Climb to the Stars - Latest Comments in Site

Re: Site

sniffles — Mon, 16 Jul 2001 22:41:00 -0000

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 :)

Re: Site

Tara — Mon, 16 Jul 2001 06:17:00 -0000

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

Re: Site

sniffles — Sun, 15 Jul 2001 23:35:00 -0000

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. :)

Re: Site

sniffles — Sun, 15 Jul 2001 23:33:00 -0000

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

Re: Site

Tara — Fri, 13 Jul 2001 22:31:00 -0000

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?

Re: Site

darren — Fri, 13 Jul 2001 20:19:00 -0000

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.

Re: Site

Stephanie — Thu, 12 Jul 2001 01:55:00 -0000

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

Re: Site

Tara — Wed, 11 Jul 2001 20:55:00 -0000

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

Re: Site

Karl Dubost — Wed, 11 Jul 2001 11:16:00 -0000

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.

Re: Site

Lars — Wed, 11 Jul 2001 07:26:00 -0000

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

Re: Site

Baud — Tue, 10 Jul 2001 18:33:00 -0000

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?