then -- no work for you on Friday. Take the day off and do something for yourself, or with friends and family. As for me, I'll be taking the day off changing diapers. :-) See you back in the inbox Monday 2006. Here's to a prosperous New Year to you, dear LEDer! Best wishes always, adam ------------------------ From: Ian Petrie Subject: Typography & Line length > Perhaps we should start another thread on 'What is > the most comfortable text width on the screen display'." - Viggie Bala, LED 2063 Since the invention of writing, each new technology designed to display text has gone through a similar development - before, universally, settling down to some very similar standards. From parchment scrolls to the Internet, we are the same evolved apes and are looking through the same eyes and processing the information with the same simian brains - not suprisingly, some common truths can be applied. Printing. That's been around for a while. What have the printers come up with? Go into any bookshop. Why do the books look so similar? Why do they stack so well on the shelves? Maybe its because the publishers get a really really good deal on paper that size - or maybe it's because that is the size of page which best suits the way that people find easiest to read. Open a book at random - and another, and another. Count the number of characters on a full line - one that reaches right across the printed area. I've just done so from my bookshelves. A copy of "Scenes of Clerical life" by george Elliot, printed in 1909 has 62 characters per line - a childrens paperback from a hundred years later has 48. If you search for 'Typography' or 'typesetting' and 'line length' there is lots of information available. A common conclusion is that the ideal line length is 66 characters. This site ( which I have no connection with ) provides an excellent discussion on setting line length to retain readability in various browser widths and type sizes - much better than I can do. <Moderator Comment> Ian, I think you forgot the link... :-) No worries though - did you find this site? http://www.timetabler.com/reading.html . Looks like good info here. -adam Ian Petrie MD Vetlist Ltd Find your nearest UK Veterinary Practice at www.any-uk-vet.co.uk ======== CONTINUING =============================== From: Peter D'Aprix Subject: Display size I could not agree more with M. Shabeer [issue 2062]. Everything about a web site should be directed at the target audience, not what one designer likes as a personal preference. And every client, every web site and every audience is always different. Thus the only rule can be - suite your site to the audience who has to use it. And you will never, ever please everyone. But you will probably catch more fish that way. Why does this concept seem so foreign to web designers so much of the time? I have been in the photography / advertising business for about 30 years and the whole foundation of visual communications is to present the content in a manner that is most likely to be understood and received by the largest number of the target audience. It should go without saying that the target audience needs to be identified by many characteristics such as language, geography, customs, education, literacy, buying habits and so on. With web sites, since they require computers which are connected to the web, then the characteristics of these must also be established long before pretty pages are even thought of. For example, I have a client (http://patinawoodfloors.com) for whom I have recently built a new site. This was necessary not only because the old one was a bit tired but their business plan had changed. (Yes Henry, a web site must also fit into a business plan, a marketing plan, an advertising plan etc.). Based on the previous year's visitor tracking, the majority of visitors who stayed on the site more than 2 pages, had their monitors set well above 800x600. They also were using millions of colors; important because the site is almost all photos since it is a gallery/portfolio site for the most part. Only a few were still using Windows 98. The new business plan called for shifting the target audience covering the gamut from the home owner to architects, to mainly architects, builders and interior designers. The client had already checked the computers of his target audience. He established they were all using large monitors, modern equipment and broad band. On the face of it, this would suggest we could concentrate on using larger than traditional photos since screen real-estate would not be a problem and down-load would be fast. Nevertheless, since I know that many employees work at home on lap tops, I did not want to assume that everyone would be working on 20" monitors, but could probably be assured that the laptops would be set at a resolution higher than 800x600. So I designed for a 15" screen at 1024x768. Will it satisfy everyone? No. But based on our visitor tracking, we only have 4% of visitors below that resolution. And in addition, I used CSS to set the font to a fixed pixel size, the table / cell sizes are fixed pixel sizes and the browser window size is also set so that the content will fit nicely into a window that does not have to be resized by the user. OK, I am a control freak in a medium that offers precious little. But in viewing the site on a range of computers from Windows 2000 and XP to Macs, on a range of browsers even though 95% of the visitors are using IE 6.0 or greater, and on desk tops with 15" monitors still on factory default as well as lap tops, the content all fits onto the screens without problems. Windows 98 and 95 using older browsers can have some problems as can older Macs with their older browsers. But our target audience is not using old stuff or dial up connection. Now if I was designing a site for the general public, I know that I would design for 800x600, use a larger pixel size for the type, use small photos that have been carefully optimized in PhotoShop for the web (I do that anyway) that with a click will yield a larger