I am currently building a storefront on eBay. What font and font size can I use to insure a level of comfort for visually challenged customers while still keeping my pages visually appealing?<!--content-->You don't need a particular font face and size, you need pages that are standrds compliant - either HTML 4.01 Strict, XHTML 1.0 Strict or XHTML 1.1, and at least the priority 2 checkpoints in the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/">http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/</a><!-- m -->).<br />
<br />
Adam<!--content-->there was a thread about serifs and seifted, serifified, whaterver, the fonts with serifs and how dyslexic people react to them. Anyone have the url, because I did a search and could not find it? I just thought it might be of some use. My understanding of it was something like do not use serif but rather an actual font and serifs are bad on a computer screen but helpful when printed. But knowing me a probably got that reversed so if no one can find it on this forum maybe some reaserch on that would be in order. I hope that helped you somewhat.<!--content-->I think you mean this thread (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://forums.webdeveloper.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19715">http://forums.webdeveloper.com/showthre ... adid=19715</a><!-- m -->). Serifs are the little lines on the end of characters, in fonts such as Times Roman, and generally are easier to read on paper. Sans-serif fonts are those like Arial and work better when reading from a screen.<br />
<br />
However, I still believe that standards compliance is the most important thing. If you like, you can provide an alternate stylesheet making reading easier.<br />
<br />
Adam<!--content-->There's a funnier thread somewhere - Charles posted the link I believe. Maybe it was on <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.accessify.com">www.accessify.com</a><!-- w --><!--content-->I find it funny how some webdesign firms, I cant remember the addresses off the top of my head, but there are a few that promise valid code that will perform well on all browser but then their definition of valid code has nothing to do with the w3. They do not have doc types thy use tables for layout and this not just one host, either. They are the definition of a hypocrate and thats sad comeing from me because I have been known to cut the courners from time to time myself for instance not validating secondary pages or settling for only one or two errors instead of going for completly valid code.<!--content-->
<br />
Adam<!--content-->there was a thread about serifs and seifted, serifified, whaterver, the fonts with serifs and how dyslexic people react to them. Anyone have the url, because I did a search and could not find it? I just thought it might be of some use. My understanding of it was something like do not use serif but rather an actual font and serifs are bad on a computer screen but helpful when printed. But knowing me a probably got that reversed so if no one can find it on this forum maybe some reaserch on that would be in order. I hope that helped you somewhat.<!--content-->I think you mean this thread (<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://forums.webdeveloper.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=19715">http://forums.webdeveloper.com/showthre ... adid=19715</a><!-- m -->). Serifs are the little lines on the end of characters, in fonts such as Times Roman, and generally are easier to read on paper. Sans-serif fonts are those like Arial and work better when reading from a screen.<br />
<br />
However, I still believe that standards compliance is the most important thing. If you like, you can provide an alternate stylesheet making reading easier.<br />
<br />
Adam<!--content-->There's a funnier thread somewhere - Charles posted the link I believe. Maybe it was on <!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.accessify.com">www.accessify.com</a><!-- w --><!--content-->I find it funny how some webdesign firms, I cant remember the addresses off the top of my head, but there are a few that promise valid code that will perform well on all browser but then their definition of valid code has nothing to do with the w3. They do not have doc types thy use tables for layout and this not just one host, either. They are the definition of a hypocrate and thats sad comeing from me because I have been known to cut the courners from time to time myself for instance not validating secondary pages or settling for only one or two errors instead of going for completly valid code.<!--content-->