15 thoughts on “Site [en]”

  1. C’est un peu grand pour mon 1024*768 (PC)
    Le genre de taille de texte que je réserverais à  un titre ou à  un
    intertitre pas au corps du texte. A vue de nez on dirait du corps 16 ou du
    18. Je me trompe?

  3. this one is better… because before it was unreadable….
    So we’re faced to a problem. The problem is in fact people have different
    font-size preferences in their own browser.
    I decided myself, that defaut font-size in my browser is 10pt. So when
    I’m designing style sheets, I recommend to use 100% for the smallest font
    in your page.
    and gives in your stylesheet for others biggest size.
    100% 150% or 200%
    but the minimum is 100%. For me if you give 80% or 95%, the font will
    become unreadable on screen.
    In the future (CSS3) there will be a possibility to specify, something
    like
    80%, but with a lower limit of 10pt for example.

  6. Do what I’ve done, and simply use relative font sizes.. ie: font-size:
    small|x-small|xx-small; That way, it’ll still be scalable, but you can
    have things smaller as well.

  7. Karl, I’m not sure I get you, in fact. The text was unreadably small for
    you when I specified it as 0.75 em (which I now understand, is a
    ridiculous thing to do), but what about when I specified it as 13px? That
    shouldn’t be affected by the font size you have chosen as default in your
    browser, should it?

  8. My past experience with relative font sizes haven’t been particularly
    good.
    Using x-small|small|large presents problems across platforms – fonts tend
    to look too small on a Macs and unpredictable on Unix – and they may not
    give you the granularity in different font sizes that you might need.
    I’ve stuck to using pt’s for now, because it seems a lesser sin than
    using px’s

  9. eew. that didn’t work.

    That was supposed to have said:

    I’ve stuck to using pt’s for now, because it seems a lesser sin than
    using px’s <– this could present problems with printing.

    Bring on CSS3. And the browsers which support it, of course. 🙂

  11. Why do I get the feeling the guy who wrote that article is a Mac user 🙂

    I use pt rather than px for accessibility reasons, which the article
    outlines. I think it is saying that if you want to create print-perfect
    kind of designs, px is the go.
    http://alistapart.com/stories/fear4/3.html
    Running in px, do you have complaints from users of different
    resolutions? I’ve just found that using pt, resolution isn’t a problem so
    much (because it shouldn’t be). And with px there is the issue that
    printers understand pixels differently from screen. I don’t know the
    extent of support for media=”print”. (someone else might?)
    I was also in a corporate environment where NS4 was the standard – in pt,
    you can easily adjust change the size of the font as it appears within
    your browser (Ctrl+[ and Ctrl+]), not so in px. I later discovered that
    this is the contrary in IE 5, _and_ it isn’t particularly obvious how this
    ‘accessibility’ feature can be used. Bleh.
    Sorry I’m not much help 🙂

  12. C'est un peu grand pour mon 1024*768 (PC)
    Le genre de taille de texte que je réserverais à  un titre ou à  un
    intertitre pas au corps du texte. A vue de nez on dirait du corps 16 ou du
    18. Je me trompe?

  14. Do what I've done, and simply use relative font sizes.. ie: font-size:
    small|x-small|xx-small; That way, it'll still be scalable, but you can
    have things smaller as well.

  15. Karl, I'm not sure I get you, in fact. The text was unreadably small for
    you when I specified it as 0.75 em (which I now understand, is a
    ridiculous thing to do), but what about when I specified it as 13px? That
    shouldn't be affected by the font size you have chosen as default in your
    browser, should it?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *