>> >>> Well, the following article makes a reasonable argument for pixels. You > may >>> want to check out: >>> http://www.alistapart.com/stories/fear4/index.html
>> The situation with font sizes is extremely pickled! >> Yes Mac is based on 72 dpi and Windows defaults to 96 dpi, but it is more >> complicated than this ..... for instance new versions of IE for Mac >> "emulate" 96dpi, to try and limit the difference. >> > > Yes, and so does nav6. But this is irrelevant to the fact that if you use > pixels YOU (not the user) are determining the best text size for the user. > Sometimes it is too big, more often too small. With pixels the user cannot > adjust your page so they can read it comfortably. ... > It is amazing to me that there is an argument. We seem to be splitting hairs over the term "relative", whether to use the em's "relative to the parent font element (or user settings)" approach or to use the pixel's "relative to screen setting" approach. I think the fact the argument remains is due to the fact that some of us have clients who insist on rather tight __cross-platform consistency__ of layouts. Right or wrong (in terms of accessibility) pixels give you the most control. (And please note that a number of browsers allow the user to override even pixels settings.) Pixels are still appropriate, for instance, if you have to match text to a specific image size, etc. I do agree 100% with Rob that we should choose readability/accessibility over cross-platform consistency. For that, ems are the better choice, assuming you don't specify an absolute value for the parent font element in the css, leaving it up to the values specified in the user's browser. Diana --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
