On 2010/07/20 09:53 (GMT-0400) [email protected] composed: > I've been converting some of our company public-facing static web-sites > from pixels to ems for layout and font-size. > But just recently I encountered several references that pixels are getting > back into popularity - "as it offers absolute control over text", and > that most browsers now can resize font based on pixels.
There is no such thing as designer CSS having absolute control over text. Absent user's browser having designer CSS disregarded entirely, necessary browser defenses will be applied, for better or not, often resulting in visitor leaving prematurely. > Any thoughts/suggestions on whether I should push the effort on converting > our sites to ems? Minimum text size and zoom functions built into browsers were put there to allow users to defend against bad web design. Absent offense, defense needn't be applied. It shouldn't need to be applied, first because the web is too old for bad design to be standard practice, second because it's unnecessary, and third because it's rude. Text sized in px completely disregards user preferences. That's an excellent definition of rude. In contrast, text sized in em (applied to size text, em is nothing but an alternative syntax for %) relates to the user's preference. When 1em or 100% is the result, the user is getting precisely what he prefers, making him a happy site visitor. Text containers sized in em, within a range that depends on resolution, viewport size, & 1em size, retain for all practical purposes the proportions of the original design regardless of the actual sizes used by the designer. Beyond the range, contraints will cause variance, but usually not cause the page to be unusable. In contrast, when user defenses force legible text sizing upon sites sized in px, usability often deteriorates, and sometimes disappears altogether. It's often said images should be sized in px because only display at intrinsic size is acceptable, that deterioration from browser scaling to non-intrinsic sizes is unacceptable. I'm sure that's true from a perfectionist designer's point of view. What is also unacceptable is unscaled images due to a too small intrinsic size leaving necessary detail undiscernable to the user. The user impact of scaled vs too small is equivalent quality reduction, but scaled images have the advantage of preserving the site design's proportions. -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) 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: [email protected] *******************************************************************
