«

At <http://preview.tinyurl.com/2f3z98> there is:

"This tutorial will show you how to add such a text size switcher
to your Web pages using PHP and CSS, thereby immediately making
your Web site more accessible and scoring you useful brownie
points from everyone over the age of 50. Keep reading, and find
out how!"

And there was I looking at this for the more natural purpose of
giving folk a way to make text smaller from default base of 100%!
In other words hoping to score brownie points with the under 50s.

--
dorayme

On 03/11/08 03:50 pm, dorayme wrote:
>
> "This tutorial will show you how to add such a text size switcher
> to your Web pages using PHP and CSS, thereby immediately making
> your Web site more accessible and scoring you useful brownie
> points from everyone over the age of 50. Keep reading, and find
> out how!"
>
Rather insulting to people over 50. It assumes they all have vision
problems while no one under 50 does.
Then there is the old issue of deezyners selecting a font size for
everyone then providing a way for everyone to adjust it to their own
preference. A lot of hubris there when all they have to do leave the size
at 100%.

--
jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)

Jim Moe wrote:
>
> Rather insulting to people over 50. It assumes they all have vision
> problems while no one under 50 does.

I've had poor vision since I was 8 years old. Age has nothing to do with it.

--
Berg

In article <>,
Jim Moe <jmm-> wrote:

> On 03/11/08 03:50 pm, dorayme wrote:
> >
> > "This tutorial will show you how to add such a text size switcher
> > to your Web pages using PHP and CSS, thereby immediately making
> > your Web site more accessible and scoring you useful brownie
> > points from everyone over the age of 50. Keep reading, and find
> > out how!"
> >
> Rather insulting to people over 50. It assumes they all have vision
> problems while no one under 50 does.
> Then there is the old issue of deezyners selecting a font size for
> everyone then providing a way for everyone to adjust it to their own
> preference. A lot of hubris there when all they have to do leave the size
> at 100%.

A couple of things Jim, because of the way you have snipped my
post, let me make it clear that I did *not* say what is inside
the quote marks. Not something that many people would pick up
from the way you snipped the very short post.

I added "And there was I looking at this for the more natural
purpose of giving folk a way to make text smaller from default
base of 100%! In other words hoping to score brownie points with
the under 50s."

<g>

Aside from such personal concerns, yes, it is a bit rude I guess
of that website to have phrased it thus.

Your last remark seems to me to miss an important point and that
is that you can set 100% as default but still provide a facility
for people who are not so familiar with their web browsers but
would like bigger or smaller. This is different to dictating to
people some super small size and giving them an option for
bigger. It is a totally different tactic. It was in fact, part of
the post which you snipped.

--
dorayme

In article <>,
Bergamot <> wrote:

> I've had poor vision since I was 8 years old. Age has nothing to do with it.

Almost totally untrue. Age has a lot to do with it. Social and
statistical facts are not some big secret.

--
dorayme

dorayme wrote:

> In article <>,
> Bergamot <> wrote:
>
> > I've had poor vision since I was 8 years old. Age has nothing to do
> > with it.
>
> Almost totally untrue. Age has a lot to do with it. Social and
> statistical facts are not some big secret.

Depends how you look at it. I've been using glasses since I was 7,
gradually degrading to about -7.5 on one eye and -6.5 on the other
nowadays (I'm 2. My sister had to start using reading glasses (for
astigmatism) about 4 or 5 years ago, and now she's 25. My mother
started with reading glasses at a much later age, a few years earlier
than when my sister did (although past her early 40's). My stepdad has
also gotten corrective glasses (also for astigmatism, but to a lesser
extent) at about the same time. Finally, my dad has been using glasses
for as long as I can remember (by looking at photo albums from my
childhood, I'd say at least since he was about 20).

Just looking at my own family, I don't think age has as much to do with
poor vision as statistics might think (I have the feeling there are a
lot of people out there having poor vision without admitting it, mainly
because of pride and/or vanity; too many times, I've heard people say
that "only old people wear glasses").

