<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The 100% Easy-2-Read Standard</title>
	<atom:link href="http://informationarchitects.jp/100e2r/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://informationarchitects.jp/100e2r/</link>
	<description>Information Architects Japan</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 09 Oct 2009 11:49:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: A. Peon</title>
		<link>http://informationarchitects.jp/100e2r/comment-page-6/#comment-153379</link>
		<dc:creator>A. Peon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2009 05:07:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.informationarchitects.jp/100e2r#comment-153379</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Some observations:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The standard of setting text height by px, rather than by &#039;point size and hope the browser can guess the display DPI and apply the user&#039;s preferred scaling-factor&#039; is horrible.  In 2009 we shouldn&#039;t be using pixel counts for layout.  By 2014 anyone thinking of such a thing would be shot - between netbooks and display walls, you&#039;re never going to get it right.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Back in the glass-teletype days, 80x25 on a ~10&quot;-14&quot; screen became a standard for a reason.  Today our displays are inches bigger and yet designers still pack them with text smaller than the ultra-condensed modes from early SVGA cards.
Then again, it seems most designers grew up hunched over and squinting at a Fat Mac&#039;s 9&quot; display.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Related to this:  Back in the days when screens were 4:3, On Macintosh (and Macintosh only), browsers would pop up their windows reserving space for a strip of desktop.  This &#039;naturally&#039; provided the equivalent of whitespace, for designers using Macs - or users who eventually realized that designers were using Macs and stopped completely maximizing the browser window - and users could choose their width.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;These days, no text content &#039;looks right&#039; in 16:9, and even on the Mac, a &#039;semi-maximized&#039; window is too damn wide.  Thus the move to fixed-widths and whitespace.  This, in turn, is unlikely to scale very well when wall-sized displays become the norm... but since 960 pixels are here to stay for a while, maybe a &#039;two-column browser&#039; will exist by the time I can pick up a 40&quot; widescreen for my desk.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Desktop users still at 1024x768 or less probably have bad vision and don&#039;t know how to work the zoom feature - chances are they want your text that big.  (Don&#039;t believe me?  Visit any regular office building.)  Netbooks and smartphones, on the other hand... well, that&#039;s still a tough question.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Some observations:</p>

<p>The standard of setting text height by px, rather than by &#8216;point size and hope the browser can guess the display DPI and apply the user&#8217;s preferred scaling-factor&#8217; is horrible.  In 2009 we shouldn&#8217;t be using pixel counts for layout.  By 2014 anyone thinking of such a thing would be shot &#8211; between netbooks and display walls, you&#8217;re never going to get it right.</p>

<p>Back in the glass-teletype days, 80&#215;25 on a ~10&#8243;-14&#8243; screen became a standard for a reason.  Today our displays are inches bigger and yet designers still pack them with text smaller than the ultra-condensed modes from early SVGA cards.
Then again, it seems most designers grew up hunched over and squinting at a Fat Mac&#8217;s 9&#8243; display.</p>

<p>Related to this:  Back in the days when screens were 4:3, On Macintosh (and Macintosh only), browsers would pop up their windows reserving space for a strip of desktop.  This &#8216;naturally&#8217; provided the equivalent of whitespace, for designers using Macs &#8211; or users who eventually realized that designers were using Macs and stopped completely maximizing the browser window &#8211; and users could choose their width.</p>

<p>These days, no text content &#8216;looks right&#8217; in 16:9, and even on the Mac, a &#8217;semi-maximized&#8217; window is too damn wide.  Thus the move to fixed-widths and whitespace.  This, in turn, is unlikely to scale very well when wall-sized displays become the norm&#8230; but since 960 pixels are here to stay for a while, maybe a &#8216;two-column browser&#8217; will exist by the time I can pick up a 40&#8243; widescreen for my desk.</p>

<p>Desktop users still at 1024&#215;768 or less probably have bad vision and don&#8217;t know how to work the zoom feature &#8211; chances are they want your text that big.  (Don&#8217;t believe me?  Visit any regular office building.)  Netbooks and smartphones, on the other hand&#8230; well, that&#8217;s still a tough question.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sim</title>
		<link>http://informationarchitects.jp/100e2r/comment-page-6/#comment-153072</link>
		<dc:creator>sim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Jun 2009 05:19:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.informationarchitects.jp/100e2r#comment-153072</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Well written but hard to sell to any marketing agency that cares about visual.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well written but hard to sell to any marketing agency that cares about visual.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jason A. Tselentis</title>
		<link>http://informationarchitects.jp/100e2r/comment-page-5/#comment-152924</link>
		<dc:creator>Jason A. Tselentis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 May 2009 14:39:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.informationarchitects.jp/100e2r#comment-152924</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Your typographic handling on this page is really excellent. I can tell you&#039;re a web designer who loves typography, and cares about typography. Keep the good articles coming!&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your typographic handling on this page is really excellent. I can tell you&#8217;re a web designer who loves typography, and cares about typography. Keep the good articles coming!</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cyprian</title>
		<link>http://informationarchitects.jp/100e2r/comment-page-5/#comment-152867</link>
		<dc:creator>Cyprian</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2009 19:45:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.informationarchitects.jp/100e2r#comment-152867</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;Some time ago I was reading on Ilovetypography.com about web designer big typo mistake - using too small fonts. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I think text on your site it is, for sure, very well readable. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;On the other hand text block is pretty large. Is fine for blogs, but content focused portals couldn’t use it usually. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;But for sure it could be bigger than existing, present day, standard. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Your quick lesson about typo should be showed for all future web designers.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Some time ago I was reading on Ilovetypography.com about web designer big typo mistake &#8211; using too small fonts. </p>

