 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneralPHPASPPerlColdFusionFlashHTML, CSS, ScriptsBrowsers |
Webmaster Forum / HTML, CSS, Scripts / CSS / June 2006About font sizes
As I understand it, most browser manufacturers have agreed on 16px for their default font size. So, this should be an accurate conversion for percentages: px % 16 = 100 14 = 87.5 13 = 81.25 12 = 75 10 = 62.5 I assume it's better to stick to a percentage that will yield a round number - rather than using something like 90% to get 14.4. A browser will just round up or down to a font size it can display, correct? As for em, am I correct in saying 1em = 16px? Does that mean 1.2em is 19.2px (rounded by the browser to 19px - if the default size is 16)? > As I understand it, most browser manufacturers have agreed on 16px for > their default font size. I think it is more of a case that 16px is easy to read for a majority of users, so Microsoft set it as their default, and other browser vendors followed suite. Its overridable by the user though. > So, this should be an accurate conversion for percentages: No, since you don't know that the user hasn't expressed their own preference. > As for em, am I correct in saying 1em = 16px? No, see above.  SignatureDavid Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/> Home is where the ~/.bashrc is > No, since you don't know that the user hasn't expressed their own > preference. assuming 16 is the default, and this is what the user is currently using, and it has not been overridden.... then my math is correct. A basic guide (based on 16) might look like this (assuming the above statement!) 137.5% = 22px (h1) 125% = 20px (h2) 112.5% = 18px (h3) 100% = 16px (large) 87.5% = 14px (medium) 81.25% = 13px (small) 75% = 12px (smaller) 62.5% = 10px (legalese) The point is, if you are going to use percentages, you might as well adjust to a font size that the client browser can display. If 16 is the default, then it's best to use that as a basis for adjustment. >> No, since you don't know that the user hasn't expressed their own >> preference. > > assuming 16 is the default, and this is what the user is currently using, > and it has not been overridden.... That is a lot of assumptions. > The point is, if you are going to use percentages, you might as well > adjust to a font size that the client browser can display. Systems can round font sizes to something acceptable, so there's not really any point in worrying about it. SignatureDavid Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/> Home is where the ~/.bashrc is >>> No, since you don't know that the user hasn't expressed their own >>> preference. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Systems can round font sizes to something acceptable, so there's not really >any point in worrying about it. 16px? That's eNORMous! (I just tried it.) 12px would be more reasonable, surely? SignatureChris Hughes "Reality is that which, when you cease to believe, continues to exist." http://www.epicure.demon.co.uk : 16px? That's eNORMous! (I just tried it.) 12px would be more reasonable, : surely? Depends on the User's settings, as David said. http://www.elsid.co.za/download/css_fontsizes.htm Sid > 16px? That's eNORMous! (I just tried it.) 12px would be more > reasonable, surely? It would depend entirely on your visual acuity. Yours may be better than mine. A friend of mine has a 20 or 21" monitor set to 800x600 resolution so she can read it. Me, I can read it from the next room. Signature-bts -Warning: I brake for lawn deer >> 16px? That's eNORMous! (I just tried it.) 12px would be more >> reasonable, surely? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > A friend of mine has a 20 or 21" monitor set to 800x600 resolution so > she can read it. Me, I can read it from the next room. Why not have a high resolution, and large text icons etc. Big smooth text is probably more readable than big blocky text ME [...] > 16px? That's eNORMous! (I just tried it.) 12px would be more > reasonable, surely? You're not mixing units are you? 16px looks like 12pt on my system. > 16px? That's eNORMous! (I just tried it.) 12px would be more reasonable, > surely? That depends on the resolution of the screen and its physical dimensions. 16px is tiny on an 21" 800x600 display but huge on a 14" 1600x1200 display. Larger then needed is far better then too small to read, so its a sensible default for systems to adopt. Users can then change it to something more acceptable for their resolution, screen size and eyesight. SignatureDavid Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/> Home is where the ~/.bashrc is To further the education of mankind, David Dorward <dorward@yahoo.com> vouchsafed: >> 16px? That's eNORMous! (I just tried it.) 12px would be more >> reasonable, surely? > > That depends on the resolution of the screen and its physical > dimensions. 16px is tiny on an 21" 800x600 display but huge on a 14" > 1600x1200 display. Surely you meant that the other way around? SignatureNeredbojias Infinity has its limits. >> That depends on the resolution of the screen and its physical >> dimensions. 