On 11/9/11 6:11 PM, Jay Tanna wrote:
--- On Thu, 10/11/11, Jay Tanna wrote:
From: Jay Tanna Subject: Re: [css-d] css
measures - em grid system makes sense ? To:
"mem" Date: Thursday, 10 November, 2011,
2:09 You can convert a px size into em size by using this simple
calculations:
1) Most brow
On 10.11.2011 02:23, mem wrote:
Ok. And why will I need one in px and another in em ? I'm not getting
what will that do, should that have the same measures like: 960px and
60em ?
60em may be somewhat equal to 960px under certain, very limited,
conditions. If you're happy with that there's
--- On Thu, 10/11/11, Jay Tanna wrote:
> From: Jay Tanna
> Subject: Re: [css-d] css measures - em grid system makes sense ?
> To: "mem"
> Date: Thursday, 10 November, 2011, 2:09
> You can convert a px size into em
> size by using this simple calculations:
>
> 1) Most browsers have default font
On Nov 9, 2011, at 22:48 , G.Sørtun wrote:
> On 09.11.2011 22:24, mem wrote:
>
>> it will assume the max-width value as width correct ?
>
> Yes, but I advice against relying on default behavior across browser-land -
> especially for legacy browsers - when adding 'width: 100%' (or something)
>
On 09.11.2011 22:24, mem wrote:
it will assume the max-width value as width correct ?
Yes, but I advice against relying on default behavior across browser-land -
especially for legacy browsers - when adding 'width: 100%' (or something) costs
so little.
If so, how can I declare those base
The font is "arvo". I'm cheap, I pulled it off of Google's Font CDN:.
http://www.google.com/webfonts
I don't think an em-based layout can work in all situations. In the case of my
online resume, I'm not doing anything elaborate: no graphics, no fancy design.
I'm absolutely horrible at math, s
On Nov 9, 2011, at 19:50 , G.Sørtun wrote:
> On 09.11.2011 19:51, mem wrote:
>
>> Question A) What unit should we use ? I've seen on some sites the
>> option for "max-width: 100%" I've seen max-width defined with: em;
>> I've seen it with px;
>
> To make a flexible layout play well across the in
On 09.11.2011 19:51, mem wrote:
Question A) What unit should we use ? I've seen on some sites the
option for "max-width: 100%" I've seen max-width defined with: em;
I've seen it with px;
To make a flexible layout play well across the increasing spread of
large and small screens/devices, I
On 11/9/11 2:18 PM, David Laakso wrote:
On 11/9/11 1:51 PM, mem wrote:
Question A)
Question B)
Regards,
M.
I dunno what you or anyone else should do about anything other than
that saving one and all from a novel by putting up a very simple test
page is always a good start point...
~d
@Frank
Really like your EM-based site — what font is that? The thing I made was
ultimately just way too elaborate: too many 'static' graphic design
considerations for EMs to play nice. In practice it worked (and only recently
got redesigned ;) but maintenance became an utter pain.
@David H
Your
On Nov 9, 2011, at 16:59 , David Laakso wrote:
> On 11/9/11 8:35 AM, mem wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> What do you think ?
>>
>
>
> It makes no difference whether the grid is set to px, em, or percent width.
> The problem still remain the same-- if and when a user scales up the fonts
> she will be co
On 11/9/11 5:35 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
On 11/9/11 8:35 AM, mem wrote:
What do you think ?
It makes no difference whether the grid is set to px, em, or percent
width. The problem still remain the same-- if and when a user scales up
the fonts she will be confronted with a situation of having to scroll
both vertically and horiz
I've recently been in the habit of using ems for my entire layout. Really it
has been more of an experiment than anything, but I've found (in my flawed
opinion) that it can translate well to other screen sizes - including mobile.
I personally like the effect of the entire design resizing when
Felix,
Could you show me some sites using em-based layout measurements? My
adventure in that field was about 5 years ago, I may be able to learn
some things from it. By and wide I stick to the principle that, for
example, a user or device's desired font size should not dictate the
width of a page.
On 2011/11/09 15:18 (GMT) Barney Carroll composed:
font-size is a little arbitrary: all measurable aspects of the glyphs
'M' or 'm' (or indeed any other glyph) set in Arial are smaller than
12px; with Calibri they are smaller still.
Fonts sized in px are _completely_ arbitrary once the design
Obligatory history lesson:
'em' is a classical typographical term to talk about relative
measurements within a typeface: it's the phoneticisation of the letter
'm', and denotes the total width of the 'm' glyph. 'en' is used for
'n'; other useful relative measurements include 'x-height' to denote
t
I've used mm because it's neither geeky nor is it jargon and you can use a
tape measure to measure it.
For typefaces you'd probably have to try different values to make it look
nice, but we do that with px and/or em.
px: computers, geeky;
em: printers, jargon.
You can have fractions of a m
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
paddin
19 matches
Mail list logo