<p>I think text on your site it is, for sure, very well readable. </p>

<p>On the other hand text block is pretty large. Is fine for blogs, but content focused portals couldn’t use it usually. </p>

<p>But for sure it could be bigger than existing, present day, standard. </p>

<p>Your quick lesson about typo should be showed for all future web designers.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Simo Parma</title>
		<link>http://informationarchitects.jp/100e2r/comment-page-5/#comment-152746</link>
		<dc:creator>Simo Parma</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2009 12:26:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.informationarchitects.jp/100e2r#comment-152746</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;typograpy post of the year. RESPECT!&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>typograpy post of the year. RESPECT!</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Chambers</title>
		<link>http://informationarchitects.jp/100e2r/comment-page-5/#comment-152648</link>
		<dc:creator>David Chambers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 17:09:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.informationarchitects.jp/100e2r#comment-152648</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;I really enjoy reading the &quot;100%&quot; text on this site. As well as making the main content easier to read, it has the added benefit of allowing comments to be clearly differentiated from the main content without appearing too small. My worry is that after just 30 minutes on this site I&#039;m already finding the text on my own site to be disconcertingly small. ;)&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I really enjoy reading the &#8220;100%&#8221; text on this site. As well as making the main content easier to read, it has the added benefit of allowing comments to be clearly differentiated from the main content without appearing too small. My worry is that after just 30 minutes on this site I&#8217;m already finding the text on my own site to be disconcertingly small. ;)</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: blogCaterine.cl &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Caterine</title>
		<link>http://informationarchitects.jp/100e2r/comment-page-5/#comment-152360</link>
		<dc:creator>blogCaterine.cl &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Caterine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Feb 2009 16:38:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.informationarchitects.jp/100e2r#comment-152360</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;[...] la fuente en un blog es uno de los temas determinantes en el campo de la usabilidad. Los autores de Information Architects (iA) sugieren la utilización de fuente en 16px, lo que equivaldría a la una letra de 11 pt en impreso. [...]&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] la fuente en un blog es uno de los temas determinantes en el campo de la usabilidad. Los autores de Information Architects (iA) sugieren la utilización de fuente en 16px, lo que equivaldría a la una letra de 11 pt en impreso. [...]</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 16px facilita la lectura &#124; Blog and Web</title>
		<link>http://informationarchitects.jp/100e2r/comment-page-5/#comment-152358</link>
		<dc:creator>16px facilita la lectura &#124; Blog and Web</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Feb 2009 04:37:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.informationarchitects.jp/100e2r#comment-152358</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;[...] Uno de los elementos que más quebraderos de cabeza puede traer es el de la letra: su tipo y su tamaño es muy determinante tanto para el diseño como para la usabilidad. Rastreando entre los posts que voy almacenando en FeedDemon, doy con este de Cosas Sencillas que enlaza a otro de AprendiendoWeb: Relativa facilidad de lectura, por qué usar un font-size de 16px. A su vez, éste proviene de otro de Information Architects: The 100% Easy-2-Read Standard. [...]&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Uno de los elementos que más quebraderos de cabeza puede traer es el de la letra: su tipo y su tamaño es muy determinante tanto para el diseño como para la usabilidad. Rastreando entre los posts que voy almacenando en FeedDemon, doy con este de Cosas Sencillas que enlaza a otro de AprendiendoWeb: Relativa facilidad de lectura, por qué usar un font-size de 16px. A su vez, éste proviene de otro de Information Architects: The 100% Easy-2-Read Standard. [...]</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Trisha</title>
		<link>http://informationarchitects.jp/100e2r/comment-page-5/#comment-152354</link>
		<dc:creator>Trisha</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Feb 2009 13:55:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.informationarchitects.jp/100e2r#comment-152354</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;As someone who deals a lot with publication, right across the various board, I have a standard media guide that I have been told I should be keeping to by equality and diversity guide lines that enable the dyslexic and most other readers find easy to view.
If in a printed publication, no smaller than Arial 11, but if viewing on a website, a size 12 should be used as standard.
serif&#039;s are very hard for the difficult sighted person in any of that font style. Arial, Frutiger and Helivetica and best.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As someone who deals a lot with publication, right across the various board, I have a standard media guide that I have been told I should be keeping to by equality and diversity guide lines that enable the dyslexic and most other readers find easy to view.
If in a printed publication, no smaller than Arial 11, but if viewing on a website, a size 12 should be used as standard.
serif&#8217;s are very hard for the difficult sighted person in any of that font style. Arial, Frutiger and Helivetica and best.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 50 Useful Design Tools For Beautiful Web Typography &#124; Ramblings</title>
		<link>http://informationarchitects.jp/100e2r/comment-page-5/#comment-152341</link>
		<dc:creator>50 Useful Design Tools For Beautiful Web Typography &#124; Ramblings</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Feb 2009 05:14:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.informationarchitects.jp/100e2r#comment-152341</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;[...] The 100% Easy-2-Read StandardBest practices for good typography on the Web from Oliver Reichenstein. [...]&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The 100% Easy-2-Read StandardBest practices for good typography on the Web from Oliver Reichenstein. [...]</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