--
Kim André Akerø
-
(remove NOSPAM to contact me directly)

In article <>,
Kim André Akerø <> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
>
> > In article <>,
> > Bergamot <> wrote:
> >
> > > I've had poor vision since I was 8 years old. Age has nothing to do
> > > with it.
> >
> > Almost totally untrue. Age has a lot to do with it. Social and
> > statistical facts are not some big secret.
>
> Depends how you look at it.

It depends on *what* you look at. We get poorer in vision as we
get older. A statistical statement has different truth conditions
to other statements.
....

> Just looking at my own family, I don't think age has as much to do with
> poor vision as statistics might think (I have the feeling there are a
> lot of people out there having poor vision without admitting it, mainly
> because of pride and/or vanity; too many times, I've heard people say
> that "only old people wear glasses").

It is hard to believe my fingers are typing this: many people
under 50 have poor vision, many people over 50 have great vision.

And you can make as many - well, up to a point - non-statistical
statements you like and the statistical one still remains like a
fortress, unaffected.

--
dorayme

Kim André Akerø wrote:

> Just looking at my own family, I don't think age has as much to do with
> poor vision as statistics might think (I have the feeling there are a
> lot of people out there having poor vision without admitting it, mainly
> because of pride and/or vanity; too many times, I've heard people say
> that "only old people wear glasses").

Of course, there are plenty of young people who wear glasses. I first got
glasses when I was about 15. I didn't start wearing them frequently until
I was about 23, and still don't wear them consistently, as my vision is
reasonable without them.

But the important factor here is that as you age, your vision tends will
do one of two things: it will stay the same, or get worse. It won't
improve. Which is why older people are more likely to need glasses than
younger people.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.17.14-mm-desktop-9mdvsmp, up 44 days, 21:33.]
[Now Playing: Coldplay - Sparks]

The Semantic Web
http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2008/03/09/sw/

On 2008-03-13 01:25:08 +0100, dorayme <> said:

> In article <>,
> Kim André Akerø <> wrote:
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>
>>> In article <>,
>>> Bergamot <> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've had poor vision since I was 8 years old. Age has nothing to do
>>>> with it.
>>>
>>> Almost totally untrue. Age has a lot to do with it. Social and
>>> statistical facts are not some big secret.
>>
>> Depends how you look at it.
>
> It depends on *what* you look at. We get poorer in vision as we
> get older.

It's not as simple as that. For some purposes one's vision may improve.
True, I can't read easily now without glasses, but I don't need them
for driving now, whereas I did once. Myopia when young almost cancels
out with presbyopia when old, at least for some people.

None of this affects the HTML point, of course. I think we can all
agree that 100% is best.


--
athel

In article <>,
Athel Cornish-Bowden <> wrote:

> On 2008-03-13 01:25:08 +0100, dorayme <> said:
>
> > In article <>,
> > Kim André Akerø <> wrote:
> >
> >> dorayme wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <>,
> >>> Bergamot <> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I've had poor vision since I was 8 years old. Age has nothing to do
> >>>> with it.
> >>>
> >>> Almost totally untrue. Age has a lot to do with it. Social and
> >>> statistical facts are not some big secret.
> >>
> >> Depends how you look at it.
> >
> > It depends on *what* you look at. We get poorer in vision as we
> > get older.
>
> It's not as simple as that.

It is as simple as that. I am afraid you are not cottoning on to
my remarks about statistical statements. Perhaps there was
something about those remarks by me in a post or two, a post or
two back, that was unclear?

It is true that you would not be the first to have trouble with
the logic of statistical remarks. They are a most unintuitive
form for even otherwise competent humans, (witness Bergamots's
mistake on this, earlier in the thread.)

> For some purposes one's vision may improve.
> True, I can't read easily now without glasses, but I don't need them
> for driving now, whereas I did once. Myopia when young almost cancels
> out with presbyopia when old, at least for some people.
>

This is a bit like saying it is not simply true that people have
almost no chance of winning the lottery - because you won it.

Perhaps the trouble is that a lot of remarks of a statistical
nature are not flagged as such with obvious words like "Most" or
"X%". But it is extremely debilitating for a writer to be
required to flag his or her remarks with such obvious and literal
additions. Many writers, especially in scientific fields or
social surveys and even histories must simply be understood to be
talking broadly, statistically.

--
dorayme