On 2014-07-25 08:15 (GMT+0300) Jukka K. Korpela composed:
The downside of the rem is...
While everything you wrote is or at least appears to be true, it entirely
misses the higher level point I was trying to make, which was to put forth in
simplistic terms the idea that thinking in px is best replaced by thinking in
any of the available units that embody more granular precision, that are:
1-tailored to the pleasure and ease of the user, and
2-easier for the stylist, once he *abandons* the idea that the web is a place
where high precision has any business being a priority
Web browsers do a nice job of presenting semantically correct HTML without
help from CSS. They're naturally responsive too.
CSS offers a high degree of power to overcome a browser's ability to do what
it is designed to do, to limit fluidity and flexibility. CSS ought to be used
judiciously to enhance the semantic order, and give it character and color
consistent with the nature of the page or site and/or its owner, not fixate
everything to one person's or one team's idea of some kind of perfection in
both relative terms, and the more troubling for users, absolute terms.
Relative on average ought to be close enough.
The web ain't paper. Viewports come in an unlimited range of physical sizes,
and nearly as broad a variety of aspect ratios. Viewing distance is another
significant variable. One size cannot fit all. That makes the px unit a poor
choice for design sizing focus, particularly since it also has no predictable
relationship to any physical size that corresponds favorably with comfort,
ease of use, or pleasure.
Most of the web has become a morass of URIs where CSS often outweighs HTML in
multiples of 2 or 3 or even more, where a minor styling adjustment for one
minor class creates unforeseen impacts elsewhere that take hours or days to
debug, if the negative impact(s) ever gets discovered at all, and where a
large site style overhaul can be a months long process that ultimately can
stretch to more than a year. That puts the cart in front of the horse, not to
mention gobbling bandwidth that's going to become more precious as time
marches on and user numbers continue to mushroom.
Remember, a browser is a user agent. It's a tool that ought to be able to
please the user, and do it with as little effort as possible. When pieces are
bigger, fewer pieces are needed, resulting in easier construction. The more
simplistic and efficient the CSS, the better a browser can do its job, and
the lower the burden on the information highway. IOW, to the extent feasible
fitting with the goal of a page/site, the simpler, the better.
Simple as thinking in px might appear to be to some, or even most,
considering the macro issues above, now that lack of browser support for rem,
ch and other newer relative units is near extinction, it is no longer, if it
ever was. IMO, it isn't, and never was.
--
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!
Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.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/
