11 comments

• 

  Baud

  7 years ago

  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?
  reply
• 

  Lars

  7 years ago

  Hi Tara,
  I prefer the pixel size you used to this one. This one's big - too big!
  Lars!
  reply
• 

  Karl Dubost

  7 years ago

  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.
  reply
• 

  Tara

  7 years ago

  gah. what do I do now then?
  *choke*
  reply
• 

  Stephanie

  7 years ago

  gah. what do I do now then?
  *choke*
  reply
• 

  darren

  7 years ago

  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.
  reply
• 

  Tara

  7 years ago

  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?
  reply
• 

  sniffles

  7 years ago

  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
  reply
• 

  sniffles

  7 years ago

  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. :)
  reply
• 

  Tara

  7 years ago

  Does this mean that in your experience, pt is more "stable" than px??
  *confused*: http://alistapart.com/stories/fear4/
  reply
• 

  sniffles

  7 years ago

  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 :)
  reply