The Lounge is rated Safe For Work. If you're about to post something inappropriate for a shared office environment, then don't post it. No ads, no abuse, and no programming questions. Trolling, (political, climate, religious or whatever) will result in your account being removed.
I wonder if it's based on sites that adjust their layout according to client form factor - mobile, desktop, etc. I've noticed lots of sites that appear to be originated on mobile and then moved to desktop. They don't adjust the typography, which means fonts tend to be too large.
At least in the US, several companies have lost law suits about their websites not being ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliant. While the act does not specify a font size, courts have ruled in favor of vision impaired users. So think sites are going with larger font sizes to keep from being sued.
Well, that's an interesting aspect and reason to go for the louder fonts, however, not many visually impaired users gonna use the development related websites. Also, most of the site developers might not be aware of the ADA.
You can have all the tools in the world but if you don't genuinely believe in yourself, it's useless.
What ticks me off even worse is the really small gray text that is intended to be seen as secondary info, but that is so freakin small, I have to bring the site's scale up to 120% to read it. CP. Just sayin...
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010 ----- You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010 ----- When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
small gray light-grey text on a pale-grey background....This is what really p's me off.
I'm not the only one then!
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
Even if the typeface is large enough by itself, web fashion of today is to use fonts made up of hairlines only. Single pixel width, or thereabouts. Sometimes medium or light grey as well. I think the designers might use the term "elegance" in describing the style. They definitely should not use the term "readability".
In theory this should create no problems with web pages ... if what we were told 20 years ago had been true. It was said that the "cascading" nature of CSS allows you to define the typeface and size at the top level, and it would sift through the layers, adjusting whatever you wanted to adjust. We were told that the same page could be viewed using one CSS for large, high contrast text, another CSS for poor resolution screens, hence different fonts and other layout, yet another CSS for users with a braille terminal. This was a blatant lie. In the very first years, I tried to make alternate CSSes. Essentially it might affect websites that didn't use CSS at all (they did exist, 20 years ago!). For very simple, almost pure text pages, you might be able to affect some text, but often just part of it. I never saw a web site providing a "If you can't read this text because it is too small, click on it to enlarge font size" that could be scaled up by adding a local CSS. I never saw a single demo of a CSS that would give a braille reader access to the web page text, or a reduced-vision person higher contrast and larger typefaces, not even in the early days when absolute measures were considered inappropriate.
Today, most websites set both typeface and size explicitlty, very close to the actual graphics, and in absolute values rather than relative. Changing a default has no effect whatsoever. I don't even know if today's browsers have facilities for inserting CSS files or set defaults. Why should they, when 99,99% of page elements will ignore it anyway?
In theory I can, for each and every web page, pick up the specific CSS of that web page and edit it. Although there in theory is no difference between theory and practice, in pratice there is. The onlyu workable solution would be one a single "private" CSS, setting defaults for all web pages.
Our only rescue is the zoom function. But that cannot change a light grey hairline font to a solid black font of a fatter design. To make the text readable I have to zoom up far more than I would do with a proper typface choice.
I suspect that there is some way of setting up a global (on my machine) font substitution table so that any request for a hairline typeface would return some roboust, readable face. I don't know how to do that. And I would probably have to add several new typefaces to the table every day for a year before it would calm down. Maybe I could even manipulate a color name-to-RGB table - but is seems like the great majority of CSS files today use RGB directly, rather than color names. I am sure that web designers have ways to circument such substitutions and replacements anyway: They see it as they d*** right to force their style onto me. If I can't read it (with ease), then that is my problem, not their problem!
Or they present the stuff as a PDF file where everything is absolute. Especially for sales brochures you see this - and a lot of "elegant" hairline typefaces. In one case it was so bad that I was happy to discover that the PDF permitted me to create an MS-Word copy, where I could replace the font by a readable one. Most PDFs won't permit this. Or they represent a significant part of text info as images of text. In any case: This is not what I consider a workable solution.
Government can give you nothing but what it takes from somebody else. A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you've got, including your freedom.-Ezra Taft Benson
You must accept 1 of 2 basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe or we are not alone. Either way, the implications are staggering!-Wernher von Braun
The case was originally brought by a blind man named Guillermo Robles, who sued the pizza chain after he was unable to order food on Domino’s website and mobile app despite using screen-reading software.
So I'm wondering why he didn't call the order in. I don't want to seem unsympathetic to the disabled but this requirement seems a bit much.
Ah, I didn't know it was a simple and common fix. I don't do any web stuff (except for my very simple and non-compliant personal site). I assumed it was a substantial task as it seems all I hear from folks at work and on CP is how difficult everything webbish seems to be. Thanks for the enlightenment.