Christian Montoya wrote:
On 11/28/05, Michel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoted from Christian Montoya:
but considering that few users ever resize their text (as in nobody),
most visitors would never even notice the difference.
I agree with you when regular crt displays are used, but things will
: 29 November 2005 08:23
To: css-d
Subject: Re: [css-d] em or % in width
I'm curious about this... I figured most users would decrease their
resolution rather than increase their text size... is there any more
input on this?
As my eyes have gotten older, I've generally left my resolution
Scott Hamm wrote:
On 11/29/05, Zoe M. Gillenwater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scott Hamm wrote:
I've been asking around in webdesign mailing list for feedbacks and
learned a lot about em, % and accessibility in CSS part. I'm trying
to use % so I can add up to 100% and I've been told that
Christian Montoya wrote, and as usual, stripped attribution (which I
restored):
Scott Hamm wrote:
If em is the best method to set up CSS
for layout, it's not
Or is, depending on the design requirements.
then how can I add up the width to remain fluid like %?
You can't. EM width
Christian Montoya wrote:
On 11/28/05, Michel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with you when regular crt displays are used, but things will
change. People buy tft screens, with native 1280x1024 resolutions.
Running in a lower resolution gives a distorted image so a lot will
keep it at
On 11/29/05, Squibb, Brian [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David is correct in that people with poor eyesight need higher resolution and
then magnify the text.
I have just had to write an app for viually impaired, and that is the way it
is done.
In that case, which do you use most often? % or
On 11/29/05, Zoe M. Gillenwater [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scott Hamm wrote:
I've been asking around in webdesign mailing list for feedbacks and
learned a lot about em, % and accessibility in CSS part. I'm trying
to use % so I can add up to 100% and I've been told that em is better
than %
I'm about ready to release this site,
http://www.deafaviator.org/fbcom/index.php to replace the existing
beta site: http://www.firstbaptistchurchofmilford.org which will
replace the aging site: http://www.firstbaptistofmilford.org . (for
now, in IE, the width doesn't match up like those CSS
If em is the best method to set up CSS
for layout, it's not
then how can I add up the width to remain fluid like %?
You can't. EM width layouts are fixed width. They have been dubbed
elastic because they resize whenever the text is resized, meaning
that they zoom in and out depending on the
Quoted from Christian Montoya:
but considering that few users ever resize their text (as in nobody),
most visitors would never even notice the difference.
I agree with you when regular crt displays are used, but things will
change. People buy tft screens, with native 1280x1024 resolutions.
On 11/28/05, Michel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoted from Christian Montoya:
but considering that few users ever resize their text (as in nobody),
most visitors would never even notice the difference.
I agree with you when regular crt displays are used, but things will
change. People buy
Christian,
On Nov 28, 2005, at 6:57 PM, Christian Montoya wrote:
On 11/28/05, Michel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoted from Christian Montoya:
but considering that few users ever resize their text (as in nobody),
most visitors would never even notice the difference.
I agree with you when
On 29.11.2005 00:57, Christian Montoya wrote:
On 11/28/05, Michel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoted from Christian Montoya:
but considering that few users ever resize their text (as in nobody),
most visitors would never even notice the difference.
I agree with you when regular crt displays are
CORRECTION
I wrote:
This results in different font sizes on Mozilla/Opera and MSIE, when
the developer uses pixel for font-sizing, because MSIE is working intern
in points and not in pixels, as the others do.
Correct is:
This results in different font sizes on Mozilla/Opera and MSIE, when
the
14 matches
Mail list logo
