Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Site readability  (Read 10188 times)

kikashi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5376
Re: Site readability
« Reply #20 on: January 20, 2014, 03:32:12 AM »

This acronym evades me.

[pedantry] It's an abbreviation, not an acronym [/pedantry]

Bugbear of mine. Sorry  ;)

Jeremy
Logged

Manoli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1239
Re: Site readability
« Reply #21 on: January 20, 2014, 04:00:38 AM »

Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11097
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: Site readability
« Reply #23 on: January 20, 2014, 11:29:00 AM »

And all along I thought it was all about Three Mile Island.  ???
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my photo website. New images each season. Also visit my new website: http://ericneedsakidney.org

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5665

I do believe that most modern browsers possess accessibility settings that will allow the reader to override the site's design settings and apply their own stylesheet.  And good modern web design does emphasise the separation of structure and semantics (HTML), visual design (CSS) and client side interactivity (Javascript, jquery etc).  
...

The "coding for mobiles" issue is relatively new by comparison. ... Using these techniques it is quite easy to detect screen resolution and serve a different style sheet to different devices.  It's straightforward enough to implement, very reliable and only requires a minor shift in thinking:  design your default site for small mobiles and enhance the experience for devices with higher res screens (rather than what a lot of people have traditionally done, design primarily for the desktop with mobile support an add-on).
Dave, I mostly agree with what you say, and indeed have been advocating for a while a "mobile first" web design approach. (For a start, ditch the mouse-overs!)

But currently many websites seem afflicted by the desire of professional designers to impose a visual layout, too often tested only on desktop browsers, with methods like specifying fixed pixel widths for text areas. So I was pining for the very early days of web browsers, way before Internet Explorer 6 and even before frames, when resizing to a narrower window or reducing the PPI setting to accommodate poor eyes would reliably reflow text to fit the window, rather than keeping the same line breaks and thus forcing one into horizontal scrolling, as happens for examples with the article http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/hasselblad_h5d_60_review.shtml that the OP mentioned.

But before I annoy Michael any more, I will note again that us readers can get around this without a lot of effort, and my main advice is "learn your browser", like the Reader mode of Safari or the browser add-ons from Readability.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2014, 04:34:51 PM by BJL »
Logged

kikashi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5376
Re: Site readability
« Reply #25 on: January 20, 2014, 04:25:48 PM »

Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11097
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: Site readability
« Reply #26 on: January 20, 2014, 08:11:40 PM »

Arguably, 2+2=5. Not correctly, though.

Jeremy
Oh Jeremy! That brings back fond memories of an interview I had for my first job as a college math teacher. The Math department chairman brought me in to see the University president, who asked me what I heard later was his stock question for mathematicians: "They tell me, young man, that nowadays some people say that 2 plus 2 can equals 5. What do you say about that?"

I don't remember what answer I came up with, but it wasn't as pithy as yours.

Finally, the President turned to the Chairman and said, "If you want him, you can have him."

And that began my thirty-five year academic career.
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my photo website. New images each season. Also visit my new website: http://ericneedsakidney.org

Dohmnuill

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 34
Re: Site readability
« Reply #27 on: January 20, 2014, 09:20:03 PM »

"They tell me, young man, that nowadays some people say that 2 plus 2 can equals 5. What do you say about that?"

George Orwell: "Some animals are more equal than others".
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11097
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: Site readability
« Reply #28 on: January 20, 2014, 11:40:21 PM »

"They tell me, young man, that nowadays some people say that 2 plus 2 can equals 5. What do you say about that?"

George Orwell: "Some animals are more equal than others".
Gosh, I wish I'd had the wit to quote Orwell at the time!
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my photo website. New images each season. Also visit my new website: http://ericneedsakidney.org

jrsforums

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 891
Re: Site readability
« Reply #29 on: January 21, 2014, 12:12:36 AM »

"They tell me, young man, that nowadays some people say that 2 plus 2 can equals 5. What do you say about that?"

George Orwell: "Some animals are more equal than others".

I think it was closer to.....all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Logged
John

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14472
Re: Site readability
« Reply #30 on: January 21, 2014, 03:33:41 AM »

Gosh, I wish I'd had the wit to quote Orwell at the time!



