Amen, I think much of the typographic research/common sense has been lost in the transition to the web. Web designers talk a lot about accessible and semantic content for blind users, which is nice, but they are forgeting about the other huge 95%+ which can see.

There is much we can learn from the body of knowledge in graphic design for print. A while back I wrote a little article called Usability or Usabilities on my own blog, addessing some of these issues.

What you describe as access structure I also see as form. Books have a form, based on their function. As yet, web site differences aren’t yet well understood, so we expect them to all have the same access structure.

I’m sure over time different access structures will be recognized, due to differing functions of sites. A bank site is different from a physical therapist’s site, a retail e-commerce site, a business-to-business site, a museum site, etc.

We’re getting there, though. I’m interested in how the blog-look developed. I believe it evolved organically, due to the needs and functions of blogs. Eventually other forms will evolve.

Some web conventions are horrible, IMHO. Fluid widths make sense while monitors are small, but go against typographic knowledge. Look at print design (books especially) to see how many words are easily readable on a line.

That’s one things blogs have gotten right. People will scroll down, if interested in your content. So make the type readable by keeping the width fixed and fairly wide if you can. At the same time, allow people to enlarge your type (no px measurements). Serve both sighted and low vision folks happy.

Sorry about all those typos. Even after preview!

That sounds very interesting, Mark. I look forward to seeing what you come up with. That’s what’s fascinating about the Web. So much to discover. Added to the ethos of sharing knowledge, it’s a great voyage for us all.

I agree that users should be able to access the content they want quickly and effectively. We have all heard of the Three Click Rule, and while it’s not always necessary or possible, it’s a good practice. Truthfully, users would rather go to a site where they can get to what they want faster, instead of mindlessly clicking in a mad search that ends in the user feeling frustrated. But that?s off the point really.

From a typographical standpoint, the great thing we can take away from print design is the set standard of Table of Contents or Index (which we would know as our navigation), Section Titles (headings), and body copy, which is instantly recognizable as such through the treatment of the type. If we see an 18 pixel bolded section of text among 12 pixel unbolded text, we realize that the smaller type is where the main chunk of the information lives and the larger type indicates the section title. At the very least we will realize that is the only place we?re going to find it. Once I have an idea of how everything is structured I can usually find the information I want quickly and tend to ignore the other parts of a site, if the navigation is well designed. Consistency helps readers see a redundancy which enables them to read faster.

Users aren’t blind. Designers make too many invisible elements.

I think by framing the statement as “Users are blind to navigation menus (or what have you),” it has a certain implication that the failure is with the user. I actually know designers (and creative directors (okay… more CDs than designers, but still...)) who absolutely *know* that users completely skip certain elements, so they try to make those elements more noticeable.

Users are focused. They aren’t blind. They see exactly what they came for…

or they leave.

Marilyn has some excellent points, particularly about line length. And if you want to really point out particular content, in my experience, the number one visual technique to do so is white space. This is especially so if the white space is surrounded by ‘superfluous’ information.

Whenever I design newspaper ads, I always make them as simple as possible, and make sure the content is surrounded by a large margin of negative space. With all the newspaper content surrounding it, the eye is drawn immediately to the ad. And I’m serious, here… this works *every* time. It is one of those “hundreds of years old” techniques.

There are just some things that work, period, and it amazes me how often those things are completely over-looked when people start designing for the screen, and interaction.

Users do become accustomed to conventions, so much so that is a filtering behavior. For instance, with banner ads, users became so accustomed to the conventions used with that form of advertising, that they learned to visually ignore it. Same with the global navigation. Global navigation was either hard to read, or not that useful, so eventually they learn to subconsciously ignore them.

In the same way that with a books? conventions (which are useful to a user) we subconsciously learn to take advantage of them, negative elements like the above can be subconsciously ignored. In reality this is a lesson to us as designers in learning what we should focus on...the content, and contextual navigation.

Honestly, lets look at it the other way. Who would want google ads in their favorite paperback? We would all probably learn to filter them out and ignore them. The books simplicity and lack of useless elements should be a good lesson in how we like to consume good content.