On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 20:00:21 -0500, Ron Koster wrote:
At 10:02 AM 2/13/2009 -0800, David Hucklesby wrote:
I find that these percentages work best
cross-browser: 69%, 75%, 82%, 94% ... with a base font-size of 100%.
[...]
Firstly, from past threads, my understanding is that one shouldn't be
On Wed, February 18, 2009 3:38 pm, David Hucklesby wrote:
When scaling in EM sizes, for margins, padding, etc., I found these
sizes give most consistent results. I tested scaling from 1px to 40px
at a nominal 16px for the BODY font-size (at 96 DPI). Using the
calculated theoretical values,
David Hucklesby wrote:
On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 20:00:21 -0500, Ron Koster wrote:
At 10:02 AM 2/13/2009 -0800, David Hucklesby wrote:
I find that these percentages work best
cross-browser: 69%, 75%, 82%, 94% ... with a base font-size of 100%.
[...]
Firstly, from past
At 10:02 AM 2/13/2009 -0800, David Hucklesby wrote:
I find that these percentages work best
cross-browser: 69%, 75%, 82%, 94% ... with a base font-size of 100%.
Interesting. As an avid typophile -- and someone who still,
admittedly, has a lot to learn about CSS -- I've been trying to
follow any
Ib Jensen skrev:
Thats what I meant to do, going back to the original stylesheet(s)
thats more or less followed whith the template.
It's from a book : Modernes Webdesign, by Manuela Hoffmann,
http://pixelgraphix.de
She should know something about it .
I do, too, and have written
2009/2/15, Jørgen Farum Jensen webmas...@webdesign101.dk:
Ib Jensen skrev:
I do, too, and have written a couple of well thought of books
about it in your native language, ref. my signature.
Includes lots of well documented templates and explanations
of the whys and wherefores. A whole
2009/2/13, Gunlaug Sørtun gunla...@c2i.net:
Ib Jensen wrote:
As for most (if not all) CSS based templates: markup and CSS are
integrated, so from scratch will probably ruin the template and all
you like about it.
I have been doing that before, because I've normally remove any
graphic used in
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 22:41:38 +0100, Els wrote:
Ib Jensen wrote:
Link: http://ikjensen.dk/test/
In the bottom right corner I've have a Note-box.
In IE6.x I can only see the headline ok, the rest of the text is blurred.
The headline and text looks ok in FF 2.x, OP 9.5 and Safari 3.x.
I've
2009/2/13, David Hucklesby davidh...@writeme.com:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 22:41:38 +0100, Els wrote:
Ib Jensen wrote:
It's not the colour, it's the size. Up the size a bit, and the blur will
disappear. If you look at the body text, that's also smaller in IE than in
FF.
Hi
Link: http://ikjensen.dk/test/
In the bottom right corner I've have a Note-box.
In IE6.x I can only see the headline ok, the rest of the text is blurred.
The headline and text looks ok in FF 2.x, OP 9.5 and Safari 3.x.
I've tried to change colors, without any result.
--
Regards / Mhv.
Els wrote:
Ib Jensen wrote:
Link: http://ikjensen.dk/test/
It's not the colour, it's the size. Up the size a bit, and the blur
will disappear. If you look at the body text, that's also smaller in
IE than in FF.
Just noticed you have this in your layout.css stylesheet:
html
2009/2/12, Els el...@tiscali.nl:
Els wrote:
Ib Jensen wrote:
Link: http://ikjensen.dk/test/
It's not the colour, it's the size. Up the size a bit, and the blur
will disappear. If you look at the body text, that's also smaller in
IE than in FF.
Just noticed you have this in your
Ib Jensen wrote:
Shouldn't bee 100.01% or 100.1%, as many suggests in favor of
rounding errors ?
Must be nearly a decade since rounding errors on font-size: 100%
created problems in a browser. Not that it hurts to add .1 to it, but
it won't make a difference anywhere.
As have been pointed
2009/2/13, Gunlaug Sørtun gunla...@c2i.net:
Ib Jensen wrote:
Guess it was such cases Microsoft had in mind when they added ignore
font size in web pages as an option in IE - a long time ago, while
other browsers introduced minimum font size to counteract mouse-type.
All you achieve by using
14 matches
Mail list logo
