On 4 Sep 2008, at 21:34, Christian Montoya wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Subsorama <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> On 4 Sep 2008, at 17:58, Christian Montoya wrote: >> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 11:03 AM, spills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I am sure this has been approached before but, the default 18px >>>> baseline height is a horrible multiplier. Why not add 2 lousy >>>> pixels >>>> to make it 20px high? In layouts where I have added the 2px >>>> addition, >>>> they seem to work just fine and in Mac world look better in IMO. >>>> There >>>> is an added benefit of making it easier for clients to maintain >>>> layout >>>> baseline consistency as they can do math better with 20px rule more >>>> so >>>> than the 18px rule especially on really long layouts. >>>> >>>> Just my 2 cents. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>> >>> Your 2 cents are understood, but the reason for the choice is to >>> follow the typographic convention of 1.5, where the height of the >>> line >>> is 1.5 times the height of the text. You could change the line >>> height >>> to 20 px in your custom stylesheet, but then you wouldn't be able to >>> impress the typography nerds with your attention to their >>> conventions. >> >> There is no such convention, if that advice has been proffered to you >> as a guide it is overly simplistic to the point of simply being bad >> advice. > > Let's just step back for a moment. I wrote some of typography.css, and > when I did, I followed the conventions discussed on this page: > > http://webtypography.net/Rhythm_and_Proportion/Vertical_Motion/2.2.2/ > > One important thing to understand is that while 12 px text height & 20 > px line height might make it easier to do calculations for page > designers, Blueprint is not offered as an "out-of-the-box" solution to > page designers. It is offered as an out-of-the-box solution to people > who know the very least about design, so as to help them make > something attractive even if they don't know how.* For page designers, > they know how to mess with their vertical rhythm, and are free to > change it as they please. > > * This is my view, not the view of the entire core team. Okay, the fault might lies with Richard Rutter and his examples. His sidenotes example differs from the book in that it states line heights must match - whereas in the book the actual sidenotes are set much tighter - and you can probably find examples of this everywhere. Actually I see this is fixed in fancy type. He is still only providing an example though and not single set formula which might be mistaken for a convention. One point about the headings in BP is that it prioritises vertical rhythm over what might be classed as readability - some line heights are cramped and others really open. Readability should really come above rhythm even though the syncopation is nice. I wouldn't use the typography as is out of the box as a soon headings wrap they look off, but I can't see an easy solution other than having intervals. Also, I think there might be a bug in setting the height attribute on one of the h's - if the heading wraps a few lines it overwrites the content below it (at least on safari). --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Blueprint CSS" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/blueprintcss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
