> There are issues though.... > > * Embedded WYSIWYG editors are still very immature when it > comes to XHTML and CSS (our CMS lets us plug in lots of > editors but most of them lack something in some way or other) > so enforcing the use of EM's is flawed (at best). Some of > the editors support the use of stylesheets and I suppose that > is a path I could go down - but fully compliant XHTML is > still difficult given that most editors still allow hand > editing (and you do still need that because the HTML world is > not perfect). Some of it may size - some of it may not.
Totally agree. I usually opt for a separate WYSIWYG stylesheet for the editor using fixed pixel font sizes (if supported), or, in the case of ShadoMX (which uses a JavaScript/DOM based editor by default), I'll detect "edit" mode, wrap the editor in a DIV and have defined rules for all html elements within that div. Not pretty (as you end up with a massive CSS file) but it works. > * Lots of people out there don't even know their Browser has > the ability to control font size in a relative way. So when > we launched our new site we had HUNDREDS (not exagerating - > they are all logged) of complaints about the font size being > "too small" or "too big" because they did not have their font > size set to "medium" (and there doesn't appear to be a way to > detect what the setting is - probably because it is not "standard"). > And, if you have a mouse with a scroll wheel, it is very easy > for the size to change when you are on a "fixed size" page > and not realise it. Put it into perspective. You *slightly* inconvenienced a few hundred (relatively clueless) users. The alternative (fixed font sizes) would have DENIED access to hundreds (if not thousands) of users (read:customers) with poor eye sight. No comparison in my book. Besides (assuming you replied to those few hundred users), you've done them a favour by educating them on a feature they knew nothing about and hopefully put in a quick blurb about ABN AMRO Morgan's dedication to accessibility :P > * Some (more likely than less) designs just CANNOT be > implemented using only relative fonts. Say you want to have > a fixed 200px wide column on the right hand side and a > "stretchy" column in the middle. The content on the right > hand side HAS to be designed to "look" right in that 200px > space. So that means you cannot really use relative font > sizes if you are filling the 200px space. If they size it up > - it wont fit and will look stupid. So this then defeats the > purpose of using relative fonts at all - because, when they > DO upsize the font, part of the page will size and part of it > wont. Just go to some of the "well known" CSS/XHTML > standards-based sites (wont mention any names) and you will > find that not every part of the page sizes - but is this > right? What if the bit that is "too small" > for my eyes (e.g. the Menu) is the bit that the designer has > in a fixed font ? Only thing you can do in this situation is design your templates to accommodate a 1-2 notch font size change. It's not always an option of course (depending on design requirements). So I guess that's where some developers resort back to pixel sizes. Personally, I never bother. Function over form I guess. If it breaks then so be it. At least the user will still be able to read your content. > Relative font sizes ruin good design. A bold statement. How about: "Fixed font sizes reduce your potential audience" Just as valid (if not more so), no? Cheers, ____________________________ James Silva Web Production Gruden Pty Ltd Tel: +61 02 9956 6388 Fax: +61 02 9956 8433 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web: http://www.gruden.com ____________________________ ***************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *****************************************************
