On 2007/05/28 02:43 (GMT-0400) Philip Kiff apparently typed:
> 1. Use Percentage on body font-size, then apply ems on the rest
> Owen Briggs
> The Noodle Incident - Sane CSS Sizes
> http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/typography/
This is the method of undersizing that is least visitor unfriendly. Gecko
browsers don't compound an enforced minimum font size as badly as on Clagnut
pages. More importantly, a simple user stylesheet with 'body {font-size:
medium !important}' fixes all or substantially all of most pages that
strictly use this method.
> The last major position, of course, is the one advocating against any
> changes to the default base font sizes for the body text. This is the "100%
> Easy-2-Read Standard" advocated by Felix Miata:
> http://www.informationarchitects.jp/100e2r?v=4
There is at least one rather significant other proponent. From
http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/font-size
'Size: respect the users' preferences, avoid small size for content
* As a base font size for a document, 1em (or 100%) is equivalent
to setting the font size to the user's preference. Use this as a
basis for your font sizes, and avoid setting a smaller base font size
* Avoid sizes in em smaller than 1em for text body, except maybe for
copyright statements or other kinds of "fine print."'
[relocated]
> 3. Use some combination of percentage and em sizing on all elements
> Note that if you avoid changing the default base font-size setting, then
> this method can be used to create a fully scalable/zoomable design while
> still addressing the objections of those who believe that the default text
> font size should be left unchanged.
...
> it seems to me that the best practice in
> this area is already covered by the WCAG, which simply asks that font sizes
> be set using relative units so that users can increase them or zoom the page
> size without causing the page layout to break.
The method and the WCAG dodge the basic issue of respect - users shouldn't
need to do anything more than arrive in order to use a page - plus a not
insignificant other issue. Those using the overwhelmingly most common web
browser have a narrow range of adjustment possible via their browser's
standard font sizer widget. It's common for people in trying to compensate
for initial x-small/small/65%-80% body text to run out of range with its
maximum 2 steps of possible increase, particularly when their preferred
starting point is already larger.
> So, for example, I wonder if it would help if the user CSS files attempted
> to set the default font size in two different ways:
> body {font-size: 100% !important}
> html>body {font-size: 16pt !important}
That ruleset in site styles would mean IE users get 12pt body text, and most
everybody else would get much larger 16pt body text. In a user stylesheet
context, the end result depends on which browser is given those rules.
In order to have the greatest possible chance of having the intended effect,
a user stylesheet needs something like the following:
body, p, td, li, dd {font-size: 100% !important}
with possible additions for textarea, input and a few other elements.
Overall though, simple user stylesheets have a limited intended impact. A
vast number of sites set a size on a multitude of unique classes and ids on
which a simple stylesheet can hope to have no impact. On many sites I have
to disable site styles entirely when zoom and minimum font size result in
hidden and/or overlapping text. On quite a number I frequent. I make
site-specific user stylesheets based upon the site styles to override each
of the class and id rules.
--
"The path of the righteous is like the first gleam of dawn, shining
ever brighter till the full light of day." Proverbs 4:18 NIV
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*******************************************************************