Be careful what you might have wished: Mr Boss could have thought you were being a smart-ass, and your career might never have taken off!

Folks is funny, as they say.

;-)

Rob C

Earnster

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
Re: Site readability
« Reply #31 on: January 21, 2014, 03:47:56 AM »

A good site design doesn't need a user to press Reader. Do most users even know about it?

A good side design codes the content semantically and uses style sheets to deliver appropriate user experiences to the device the user chooses to browse on.

And of course the only reason I complain is that I have been a passionate reader/subscriber/customer for many many years as a lot of the users have been. I say this cos I care and I says this because the better the site, the better the business, the more LL makes and the more content we get.

Truly a virtuous circle :)
« Last Edit: January 21, 2014, 03:52:55 AM by Earnster »
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14472
Re: Site readability
« Reply #32 on: January 21, 2014, 05:25:25 AM »

A good site design doesn't need a user to press Reader. Do most users even know about it?

A good side design codes the content semantically and uses style sheets to deliver appropriate user experiences to the device the user chooses to browse on.

And of course the only reason I complain is that I have been a passionate reader/subscriber/customer for many many years as a lot of the users have been. I say this cos I care and I says this because the better the site, the better the business, the more LL makes and the more content we get.

Truly a virtuous circle :)


Or just a daisy chain.

FWIW, I think it's something quite desperate that people find so little time in their lives that they are obliged to enter LuLa via their telephone. I am sometimes obliged to use my smarty-pants 'phone in order to let someone see my website, if only because I absolutely refuse to buy one of those 'tablet' things, thus encumbering my life with even more rubbish, more stuff to carry with me or risk leaving at an unattended table when I find myself in a bar or restaurant and feel the need to visit the restroom.

I like my website, enjoy playing with it and abhor the way the images look when reduced to such tiny proportions - can't even read the captions, for heaven's sake, and hate the concept of sticky fingers making stretchies or pinchies on the surface of the machine!

Why not accept that there is a time and a place for most activities, and that reading LuLa at work isn't one of them? Were I the employer, I'd feel a strong urge to fire anyone caught doing that on my time; of course, there's probably some socialist law preventing such a reaction - well, at least making it illegal.

And nobody has to live like that: simply refuse to be forced into such frantic ways; the tension will have you killing yourself before your time.

Relax, breathe deeply and save up the LuLa experience for when you are comfortably ensconced at home, gentle, soporific drink in one hand and dictionary at the other. You'll have a great night's sleep and feel much better in the morning.

Rob C

Earnster

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
Re: Site readability
« Reply #33 on: January 21, 2014, 05:42:08 AM »


Or just a daisy chain.

FWIW, I think it's something quite desperate that people find so little time in their lives that they are obliged to enter LuLa via their telephone. I am sometimes obliged to use my smarty-pants 'phone in order to let someone see my website, if only because I absolutely refuse to buy one of those 'tablet' things, thus encumbering my life with even more rubbish, more stuff to carry with me or risk leaving at an unattended table when I find myself in a bar or restaurant and feel the need to visit the restroom.

I like my website, enjoy playing with it and abhor the way the images look when reduced to such tiny proportions - can't even read the captions, for heaven's sake, and hate the concept of sticky fingers making stretchies or pinchies on the surface of the machine!

Why not accept that there is a time and a place for most activities, and that reading LuLa at work isn't one of them? Were I the employer, I'd feel a strong urge to fire anyone caught doing that on my time; of course, there's probably some socialist law preventing such a reaction - well, at least making it illegal.

And nobody has to live like that: simply refuse to be forced into such frantic ways; the tension will have you killing yourself before your time.

Relax, breathe deeply and save up the LuLa experience for when you are comfortably ensconced at home, gentle, soporific drink in one hand and dictionary at the other. You'll have a great night's sleep and feel much better in the morning.

