Rob Stewart wrote:
From: Aleksey Gurtovoy <agurtovoy@meta-comm.com>
Rob Stewart writes:
From: Aleksey Gurtovoy <agurtovoy@meta-comm.com>
Rob Stewart writes:
a sense that once you start reading it, you concentrate all your attention on the flow and simply don't notice what's around it (much as you don't notice the ads and the likes when you are reading a news site). IMO from usability standpoint the larger size is an improvement.
Did you find the smaller text somehow unreadable?
I think that even the enlarged version is still a tad to small. I find the links extremly hard to read. I think that the links should be the same font size as the main text, or if you must, only marginaly smaller. I also don't think it can possibily be confusing or distracting, since the Links are well separated by the (very nice looking) shadowed frames. Most sites I know have link text in either: Same font size: www.slashdot.org www.heise.de Only a little bit smaller: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page www.kde.org Smaller but bolt faced: www.gentoo.org On a sudden inspiration I checked with Internet Explorer. There the font sizes are ok, but IIRC IE is known to show fonts larger than it should.
Yes, they are distinguishable. The problem is, they are harder to read because of the lower contrast.
Lower contrast between the links and the text or the links and the background?
THe problem is low contrast relative to the background; it makes the text harder to read, something Rene mentions in another reply in this thread.
Well, but blue on white is fairly standard for the web (look at google, wikipedia, ...), and I can't see anybody who is not visually impaired having problems with it. In the case of visually impaired they probably have a custom Stylesheet in place which changes the colors and layout anyway. By the way I really like the new layout. Just my 2 cent. Fabio