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 div widths and anywhere with default text size.
But widths, margins (in fact any dimension you care to name) went haywire in headings h? with
a different
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
On Apr 19, 2014, at 8:27 AM, Tim Dawson t...@ramasaig.com wrote:
Changing the media query limits to ems at the rate of 1em = 16 pixels worked
well.
Likewise for div widths and anywhere with default text size.
But widths, margins (in fact any dimension you care to name) went haywire in
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 t...@sperling.com:
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
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:
I don't understand your statement Obviously the em value has to be reduced as
the font-size
increases, to get the same pixel equivalent.
Given that my original margin/padding around an h1 with font-size 250% was in pixels, when I
converted at 1 em = 16
On Apr 19, 2014, at 4:19 PM, Tim Dawson t...@ramasaig.com wrote:
On 19/04/2014 15:00, Tedd Sperling wrote:
I don't understand your statement Obviously the em value has to be reduced
as the font-size
increases, to get the same pixel equivalent.
Given that my original margin/padding around an
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]
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
On 19/04/2014 22:56, Tedd Sperling wrote:
On Apr 19, 2014, at 4:19 PM, Tim Dawson t...@ramasaig.com wrote:
On 19/04/2014 15:00, Tedd Sperling wrote:
I don't understand your statement Obviously the em value has to be reduced as
the
font-size increases, to get the same pixel equivalent.
Given
On Apr 19, 2014, at 8:11 PM, Tim Dawson t...@ramasaig.com wrote:
On 19/04/2014 15:00, Tedd Sperling wrote:
I just set my h? 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
On Apr 19, 2014, at 7:00 PM, Georg ge...@gunlaug.com 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
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
14 matches
Mail list logo