version at the whim of the visitor, keep the pages short with buttons to fuller content again at their whim. I will also assume that a significantly high proportion are viewing from home, are not computer techies, are probably on dial up by either choice or lack of access to broad band or even budgetary considerations, are connected through AOL (God save their souls), are probably using older computers with older OS's and aging browsers. Another reason for not using Flash and animation unless you are marketing to MTV generation. And wealth has nothing to do with it. Many executives have ancient lap tops and hate to even fire them up. That's what they have employees for. And what about the salesman on the road trying to bring up his own company's site to show off his products / services or bring up a stat's page or CAD drawing and the only connection is a telephone wire and jack? By doing this, I will be more assured of sweeping as many potential customers into the net as possible without loosing those with equipment more like my own. I check all my sites on an old Compaq using Windows 98 and dial up. Amazing how many errors you can catch that way that modern systems correct for you. Since I am not an IT guy, I have to find other tools to catch problems. So I have waffled on much too long. However, I do find a tendency in this highly technical medium to focus on the tools and personal preferences working from the inside>out; rather than focusing on the audience, thus working from the outside>in. That is not to say that all the other considerations that have been discussed on this topic and others are not also vitally important to a site. Such as SEO especially for products with many players in the same marketing space. But I still think the sequence of the design process should start with the product or service and the target audience before other considerations are factored in. Sincerely Peter D'Aprix Visual Communications http://peterdaprix.com ------- new post - same topic ------- From: Karl Baldwin Subject: Display size Hi Adam, I must be really missing something here or maybe the other contributors are. Am I the only designer using percentage rather than pixel count? Hell, it's even the default in Front Page. It essentially functions like word-wrap in Notepad. If you don't hit carriage return, everything fits into whatever screen size you are using, graphics excluded of course. As far as monitor size and resolution go, I use a 21" LCD monitor set at 1600 x 1200, which is the default. Text size is easily changed (mine to 150%) by right clicking on a blank area of your desktop; click properties; set your resolution as high as it will go; click the settings tab; click the advanced button; then pick a new DPI setting. By the way, if you're not using the highest resolution that your monitor can provide, you're missing out on the big picture (pun intended). It's the same difference as watching regular TV or High Definition TV. Best Regards, Karl L. Baldwin MountainLodging Vacation Cabin Rental Listing Service www.mountain-lodging.com ------- new post - same topic ------- From: Ed Clark Subject: Display Size I have found that 750 px is a good figure. However, when I view my sites on some newer large screen monitors, it sets the page to the left. I have forgotton the code to center the entire page in the browser, can anyone refresh my memory? I agree with the fact that older eyes are still setting their browsers to 800x600 and there are a large number of older computers still out there. I am at home on one right now. Thanks in advance for that center in browser code. Ed Clark ==== BILLBOARD =================================== From: Tom Aman Subject: Skimming > If most of us DO indeed skim, then we should really > start writing to cater to that habit, right? Then again - > when real substance and quality information are being > presented, keeping it tight and simple sometimes > just ain't possible... - Mada Tuedate, LED 2063 First, the article you mention at http://www.alistapart.com/articles/helpingvisitors should be required reading for anyone designing a Web site. I would tend to agree that most of us do skim when we are in the quest for information. But once we hit pay-dirt, we will stop and read in some detail. So the solution to the problem you present is actually quite simple. There seem to be a couple of approaches. The examples mentioned in the article http://www.dell.com and http://www.microsoft.com point to sites that contain little detailed info on the landing page. What is good about these pages is that, in spite of the sites being huge, the landing page can be "skimmed" easily and it becomes fairly easy for the visitor to quickly zero in on the appropriate area that will meet their specific need. The other approach, where there is to be real content on the landing page, is to write the first paragraph of info so it becomes like an executive summary - tight and simple. This way a visitor can "skim" that first paragraph and decide if the site is likely to contain what they want. If the site looks good, they will be prepared to read more detail in subsequent paragraphs. I use the term "paragraph" loosely here, the first "paragraph" may be actual text but it could be an image map, a list of well described links, etc. - anything that concisely conveys what the site is about. Subsequent "paragraphs" would be whatever is required to convey the information intended. Anyone who goes beyond that first paragraph is likely to be prepared to actually read in more detail so setting up for skimming becomes less important at that stage although the landing page for any significant sub-section of the site should probably be skimmable. Tom Aman Aman Software http://www.cyberspyder.com ------------------------------------------------------- The LED Digest is sponsored by pair Networks: pair.com for Hosting | pairNIC.com for Domains Copyright 1995-2005 Orange Wheel, LLC. All Rights Reserved. "Duty is heavy as a mountain but Death is lighter than a feather." - Japanese Proverb |