16px is tiny on an 21" 800x600 display but huge on a 14" >> 1600x1200 display. > > Surely you meant that the other way around? Err. Yes. SignatureDavid Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/> Home is where the ~/.bashrc is David Dorward <dorward@yahoo.com> scripsit: > Systems can round font sizes to something acceptable, so there's not > really any point in worrying about it. Unfortunately, there is. Typography rules say, among other things, that a change in font size should be clear enough so that it does not look like an error. The mileage varies, but let us assume that a 10% increase is desired. So if we say font-size: 110%, what will happen? The browser computers the absolute font size and then selects the closest actual font size it can use - at the simplest, selecting among differently sized fonts for the given font family (typeface). For all we can know, that size could be identical to the basic font size (when only a few sizes exist). Or it might be almost 20% larger than the basic font size. For example, if the basic font size is 12pt, then 110% yields 13.2pt, which I would expect to get rounded to 13pt. However, for Times New Roman, I seem get a bigger font (13.5pt?), which is rather big and looks bolded. If I set the font size to a smaller percentage, there's the risk of getting no font size increase, for some combinations of font face and basic size. SignatureJukka K. Korpela ("Yucca") http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ > Typography rules say, among other things, that a change in font size should be > clear enough so that it does not look like an error. The mileage varies, but [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > font size to a smaller percentage, there's the risk of getting no font size > increase, for some combinations of font face and basic size. Yes, this is exactly what I am concerned about. If I want to avoid specifying px for font sizes, using percentage instead, and use this as a rough guide: > 16 = 100 > 14 = 87.5 > 13 = 81.25 > 12 = 75 > 10 = 62.5 I run the risk that a font may not have a 13px size (81.25%) Furthermore, if the user has set his default font size to something other than the manufacturer's default (16px), then it's a crap shoot what size font will render at a particular percentage. So percentage may make it easier for the user to adjust the font size, but px is the only way to have absolute control of what gets displayed. Yet it seems IE is the only browser that cannot adjust px-specified font sizes. If my audience is strictly FF users, then why not specify px font sizes? They are just as adjustable as anything else. > Furthermore, if the user has set his default font size to something other > than the manufacturer's default (16px), then it's a crap shoot what size > font will render at a particular percentage. And since you don't know if the user has specified their preference as something other than 16px, its /always/ a crap shoot. > So percentage may make it easier for the user to adjust the font size, but > px is the only way to have absolute control of what gets displayed. Thank goodness for minimum font size options... > If my audience is strictly FF users, then why not specify px font sizes? Percentage also allows the author to respect the user's font size preference and leave body text at whatever the user specified. SignatureDavid Dorward <http://blog.dorward.me.uk/> <http://dorward.me.uk/> Home is where the ~/.bashrc is > Percentage also allows the author to respect the user's font size preference That's not true if I use a percentage that specifies a non-existent font size. We are back to the crap shoot. The only way a percentage has any correlation to a user preference is if that percentage is 100%. Otherwise you never know what you're going to get - that is not respecting the user's preferences. If I specify 125% for h2, which should be about 20px, I can only hope there is a corresponding font with a 20px definition. Maybe there is something close, but maybe there isn't. For all I know, the browser may not change the font size at all. So it makes absolutely no sense to use percentages. The only way to give the user control over font size is to not specify any. The goal here is simply to allow the user to adjust the font size if he desires. It makes no difference whatsoever if a web page defines font size in percentage or px if the user's browser can scale the font size. If all the mainstream browsers have the ability to scale px then you are better off using px to ensure proper presentation of the page. > If I specify 125% for h2, which should be about 20px, I can only > hope there is a corresponding font with a 20px definition. Maybe > there is something close, but maybe there isn't. For all I know, > the browser may not change the font size at all. Lynx won't change the font size. Neither will a speaking browser. Presentation proposals are optional, by design. > So it makes absolutely no sense to use percentages. By your argument, it makes no sense to propose /any/ font size, since some browsers, by design, will ignore the proposal. I don't accept that argument. > The only way to give the user control over font size is to not > specify any. Illogical, Mr. Spock. Most browsers which implement font sizing have a reasonable range of font sizes available, and will use them. The CSS specification includes some practical suggestions for usable size increments. > It makes no difference whatsoever if a web