On Fri, August 3, 2007 11:36 am, Rick Lecoat wrote: > At 10:13 (London time), on 3/8/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: >>Client sent me this link, kind of suggesting that 62.5% is the better >>approach because his client isn't happy that now the heading texts >>are too small and the paragraph texts are too big due to the changes >>I made. >> >> http://www.clagnut.com/blog/348/ > > One thing I would point out about clagnut's method (which I've been > using recently, actually, but I'm looking for a better option) is that > the 62.5% sizing (applied to Body) is only meant to provide a handy '1em > = 10 pixels' baseline to make your subsequent, em-based, resizing > calculations easier. It is NOT intended to be the size that text is set > at, because 10 pixels is way too small for most people to read easily > unless they are teenagers with 20/20 vision.
Note also that it doesn't actually work, as I've previously mentioned on the list: <http://www.archivist.incutio.com/viewlist/css-discuss/74993> IE ignores fractional components of percentages - or, as another way of looking at it, only uses the first two decimal places of em based sizes - which means that any subsequent use of ems for sizing parts of the page won't work properly. (The demo I link to in the above post is still there, if anybody wants to look.) Also, Opera has a default font size of, I think, 12px, and treats attempts to go below that and then scale back up slightly differently than IE or Firefox in the same situation. I can't quite remember all the ins and outs of that one, but could try to dig out the work I did on it the other year if anybody's interested. Regards, Nick. -- Nick Fitzsimons http://www.nickfitz.co.uk/ ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