Rob C

I find this insulting and patronising.
I happen to read tech articles on the train to and from work as it is convenient for me. It is not really for anyone to dictate how, where or on what a user reads a website. And just because you happen to not like or use a mobile phone to tablet in doesn't preclude others from doing so.
You are welcome to bury your head in the sand about the way people access websites, but is this the place for such prejudices?
Logged

john beardsworth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3692
    • http://www.beardsworth.co.uk
Re: Site readability
« Reply #34 on: January 21, 2014, 06:29:25 AM »

I find this insulting and patronising.
I doubt he intended it otherwise!

I sympathize with your post, to some degree, but it's easy enough to switch to a reader view and it's unlikely LL's owners will change something they like. Old dogs....

jeremyrh

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 440
Re: Site readability
« Reply #35 on: January 21, 2014, 07:15:15 AM »

I find this insulting and patronising.
I happen to read tech articles on the train to and from work as it is convenient for me.

Well, you mustn't. Because. Because. Because someone else said it wasn't the correct thing to do. So stop it.

And while you're at it, have you checked you're using the correct camera? You haven't? Sheesh!!!
Logged

Earnster

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
Re: Site readability
« Reply #36 on: January 21, 2014, 07:24:53 AM »

I doubt he intended it otherwise!

I sympathize with your post, to some degree, but it's easy enough to switch to a reader view and it's unlikely LL's owners will change something they like. Old dogs....

I know there are plenty of professional grouches, but why did he bother?
Logged

Earnster

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
Re: Site readability
« Reply #37 on: January 21, 2014, 07:26:03 AM »

Well, you mustn't. Because. Because. Because someone else said it wasn't the correct thing to do. So stop it.

And while you're at it, have you checked you're using the correct camera? You haven't? Sheesh!!!

Yeah, I guess my existence is futile  ;)
Logged

Manoli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1239
Re: Site readability
« Reply #38 on: January 21, 2014, 08:19:11 AM »

Arguably, 2+2=5. Not correctly, though.

Jeremy,
To be taken in the same spirit in which it was written - namely good natured frivolity  …


Part I
A fallacy is not the same as an argument.
The proof that 2+2=4,  in it's simplest form, goes something along the lines of  4=3+1=(2+1)+1=2+(1+1)=2+2.

Part II
As defined by the OED,

An abbreviation is a shortened form of a word or phrase, usually characterised by a period (full stop) after the abbreviated word - (P.S. , Q.E.D., Jan.)

An acronym is a word formed from the initial letters or groups of letters of the words in a name or phrase  - (SONAR, RADAR, GNU, LAME, JPEG, RAID) - and further complicated by various sub-types such as multi-layered, recursive, contrived, nested etc.

--
An initialism refers to an abbreviation formed from, and used as a string of initials. Although the term acronym is widely used to refer to any abbreviation formed from initial letters, some dictionaries define acronym to mean "a word" in its original sense, while some others include additional senses attributing to acronym the same meaning as that of initialism. The distinction, when made, hinges on whether the abbreviation is pronounced as a word, or as a string of letters. In such cases, examples found in dictionaries include NATO , SCUBA  and RADAR for acronyms, and FBI and HTML for initialisms

Such constructions, however—regardless of how they are pronounced—if formed from initials, may be identified as initialisms. The spelled-out form of an acronym or initialism is called its expansion.

Acronymy is a linguistic process that has existed throughout history but for which there was little to no naming or systematic analysis until relatively recent times.  By way of example, the official name for the Roman Empire, and the Republic before it, was SPQR (Senatus Populusque Romanus).  


So I put it to you that TMI, as NEI (Not Enough Information - pronounced 'nay') are both ARGUABLY acronyms. Which brings us back to Chris Feldhaims' original post and the SUTOTA (suitability-to-task) of LuLa as both a sleeping aid and a laxative …

M
« Last Edit: January 21, 2014, 08:21:59 AM by Manoli »
Logged

Christoph C. Feldhaim

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2509
  • There is no rule! No - wait ...
Re: Site readability
« Reply #39 on: January 21, 2014, 09:00:31 AM »

I simply prefer the sound of the word "acronym" over the sound of "abbreviation" which is more ugly to me and they are similar enough in meaning that I preferred the first in my post.

Beauty beats reason.

 :P
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up