Boring Message Box Chit Chat
Hi Bill,
<< Didn't realize there were many who read from 40+-inch distances. That's a new factor I should plug into my own design calcs. >>
Well, in my case (and observing workers at my corporate headquarters when I visit the campus - I man a one man field office), as screens have gotten bigger, the monitor gets moved back and work station ergonomics have really changed since monitors moved from 15" to 17" to 19" to 20" and above.
You're a graphics pro and I'm a sales pro (by day) and a propeller head at night. Ever since my corporation moved from WFWG 3.11 to WIN95 almost a decade ago and concurrently changed our corporate word processor from WordPerfect to Word (back many versions ago) and to PowerPoint from Harvard Graphics, I've constructed the templates our worldwide sales organization uses for proposal and presentation preparation. Others do the Excel and Notes templates, and Access and Notes forms, and My MarComm head's Mac staff (in conjunction with our ad agency) does the heavy duty graphics stuff for brochures, product sheets, slide shows (some translated into PowerPoint).
The long and short of that boring dissertation <g> is that I understand fully well where you are coming from on readability, page layout, preparing art and text for camera, typography, publishing guidelines, etc.
<< Do you do a lot of reading on larger, article-oriented sites like New York Times, WSJ, Washington Post, Foreign Affairs, Nat'l Geo, or others? If so, do some work better for you than others? >>
Yes. I do (EXTENSIVE for business research, and for investment research), and yes some do work better for me (because of my work habits) than others, just like reading USA Today works better for me in the print edition than WSJ.
Those that work best for me are those that allow me to control my view using the capabilities of my browser and OS rather than controlling me. Contrast the online NY Times to Nat'l Geo as an example all though both have too much clutter in the frames around the articles for my reading taste so I much prefer sites that give me a "print view" for an article.
The difference between New York Times and Nat'l Geo is that one fixes the font and one doesn't. Bob's new interface unfixes the fixed font that the InfoSpace cats "fixed," that in prior iterations wasn't fixed
<< The key point in my argument towards limited width flexibility is the word count per line (or "length of line"). >>
I hear ya, but that should NOT be fixed by narrowing the message box, IMO, although I have no objection to having the option to have a narrow view and wide full screen width view. Infinitely varying frame width or box width has an upside and downside, so some thought should go into this.
<< Perhaps both could be accomodated. >>
I think they can. I'm sure they can. We used to have it either as SI standard - as was mentioned - or as an option in Craig Richards BrowseMaster (can't remember which - old eyes, old brain <g>).
As it stands, there is a simple work around for word count per line flexibility in this latest UI rev, and although it might need some tuning and optimization (and you and others might assist with that) Bob just gave it to us.
Let's review some basics:
In my case, my browser of choice is IE6 and as most of its users know, that browser allows its user to vary text size on a web page, PROVIDING the web page is not constructed in such a fashion as to prohibit it like the InfoSpace SI version Bob inherited - or the National Geographic online website you reference, as opposed to the New York times website you reference.
The IE6 View|Text sizes menu has 5 choices: Smallest; Smaller; Medium; Larger; Largest.
What size we choose as a default is a matter of personal choice. Mine is "Smaller." I work (primarily) on a 20" Dell Trinitron with a high refresh rate, usually at 800x600, and typically browse full screen, - but not always, since depending on what I'm working on concurrently, I might size windows.
I use a wheel mouse so getting to a smaller (the smallest) or larger size font, which is quicker than going to the menu bar, is a matter of depressing the [Ctrl] key and clicking the wheel 1 click forward or backward, and the FireFox keyboard shortcut equivalent is [Ctrl] [-] or [Ctrl] [+] and restoring text size is [Ctrl] [0].
This can hardly be described as a hassle, since even done slowly with keyboard or mouse it takes a maximum of 3 seconds. Anyone not making the adjustment, but spending time to bitch about readability, <g> I consider to be mentally lazy, <gg> or PC challenged, <ggg>.
In the most recent former SI iteration regardless of text setting we had ~71 fixed font characters. Check this link here and on the old site:
Message 19978001
Note that I've placed meatballs as line spacers in each fixed font table at the 70th character position, and extend no table data further right.
In the current SI UI for those to display just inside a page without extending the page right, text size is (MSFT IE6 at 800x600) "medium," two wheel clicks up from our "smallest" default. If I use smallest there is a lot of white space right of the table but that's no big deal.
Here on the now "legacy" site (log-in required) full screen width places these meatballs flush right, period the end, and the same post could be plugged into IHub or TMF (which has a reduced sized message box width - about 75% screen width - with same effect:
Message 19978001
If I'm speed reading with reasonable comprehension I'm essentially scanning down the middle of the page. so I'll use a larger text font. If I'm maximizing comprehension at the sake of speed I'll opt for a smaller font and maximum text on the screen at one time.
Those are just my habits. We all have different ones. Bob's attempting to give us maximum flexibility to induldge our varying habitsa and tastes, and as an early IHub settler, I have watched him do that very successfully in the past.
This post was long and boring, and perhaps a bit disjointed. I respect your POV, and it's very valid. I would however, certainly hate to see a restricted width message box, as our only option.
The codemeister does a decent job with screen layouts and graphics. He doesn't profess to be a graphics pro. You and others like you who are active participants here could certainly be of assistance to him when he is in the mode to fine tune and optimize appearance, although he has any number of coding tasks ahead of him that probably should take precedence.
Best,
- Eric - |
