>> On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:36:26 -0400, Christian Montoya wrote: >> >>> - What's the support across browsers / machines for the font-size-adjust >>> property? - >>> Is adjusting the aspect value bad form? Is this as bad as letter-spacing >>> body >>> copy? Would this kill sheep? >>> - Has anyone done this before? Is there an ideal aspect value for screen >>> display? >>> >> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 8:41 PM, David Hucklesby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> replied: > >> Hi Christian, >> I believe that Firefox 3 supports it, but must admit I have not tried using >> it. >> Interestingly I can't see the property listed in Sitepoint's "Ultimate CSS >> Reference". Hmm. >> >> As for setting up font stacks, I found this article useful: >> >> <http://unitinteractive.com/blog/2008/06/26/better-css-font-stacks/> >> >> The linked PDF with samples of each type face shown side-by-side >> is a useful resource too, I think. >> On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:44:26 -0400, Christian Montoya wrote back: > > David, > > I've been looking at that exact article, actually. It's very helpful. I guess > the > biggest dilemma, currently, is that I am to come up with a consistent > vertical rhythm, > but with just font-size and line-height alone, such as: > > body { > font-size:75%; > line-height: 1.5; > } > > it's not enough. The difference in x-height between "small" fonts like > Calibri and > "large" fonts like Verdana makes for very different results. As far as I can > tell, even > using pixel or point sizes for fonts doesn't make a difference. And I'm > guessing that > as far as browser compatibility goes, there's nothing that does. Is that > right? >
Interesting. I have been doing some extensive tests to get that "vertical rhythm" to work cross-browser. I had not considered the differing x-height between fonts. I'll make some more tests and report back. Meantime, I found the most consistent results using 100% base font in IE, and 16 pixels for the rest. !00% base just does not work for all. After that, I found I can use percents or EMs, calculated from nominal pixels, for most everything-- as long as you round *any* fraction up to the next higher .01em for Safari. Note: some browsers only apply whole percents, so more precision may upset things. Here are my results so far: Nominal Points Size Pixels/ Percent 6pt nonpareil 8px 50% 7pt minion 9px 56.5% 8pt brevier 11px 69% 9pt bourgeois 12px 75% 10pt long primer 13px 82% 11pt small pica 15px 94% 12pt pica 16px 100% 14pt english 19px 119% 16pt columbian 21px 132% 18pt great primer 24px 150% 21pt double small pica 28px 175% 24pt double pica 32px 200% 36pt double great primer 48px 300% (Hope this isn't too muddled.) P.S. - I use a line-height in EMs, based off the base, for body text that's close to 100% to get equal vertical spacing. But I do need to test various font faces, as you suggest. Also, DPI other than 96. Cordially, David -- ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
