05 Jan 2004 | Mike said...

Nice link, I haven't checked T26 in awhile. I'm glad they redesigned, some of the features on the old Flash nav were only available when you left your mouse over a certain element for an extended period of time. Very annoying. Pretty redesign though.

On a related note, I've always wondered who would buy a 5inch tee-shirt (yet another Segura enterprise). As a guy, I think walking around with a large font size 5" on the front of my tee-shirt might be a little embarassing, but maybe that's just me :)

05 Jan 2004 | nut-e said...

some like it that wide. :-)

05 Jan 2004 | The Scholar said...

It's nice looking and all, but what is this obsession with thinking that graphic artists have ridiculously good eyesight. I mean even that type is way too small for my eyes.

05 Jan 2004 | hawkman said...

I agree - it's really small and that monospaced font only makes it harder. What's with the Bauhaus (band) guy at the bottom left? Is he there to rock? All the bats have left the bell tower...

06 Jan 2004 | Shucks said...

Ooops! MySQL and PHP errors out the ying-yang:

Warning: mysql_connect(): Can't create a new thread (errno 12). If you are not out of available memory, you can consult the manual for a possible OS-dependent bug in /home/virtual/site1/fst/var/www/html/wlib/WDBConn.php on line 24
ERROR
...

06 Jan 2004 | dc said...

It's too small to be read.

But if I had to gues what it is, I'd say it's a _Who_ tribute band.

06 Jan 2004 | Monkey said...

"I mean even that type is way too small for my eyes."

I've never understood this either, a lot of the 'designer' type sites (including ones recommended in web design publications) usually feature incredibly small type, oh and the little tiny squares for navigation that designers seem to love. In fact 37signals open my eyes to a different style of design when I first visited (thank you).

Apart from this it looks good and is easy enough to use

06 Jan 2004 | dmr said...

I never understood the criticism of small type on the web as 9 or 10px verdana is no smaller than any type in a newspaper, receipt, magazine, etc. There are so many instances where type size is considered normal in print and small on screen, I wonder why that is.

The new T26 shop is great—at a glance views of all faces is a nice feature and the style is pretty tight and clean.

06 Jan 2004 | Monkey said...

The font for the top nav bar is 5pt and the welcome paragraph text is 7pt.

Smaller print type is probably accepted due to the higher resolution and it's easier on the eyes than staring into a computer screen

06 Jan 2004 | Monkey said...

Sorry my mistake it's actually 9pt, still too small though ;)

06 Jan 2004 | dmr said...

5 and 7px on a computer are not possible to read. I do believe 9px is the smallest size one can render most standard type in to be readable. This may not apply to certain pixel faces designed for 7px.

06 Jan 2004 | pb said...

"There are so many instances where type size is considered normal in print and small on screen, I wonder why that is."

Maybe it's because the resolution is orders of magnitude different???

Thanks to fixed button sizes, some button text is cut off in Safari: http://www.t26.com/cart/view.php

08 Jan 2004 | jharr said...

I know alot of this comes down to web type pre-anti-aliased rendering. Now that most OS an borwser technologies support font-smoothing to some level the issue has flip-flopped. Prio to smothing large fonts were readable but the jaggies were just obnoxious, erring on the side of small saved you from some of that in the 12 and under range. Now with font-smoothing, small type becomes blurred more easily at sizes that, in the past, were small but readable. Combine that with the size and it's really tough to read. Now you can get away with larger type to better serve your users with readable type, but it also looks nice when all the jaggies are gone. I'm doing some research on this subject so if anyone has input shoot it on over.

31 Jan 2005 | compatelius said...

bocigalingus must be something funny.