[Sigia-l] Faceted classification browsing tool

[Boniface Lau]

> From: sigia-l-admin at asis.org [mailto:sigia-l-admin at asis.org]On
> Behalf Of Listera
>
> "Boniface Lau" wrote:
>
> > While the mentioned page does have additional problems, it doesn't
> > change the fact that the giant font is like yelling at users.
>
> As long as you understand that this is "just your opinion, not
> fact."

Allow me to refresh your mind. It was Christina Wodtke who wrote:

CW> writing in a giant font for children is like yelling to people to
CW> don't speak English.

Thus, what I've stated was a fact, not opinion, that the mentioned
page gave people the impression of yelling.

Furthermore, if you are going to argue that a page filled with giant
font body text is not yelling then you might as well argue that
writing in all uppercase is not yelling. GOOD LUCK! YOU WILL NEED
IT. ;-)


>
> > Coming up with a design that works well for a particular font face
> > and size is much easier than coming up with a robust design - one
> > that works well with various font faces and sizes.
>
> I have no earthly idea what this means. As it is, the number of
> unique and/or comparable cross-platform, cross-browser fonts is
> *extremely* limited.  So let's not belabor the point, one can choose
> only among just a handful of fonts, without taking a risk of
> undesirable substitution.

It is not about cross-platform or cross-browser fonts.

Robustness is about designing something fits for use in various
configurations. Many people who are used to designing for print media
have difficulty with the concept. They are used to working on a
predefined "canvas". Thus, they tend to see things with only one
perspective - the "canvas" in front of them. Consequently, they tend
to optimize a layout towards that perspective. While that approach
works for print media, it doesn't work well for the web.

The "canvas" for a web page is not fixed. Thus, a layout optimized
toward the designer "canvas" often looks like a misfit in other
"canvases". The design is therefore not robust.


>
> > Thus, using default font face and size does not mean giving up
> > designing. It means doing much more designing.
>
> Not sure what this means, either.

When creating a design for one "canvas", designers only have to
consider only one perspective. Thus, it is relatively easy to come up
with a satisfactory design.

But when the "canvas" itself can change, to come up with a
satisfactory design means anticipating the various ways that the
"canvas" can change. It is no longer designing for just one "canvas".
It is designing for many "canvases". It is therefore a far more
challenging task and requires much more designing than playing inside
just one "canvas".


>
> > Isn't a key element of proper design is acknowledging the
> > constraints?
>
> In context. Apparently, 5% of users don't have Flash. Does that mean
> one should *never* use Flash? Dogma doesn't trump contextual
> decision making, unless of course Macromedia is cutting you a big
> check.

Acknowledging constraints is one thing. Sticking to a dogma is another
thing. One doesn't necessary follow the other.


[...]
>
> > Of course, ignoring the constraints is so much easier for the
> > designers. But I wouldn't say acknowledging the constraints is
> > "naive and absurd".
>
> Leaving font face/size determination entirely to user defaults is
> naïve because it assumes the vast majority of users are capable
> and/or desirous of speccing their own type.

May be it is not that naive. After all, most users have used some kind
of word processing packages allowing them to adjust font face and
size.

Also, the more time people spend using something, the more likely they
will try to customize it to suit their preference. People have been
spending more and more time surfing the web. Thus, chances are very
good that many have customized their browser settings. That is just
common sense.

Treating users/customers as if they are dumb all too often backfired.


> It's absurd because it obviates the role and responsibilities of the
> designer.

Being a designer doesn't mean one has free rein on the solution space.
There are boundaries (constraints) that a design is supposed to stay
within. It is like drivers observing traffic lights.

Experienced drivers run red lights with guilt; inexperienced drivers
run red lights with self-righteousness and utter something like,
"It is absurd to stop at a red light when there is no traffic."


[...]
> God forbid, by using any one of these you might be 'ignoring' the
> mythical 'average' user's wishes and desires.

The point is not about reading users' mind for their wishes and
desires. It is about respecting the confine defined by their
environment.

The fact that you can override some of their environmental settings
does not mean you should. Something as fundamental as their default
font face and size often have very significant impact on the users.
Overriding those attributes is therefore rude, to say the least. Some
users even perceive such override as hostile. And there are designers
who went as far as trying to override the user style sheet supported
by Internet Explorer. Such arrogance is astounding!  Designers need to
educate themselves on where their boundaries are.


[...]
>
> > Designers need to remember that they are designing for the users,
> > not for the designers themselves.
>
> There's a difference between user-friendly design and the complete
> abdication of a designer's responsibility and sensibilities with
> respect to the content, context and purpose of a site. Designers,
> like IAs, are paid to make judgments, not just assemble.

Respecting users' default font face and size is not abdicating a
designer's responsibility or sensibilities. It is recognizing that
what is seen as a good font face and size is very subjective and
depends very much on the environment of users, not designers.

All too often designers behave as if their wishes are that of the
users. They forget that users have their own preferences which are
often different from the designer preferences. Thus, when certain
settings are under user control, designers should think twice before
overriding those settings.

Unless designers are doing things like designing a personal web site
as a personal theater, they should remember that ultimately what
counts is user satisfaction, not designer satisfaction.


Boniface