Any links to information about descendant selectors and backwards compatibility? In particular Netscape 4...
-----Original Message----- From: russ weakley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, December 10, 2003 3:41 PM To: Web Standards Group Subject: Re: [WSG] Re: px em pt ??? Taco, If you code well, relative font sizes do not require a great deal to apply across a site. You are simply making decisions on font-sizes as you develop each section of the page - exactly as you would for pixels. There is really very little excuse not to use one of the methods below. Method 1 - environmental coding: If you are building a full CSS site the first thing to do is to break your page into divs and then styling each div using descendant selectors where possible - this means there is little class and id clutter on the page. This also means you can set relative font sizes for any element at any level of the page - without running into inheritance problems. Mark Newhouse calls this "environmental coding" - coding each div or "environment" as a unit. An example would be: #navigation {} #navigation h1 {} #navigation p {} #navigation ul {} #navigation a {} #navigation li a {} As you can see, they are all designed to target very specific instances of type elements within one "environment". Method 2. the body Another way (which can be used in conjunction with the first method) is to simply set the relative size on the body and use that as a base - keeping in mind that certain browsers need minor adjustments (may not inherit inside tables etc). As long as you are aware of the few small bugs, this is a safe option and runs into very little inheritance issues. Method 3 - type selectors Peter and I used to use this method a lot, but have moved on to the first two methods. If you set relative font sizing on actual HTML elements you can run into inheritance problems discussed in previous email and may need a few small work-arounds (or hacks). Method 4 - leave it up to the user! There are many developers who believe that we should not be touching font sizes at all - by reducing any font size we are taking the control away from the user. No excuses any more! : ) Russ > > Makes sense too.. > > I guess in the end it all becomes a case of - is the client willing to pay for > your extra time required to apply all these hacks. > > Having worked for several government bodies I am afraid to say I have NEVER > worked with %, simply because it looked like a paint to work with. And the > only downfall I see in using pixels is due to the fact IE (some versions) > can't scale it. > (the only sites I developed for the gorvernment were Intranet, so don't come > down to hard on me ;-) > > I'll give it a go though at some stage. > > -----Original Message----- > From: russ weakley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, 10 December 2003 2:19 PM > To: Web Standards Group > Subject: Re: [WSG] Re: px em pt ??? > > > Sorry for the length of this... > > 1. All government sites are supposed to follow WAI guideline - which > recommend the use of relative font sizes. > > 2. The aim is to give users the option. Saying that users can change their > screen resolution is throwing the responsibility back onto them - it is our > job to make it as easy as possible for all users to see our content. > > 3. There are many different users out there with a wide variety of vision > impairments from mildly reduced eyesight to totally blind. Each of these > groups has specific needs and we have to keep them all in mind. > > We have done extensive testing with a wide range of these groups. I really > recommend all web designers and developers sit with both blind and near > blind users and watch them use your sites. It changes your perspective on > accessiblity. > > One quick example to do with pixels: people with severe eye problems (close > to blind) would probably be using assistive technologies such as Zoom Text- > software based screen enlargers that can increase parts of the screen up to > 400-600%. Pixel based fonts become a real issue for these people as there > are often not enough pixels to render a font properly. I sat with a woman > testing one of my sites were a footer was set to 12px and saw that the text > was unreadable for her. Fonts in nearby areas of the page that were > relatively positioned were able to be read easily. > > 4. Relative font sizing is very easy to manage as long as you understand two > things: > > 1. The document tree > 2. inheritance > > Relative font sizes will be inherited by items lower down the tree. EG. > Nested lists set with 80% will inherit and be reduced to 80% x 80% = 64%. > > To solve this problem, place your relative font declarations at one level of > the document tree or pay attention to how they can cascade and affect your > content. It is easy to reverse the effect with rules like: > > ul ul { font-size: 100%;} > > Russ > > > >> >> thats a good one... >> It makes sense what you are saying, to me anyway. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Miles Tillinger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Wednesday, 10 December 2003 1:42 PM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: RE: [WSG] Re: px em pt ??? >> > > ***************************************************** > The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ > ***************************************************** > > ***************************************************** > The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ > ***************************************************** Thanks Russ ----------------------------------------------- Russ Weakley Max Design Phone: (02) 9410 2521 Mobile: 0403 433 980 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.maxdesign.com.au ----------------------------------------------- ***************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ ***************************************************** ***************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *****************************************************
