On 2009/02/18 08:50 (GMT-0500) Ron Koster composed: > However, when I was doing my font sizing using px, I could very > easily size my text, headings, etc. with specific whole, rounded > numbers (9px, 14px, 23px, 37px, etc.) no problem at all, but from > what you've pointed out, if I start doing things using the far more > vague percentages values, then things will simply not quite look as I > might expect/hope from one platform/browser to another.
Is this your ultimate goal: getting everything set up to fit into some particular combination of relationships that look nicely together, and hopefully work that way as well? You can, as long as you do two things: 1-remember that you're designing for a variable and flexible viewing space, not paper, walls or billboards, and maintain realistic expectations 2-design using tools designed for that purpose. You have to choose tools that accommodate the user interjections that cause problems. You know users can and do use zoom and minimum font size, but when those hit a content space defined in px, the fit disappears. The answer is, don't size content space in px, but instead something that shrinks or grows in direct proportion to the content. Throw away the fixed size measuring stick, and use one that changes with the interjections. Two do that, em, & %, though the former is more directly related to content, while the latter relates better to available space. Very simple example: http://fm.no-ip.com/auth/Sites/dlviolin.html Another: http://fm.no-ip.com/auth/Sites/ksc/ More complex examples are provided on http://cssliquid.com/ . Relative sizing is not an easy solution, because it can't be applied to background images, and proportioning of images by existing rendering engines is considerably worse than ideal. But it's certainly better than illegible, missing, overlapping or otherwise broken content. > So this is all rather ironic: in order to get things to look right, I > have to do them in the wrong way (using px), but in order to do them > in the right way (using %), then I'll never be sure that it actually > looks right (in fact, I'm virtually guaranteed that things will look > wrong for some people). This is the way it has been for years already, since designers were given CSS and px to size web objects with. Then it got worse when browser developers gave users such defenses as text zoom and minimum font size. Those enabled users to enforce text of adequate size to read, but only when the space provided to contain that text was adequate as well. Page zoom can be an improvement, but zoom & minimum are user defenses, and they shouldn't be necessary for astute malleable designs. -- "Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up." Ephesians 4:29 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [cs...@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
