On Nov 9, 2011, at 8:35 AM, mem wrote: > Hello all, > > On my css layouts, I tend to use *em* for font size and *px* for all the > rest. > However, I wish not to follow this path any longer, since I wish to embrace > the *em* for [almost] all the development. > > Problem: we use a *960px grid* for styling most of our pages, so the margin > or paddings and widths are given on px, and if we convert those, sometimes, > we will get weird stuff like: 0.345 em. > > Question: Will it make sense to create a grid based on *em* ? > > The point is to allow us to start drawing more user friendly measures like > .5em or .4em and avoid .453 em stuff. > > What do you think ? > > Note: This is just a question, if it does make sense to you, just tell me and > explain me why so that I could understand and I can leave with that. > > > K. Regards,
K: I am sure that everyone has given you good-excellent advice, it's just that I don't have the time to read everyone's post. With that being said and not wanting to step on others toes -- when clients allow me, I use em's throughout my sites. Here's an example: http://sperling.com/clients/beckyscan/ Don't worry, the client is no more (at least not with that domain). Change the zoom value in your Browser and see how well that site maintains it's proportions. As you can see, no matter how complicated the site is, em's will work for creating zoom-able sites -- if that is what you want. If you want to convert pixels to em's, try dividing pixels by 16. For example 160 pixels is 10em's. That works for me -- and yes, I get those 0.345em things, but Browsers handle them well. Cheers, tedd _____________________ t...@sperling.com http://sperling.com ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [css-d@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/
