I’ve been playing a little bit with the text size (removing pixels!), so please let me know if it is better or worse for you now, or if you see really ugly stuff… screen dumps from Mac browsers and different resolutions (than my 600×800) are most welcome!
Similar Posts:
- To Hell With Bad Browsers
- Feast for Geeks
- Extracting Web Apps From the Browser: Fluid and Prism
- The War Explained
- Batch Category Editing For WordPress
- A List Apart Standard
- Upgrade to WordPress 2.5.2 (I Think)
- Vidéos LeWeb3
- Why I Got Lost in LeWeb3 Videos
- Bonnes résolutions
Digital Crumble
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?
Hi Tara, I prefer the pixel size you used to this one. This one’s big – too big! Lars!
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.
gah. what do I do now then? choke
gah. what do I do now then? choke
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.
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?
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
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.
Does this mean that in your experience, pt is more “stable” than px?? confused: http://alistapart.com/stories/fear4/
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
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?
Hi Tara,
I prefer the pixel size you used to this one. This one's big – too big!
Lars!
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.
gah. what do I do now then?
choke
gah. what do I do now then?
choke
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.
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?
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
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.
Does this mean that in your experience, pt is more “stable” than px??
confused: http://alistapart.com/stories/fear4/
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