Thanks to all those who have replied.
Changing the media query limits to ems at the rate of 1em = 16 pixels worked
well.
Likewise for widths and anywhere with default text size.
But widths, margins (in fact any dimension you care to name) went haywire in headings with
a different font-size.
On Saturday, April 19, 2014 01:27:12 PM Tim Dawson wrote:
>
> I'm tempted to leave margins, padding etc. in headings as pixels and just
> change them in the media query if they become unworkable. Particularly when
> it comes to small spaces (1-10 pixels, say) it seems very fiddly to deal
> with se
On Apr 19, 2014, at 8:27 AM, Tim Dawson wrote:
> Changing the media query limits to ems at the rate of 1em = 16 pixels worked
> well.
> Likewise for widths and anywhere with default text size.
>
> But widths, margins (in fact any dimension you care to name) went haywire in
> headings with a
The recent discussion of ems vs pixels got me thinking about the site
tweak I was exploring recently, when I inquired about the validity of
display: table-cell. I still haven't implemented the changes I was
looking at; I'm still in exploratory mode, and - as usual - have too
much hands on my time.
apr 19 2014 16:00 Tedd Sperling :
>
> 4. Lastly, use ems for images as well. That way your entire site scales well
> with zooms. Here's my write-up on it:
The downside is unacceptable to me, as ems for image width doesn’t respect
"zoom only text”. I’d use percentages for width instead.
___
2014-04-19 18:03, Freelance Traveller wrote:
> If I set a width on an element - or a max-width or min-width - in ems,
is it correct to assume that the "actual" size will be based on the font
size OF THE PARENT ELEMENT?
No, by definition, the em unit equals the font size of the element
itself,
On 19/04/2014 15:00, Tedd Sperling wrote:
Given that my original margin/padding around an with font-size 250% was in pixels, when I
converted at 1 em = 16 px the new margin/padding sizes were 2.5 times too high. So conversion
for has to be 1 em = 40px to get the same on screen appearance. If
On Apr 19, 2014, at 4:19 PM, Tim Dawson wrote:
> On 19/04/2014 15:00, Tedd Sperling wrote:
>> > as the font-size
>> increases, to get the same pixel equivalent.">
> Given that my original margin/padding around an with font-size 250% was
> in pixels, when I converted at 1 em = 16 px the new marg
Hi gang:
Is anyone else receiving inappropriate pics with this subject line?
Cheers,
tedd
___
tedd sperling
t...@sperling.com
__
css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/lis
Den 19.04.2014 16:00, Tedd Sperling wrote:
4. Lastly, use ems for images as well. That way your entire site
scales well with zooms.
I find there is something wrong/missing in that statement, as images
scale with browser-zoom no matter how we define sizes. Of course no harm
done in setting im
On 19/04/2014 22:56, Tedd Sperling wrote:
On Apr 19, 2014, at 4:19 PM, Tim Dawson wrote:
On 19/04/2014 15:00, Tedd Sperling wrote:
Given that my original margin/padding around an with font-size 250% was in
pixels,
when I converted at 1 em = 16 px the new margin/padding sizes were 2.5 time
On Apr 19, 2014, at 8:11 PM, Tim Dawson wrote:
>> On 19/04/2014 15:00, Tedd Sperling wrote:
>> I just set my to whatever size I want knowing that 1em is equal (in
>> most cases) to 16
>> pixels. No need for percentages in setting font sizes.
> If you set your font-sizes in ems then I think you a
On Apr 19, 2014, at 7:00 PM, Georg wrote:
> Den 19.04.2014 16:00, Tedd Sperling wrote:
>> 4. Lastly, use ems for images as well. That way your entire site scales well
>> with zooms.
>
> I find there is something wrong/missing in that statement, as images scale
> with browser-zoom no matter ho
Den 20.04.2014 04:14, Tedd Sperling wrote:
The thing that was missing is I should have added that *all* measurements are
done in ems and thus no scaling difference between text and images thereby
holding the layout static.
Which is what I object to. "Text-only zoom" should not be made to beh
14 matches
Mail list logo
