- From: Charles F. Munat <chas@munat.com>
- Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 21:40:28 -0800
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
DERRICK, Monique wrote: > What I want to know about this is if we use em's then that completely > changes the design if the viewer uses larger sizing, how do you take this > into account when designing a site. I'd like to respond to this if I may. A large part of the problem (IMO) with most web sites today is that the site developers (or more accurately "designers") do not understand what a web site is. Perhaps because we began with the idea of web "pages," most web site developers think of sites in terms of pages viewed in a browser. This has not been true of most sites for many years, if it was ever true. A web site is really just a structured collection of data and/or services. This data is abstract. It is represented physically by magnetic or electric fields themselves representing 0s and 1s. When you or I use a browser to view a web site, we are essentially peering through a window overlooking this data. The data is paraded by our window, hopefully in some format that makes sense to us. Looked at another way, my computer retrieves this data (along with some hints for how to format it) and converts these strings of 1s and 0s into an arrangement of colored pixels on a screen. The light from this screen is absorbed by my retinas and my brain recognizes patterns, converts them to symbols, and then converts the symbols into concepts. The end result is that a copy of the original information now exists in my brain. Of course, it could have converted that same data into sounds to roughly the same effect. The issues with any web site are: 1) What information do we want to transmit? 2) How do we get it into the user's brain? Of course, the information does not need to be verbal. We can transmit images, sounds, and moving images in addition to text. And we can create new information by the structuring of old information. For example, I can place two images side by side that together send a message that is not contained in either image. A similar example is Harper's Index (in Harper's magazine) which simply lists facts culled from various sources. It is the organization of these facts that produce patterns and convey the real message. The best way (IMO) to build a web site is to begin by collecting the data. The next step is to structure that data, including creating relationships between data. Once you've done this, you have a web site. (Yes, this is oversimplified...) Now comes the question of how this data will be conveyed to the user. The best sites will provide a variety of methods and will allow the user to adjust the manner in which the data is transmitted to suit her own needs. Relative type sizing is just one part of this. The way a web page is laid out and the choice of elements does have a significant effect on the message conveyed. Unfortunately, most of us have strong visual biases. It is easy for us to become obsessed with the style of a page (which is also a form of communication) and to forget the data. Or, in the case of advertising sites (the majority of sites on-line currently), the real message is being conveyed by the style, and the textual message is only the bait. This is a very important point that many people miss. Since we go to sites (we think) for the data contained therein, we presume that the purpose of the site is to convey that data to us. But in reality, the purpose of the site almost always has little to do with the data. Take CNN.com, for example. What is the purpose of the CNN.com site? To convey news? Think again. What does CNN.com sell? A few sites still exist to convey the actual information users come to them to find. But most sites use that information as bait. They are really selling something else. So what does CNN.com sell? News? No. Advertising? Not exactly. What then? Answer: They sell you. They sell space in your mind. The news they present (if you can call it that; really it is more "infotainment") is only the bait to get you to the site (or to their cable channels). Then they sell you and the rest of their audience to their real customers: the corporations that pay for advertising. This means that getting the news across is really of no importance at all. That there is any news at all on the CNN.com site is only true because they do need *some* bait. But if they could get away with all advertising all the time without losing audience share, that would be the end of news. (We're about half-way there, I think.) So what does this have to do with relative type sizes? Plenty. Most of the people on this list think about web sites from the perspective of the user. After all, this list is about accessibility. We are not talking about the ability of the web site developer to get access to the audience on behalf of the "sponsors," but of the audience to get access to the data. So we are user-centered. From a user-centered point of view, relative type sizes are the way to go. In fact, from a user-centered point of view, the user is king. Everything should cater to the user. This is the philosophy behind such things as the ability of user stylesheets to override author stylesheets. This was not a popular decision among authors. If you are a web site developer working for a big corporate site (or even a small corporate site), you will quickly find that the owners and managers of that corporation are not interested in serving their users, except to the minimum extent necessary to keep them coming back. McDonald's could make burgers ten times better than they do now. That would certainly serve their customers better. But instead they do the bare minimum necessary to keep the customers coming back. They'll only improve service or quality if they have to. Can you imagine any manager of any corporation saying, "We don't need this much profit! Let's do something nice for our customers and knock our profits down a bit in the process!" In fact, McDonald's doesn't even care about hamburgers. That just happens to be what they sell. But if they can make more money by selling toys, then you'll see a shift to selling toys (they already sell their customers to their "sponsors" via movie tie-ins and other products). In fact, what saved McDonald's during the lean years in the 1970s was real estate. Last I heard, they made more money off of real estate than by selling burgers. So McDonald's is first a landlord and only second a hamburger manufacturer. Once you understand this, everything becomes much clearer. In the four plus years I've been on this list, I've seen arguments repeated over and over again about issues like relative type sizes. But there can be no real consensus on this issue because the two sides have different base values. One side is user-centered, the other pretends to be user-centered (doesn't everyone?), but really is revenue-centered. And what's best for revenue generation rarely coincides with what's best for the user. To CNN, CNN.com is not a web site, it is a revenue-generation device. All discussion of design must reflect this fact. So the answer to your question depends on where you fall on this continuum. Are you at the revenue-centered end? Or are you more of a user-centered type? At some point as you move from revenue-centered to user-centered you shift from concern for pixel-perfect layout to user-centered design, from fixed type sizes to relative type sizes. Whether you are on the fixed or relative side of the line is a question that only you can answer. Of course, this is not to imply that relative type sizes are by nature anti-revenue. But that is certainly the view of many designers now. The general opinion of most graphic designers that I've met is that the designer must have total control over the experience of the user. I find this hilarious because it is so obviously impossible (in *every* medium), but I regularly encounter this attitude. Most graphic designers are horrified when you show them how easily type sizes can be ramped up or down when relative units are used. But maybe this is changing. It may turn out that making sites more usable and accessible works better than whiz-bang special effects and fancy layouts. At least, this is my opinion. I think that flashy effects quickly wear off as users grow tired of them. And the trend on many big web sites away from flash to more user-centered designs over the past few years seems to confirm this. The big guys are finally figuring out that the Web is not TV and that users come to the Web for different reasons. It is also (so far) not the sort of medium where flipping the channel only transports you to similarly insipid crap. But if this is happening, it is happening because these companies are starting to realize that revenues may be better served by serving the user better. It does not represent a shift in values away from the profit motive or even a recognition that profit is not the only thing in life. To a corporation, profit *is* the only thing in life, by definition. I realize this is probably not the answer you were looking for. I hope you found it useful nonetheless. Sincerely, Charles F. Munat Seattle, Washington
Received on Wednesday, 9 January 2002 00:39:31 UTC