>>re: "The subjectmarks.apsx font is still quite legible, and actually works well, since this is a page where one is reading for recognition, not comprehension."
I agree here, with emphasis on the last point: "since this is a page where one is reading for recognition, not comprehension". The "small fonts" complaint, I think, could be alleviated by increased leading, not font size.<<
With all due respect, if one doesn't have good eyesight, font size is extremely important.
I find it odd that you and others are claiming that the tiny font size is perfectly acceptable. It's not acceptable to those that are having trouble seeing it! I might also add that the large font size (prior to 8/30/07) was in use for years (and should be restored). This is a glitch on SI's end that has decreased the quality of the website in that it is now more of a visual strain for affected members to use. Bold, caps, serif-choices are important, but I strongly disagree with your assertion that font size is not.
If you and others are happy with this tiny, pale font, that's fine. Perhaps Dave can take Sr K's suggestion and give the user two options: subjectmarks and subjectmarks2. But please don't try to argue that there's not even a problem here with the font size and that this tiny font is acceptable. Believe me, those of us that have been straining our eyes would disagree. |
