Don,

Your entire complaint as articulated was:

> Font Size:  Font size.  Font size.
> 

The real and important accessibility problem with the site in question is technological, not just repetition of "font size."  Font size (whether stated once or repeated) is a minor problem in this case; technological choices were a much greater problem.

I chose to make what may have been a fairly rude response for a couple of reasons:

Your statement implied that one should make educational decisions based solely on the design of a website. Although it is one indicator, the reality of how websites for universities are made makes your absolute dismissal really fairly stupid.

Your contrasting their abject failure to others who were wise enough to have consulted you implies that your influence would likely have resulted in good web design. I pointed out the websites associated with you that are famously poor. It's not just that they are boring and range from merely mundane to truly ugly. They are not particularly usable. Which brings me to your having asked:

> why do graphics and communication  designers love tiny, tiny type?
> 

Andrew King gave a clear and instructive answer. He made it clear that he was not advocating too-small type. He seemed to assume that you actually would be interested in an answer. You replied with a categorical statement that

> making type tiny to increase white space is:
> 
> 1. silly.
> 
indicating either that you did not understand Andrew's clear statement or you dismissed it out of hand. I assume the latter. If my assumption in this case is right, that vindicates my previous assumption that your original question was meant to be rhetorical and dismissive and that you really don't want to learn anything about a field you consult about but appear to have a rather shallow understanding of.

So back to why I called out http://www.nngroup.com/ and http://www.useit.com/ as less than exemplars of ideal websites. The Nielsen Norman Group site starts to use space (see Andrew's reply to your question) in a manner that starts to overcome the total lack of differentiation in the useit.com site but its lack of a hierarchy or visual cues does little to aid the reader in navigation. It is lazy generic design. One could, as Ken tries to, claim that your sites are a special category. I'm not buying it but it's an argument worth considering if I had more time.

(Feel free to note that http://www.gunnarswanson.com/  uses [gasp!] gray background or that http://www.ecu.edu/cs-cfac/soad/graphic/index.cfm proves we don't "get it.")

Nobody is advocating creating difficulty in reading. I am not. Andrew did not even come close to doing so. But your choice of targets for your ire and your not noticing the real problem with the site seems suspiciously more like a reactionary clinging to mundane aesthetic assumptions than an expert effort to advance real usability.

The aesthetic of the UC Davis site is appropriate for its subject. Its use of space is fairly effective. It has serious problems but your general efforts to "improve" design are unlikely to be listened do by designers because it is clear that you hold them in contempt, dismiss important parts of what they do, and don't even care to understand how they think.

I must note that, as a fan of your writing, I find it distressing to see how narrow your notions of design are. You have been a major and important force in understanding design but you need to loosen up and realize that your first reaction is not always the Word of God.

I understand that your core77 writing and most of your posts are deliberately provocative. If merely provoking is your goal, consider this a success.


Gunnar
----------
Gunnar Swanson Design Office
1901 East 6th Street
Greenville NC 27858
USA

[log in to unmask]
+1 252 258 7006

http://www.gunnarswanson.com