Okay, one quick question. You say 200% is twice the default size, but in browsers like Firefox 3, there is only the (shortcut) Ctrl++ to zoom in, and I cannot find the percentage of that zoom, so is 200% font size increasement one or two clicks?
-- Brett P. On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Gunlaug Sørtun <[email protected]> wrote: > tee wrote: > > IS 200% one time font size increasement or two? >> > > 200% is twice the default size, and the number of steps to get there > varies from browser to browsers. > > Again: _default_ isn't whatever size you have declared in/for your > document, but the browsers' own defaults. This default font size is what > you see on your screen(s) when you do not declare font-size at all in > your documents. > Then, make the letters in the text twice as tall in the browser itself, > without zooming the page as a whole. That is 200% font resizing - the > kind that actually works for end-users. > > My practise for a good layout is two times increasement, and I try to >> accommodate one decrement, but sometimes with certain design layout, >> especially with floated elements that either one or both have background >> image(s) that the underneath div block has different background color, it's >> just too much work to take good care and I let >> it goes without guilt :) >> > > Guilt would be misplaced no matter what, and shouldn't be an issue. No > matter what you do you're in good (or "good") company :-) > > It is however your creation that gets broken if it can't take a > reasonable amount of the stress it risks getting exposed to when > end-users use their browsers as designed, so you can't complain about it > being broken either. > > > That foreground and background get somewhat "detached" here and there is > quite normal, and in some cases unavoidable with today's browsers and > standards when background-images are used. Resizing of background-images > to go with containers is only implemented on an experimental level in > one or maybe two browsers - have only seen/tested it in Opera. > > We have only the tool-set that is available in browsers at any given > time to play with, and when that tool-set isn't sufficient we either > have to scale back our, or our clients', ambitions and use somewhat > safe solutions, or we have to accept that our designs break. > > Minimizing the problems caused by breakage at the user-end is an > important part of web design IMO, and "trying now" certainly makes it > easier to pick up and make use of new design tools as they become > available to us. > > regards > Georg > -- > http://www.gunlaug.no > > > ******************************************************************* > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [email protected] > ******************************************************************* > > ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [email protected] *******************************************************************
