My point was that sizing to 62.5% is to make it easy to convert from pixels to
ems. Who cares about 'easy pixel conversion'? Make it look good and accessible
no matter what numbers you are using. Pixels are no good and % can be
misleading. I personally stick to ems on everything.
------Original Message------
From: Felix Miata
Sender: li...@webstandardsgroup.org
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
ReplyTo: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] Box model in IE7
Sent: Apr 24, 2009 11:11 AM
On 2009/04/24 12:47 (GMT+0300) Rimantas Liubertas composed:
> And there is NOTHING wrong with pixel sizes.
On the contrary, everything is wrong with pixel sizing fonts, because any
"size" in px totally disregards the size the visitor has set in his browser
prefs, and thus cannot be expected to be pleasant, or even legible. The worst
feature of the CSS legacy given designers last century is this ability to
totally disregard the wishes of the visitor by sizing in px.
OTOH, fonts sized to medium (1em, 100%) have a reasonable, if not high, and
thus much better, chance of being exactly perfect for the visitor.
--
"He who works his land will have abundant food, but the
one who chases fantasies will have his fill of poverty."
Proverbs 28:19 NIV
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
*******************************************************************
Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
*******************************************************************
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org
*******************************************************************
