[Web4lib] Nielsen's Top 10 - 2005 version

[Lynne Puckett]

Erik Kraft wrote:
> Most of the items on Nielsen's list are no-brainers, but I don't think 
> frozen layouts and fixed page widths are a usability "mistake" at all. 
> In fact, I think the reason you cite for using liquid layouts--that many 
> entry-level machines now come standard with hi-res monitors--is an 
> argument for, not against, fixed width layouts. There is now a huge 
> disparity between the lowest possible resolution we have to design for 
> (800 x 600) and the highest (2000 or more pixels wide). In most cases, I 
> think liquid layouts that look great at 800x600 look awful on a super 
> hi-res monitor, and vice-versa.
> 
> Of course the usability argument is that the user should be in control 
> of the size of their browser window's content area, but I'm slightly 
> dubious that the average user on a high-res monitors surfs the web with 
> a less-than-maximized browser window. Readability is a huge part of 
> usability, and this involves being able to reliably control white space 
> and line lengths on pages. I don't think Nielsen gets this, at all. (Not 
> that I wish to start a long debate about aspects of design that Nielsen 
> doesn't get--that could preoccupy the list for a very long time indeed!)
> 
> I know there are pros and cons both ways, and that a good case can be 
> made for liquid layouts, and that different kinds of pages call for 
> different layouts, but to call a fixed width design an outright 
> "mistake" gets my back up a bit.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Erik.
Erik,
The biggest problem with fixed fonts, as far as my aging eyes are 
concerned, are the ones with tiny type that will NOT enlarge in the 
browser (especially if it's IE). I use Firefox because it will enlarge 
anything in print, even frames. Pages that have print in 8 or 9 point 
type (or smaller - gaakh) are otherwise impossible for me to read 
anymore, no matter which pair of glasses I'm wearing, unless I can make 
it bigger. The page I write is all relative fonts (I hope - any 
otherwise I'll change when I find them!) for that reason - so any 
browser can make the print bigger, if the user knows how to do that (and 
it's an easy phone walk-thru mostly, if they don't - done that).
Many other people with less than 20/20 vision have similar problems - 
you don't have to be legally blind to have trouble seeing tiny print, 
and I think that's what Nielsen is getting at (wild guess on my part). I 
don't really care that the beautiful layout goes down the tubes when I 
enlarge the print - if the authors want me to stay on their page, I 
better be able to read same or I'm outta there! If they wrote it and 
froze it in 8-point type, then I'm not going to use their webpage - 
squinting makes my head hurt. A lot of people older than I feel even 
more vehemently on the issue, because their sight is worse.
So I guess I agree with Neilsen here - let the user control print size.
Regards,
Lynne
-- 
L. E. Puckett
Reference & Electronic Systems Librarian
Parmly Billings Library
510 North Broadway, Billings, MT 59101
http://www.billings.lib.mt.us
Ph: 406-657-8258