page defines font size in > percentage or px if the user's browser can scale the font size. The specification allows for the possibility that the user could /override/ the author's font size choices. Please be quite clear that a specification-conforming override of absolute font sizing would not scale the absolute size specifications - it would /override/ them. > If all the mainstream browsers have the ability to scale px If you rule out browsers which implement the specification! > then you are better off using px to ensure proper presentation of > the page. Your conclusion rests on a false premise (&/or depends on the fact that there are browsers which choose to ignore the specification in this regard). That's no way to decide on a good policy. SignatureBeware of negative easements. >> If I specify 125% for h2, which should be about 20px, I can only >> hope there is a corresponding font with a 20px definition. Maybe [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > some browsers, by design, will ignore the proposal. I don't accept > that argument. Not that the proposal will be ignored, but rather that the proposal will be misinterpreted. Using a percentage-based scale that requires rounding to a valid font size is inherently inaccurate if the basis for the scale (user preference) is unknown. >> The only way to give the user control over font size is to not >> specify any. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > CSS specification includes some practical suggestions for usable size > increments. This is meaningless unless we all agree on a basis for the scale. If everyone who uses a browser agrees to set his default font size to 16, then we have a chance at hitting those usable size increments, otherwise it's a crap shoot. >> It makes no difference whatsoever if a web page defines font size in >> percentage or px if the user's browser can scale the font size. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a specification-conforming override of absolute font sizing would not > scale the absolute size specifications - it would /override/ them. well, this is semantics... override vs. scale... who cares. turn the knob one way, the font gets bigger; the other way, smaller. That's all that matters. > > By your argument, it makes no sense to propose /any/ font size, > > since some browsers, by design, will ignore the proposal. I don't > > accept that argument. > > Not that the proposal will be ignored, but rather that the proposal > will be misinterpreted. But that's exactly what you're hoping for! You say you want to specify pt or px units, *but* you want the browser to misinterpret them as relative units. That isn't what the specification says, and so you're relying on the generosity of browsers like Moz, Opera etc. to disregard what you're asking for, and treat it as something different. Whereas IE, in this respect, is doing what the specification calls for, and taking you at your word that absolute sizing is required. If, on the other hand, you would use appropriate sizing units, you wouldn't need to rely on user-friendly browsers not taking your proposals seriously, and you wouldn't have to face the problem of visually disabled users of IE needing to find an obscure option to disable font sizing. > Using a percentage-based scale that requires rounding to a valid > font size is inherently inaccurate if the basis for the scale (user > preference) is unknown. That's the reality of designing for the web. So cope with it. > > Most browsers which implement font sizing have a reasonable range > > of font sizes available, and will use them. The CSS specification > > includes some practical suggestions for usable size increments. > > This is meaningless unless we all agree on a basis for the scale. How so? It's not ideal, but it adapts better to a wide range of presentation situations than anything else I have seen. If you were so determined to get pixel-exact rendering, you'd be better advised to use PDF - but I don't suppose your users would thank you for it. > If everyone who uses a browser agrees to set his default font size > to 16, What colour is the sky on your planet? > > The specification allows for the possibility that the user could > > /override/ the author's font size choices. Please be quite clear [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > well, this is semantics... Seems to me that you're missing the point. > override vs. scale... who cares. If the user overrides your sizing, then your sizing proposals have *no* effect. The user gets h1, h2, p, big, small etc. sized as determined by /their/ browser or stylesheet, irrespective of your intentions. > turn the knob one way, the font gets bigger; the other way, smaller. > That's all that matters. Really? >> > By your argument, it makes no sense to propose /any/ font size, >> > since some browsers, by design, will ignore the proposal. I don't [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > specify pt or px units, *but* you want the browser to misinterpret > them as relative units. Let's assume for a moment a browser has all defaults, no user settings, no overrides. If I specify 14px, then the browser will render 14px. Where is the misinterpretation there? If the user has defined preferences, however, then *whatever* I've specified, *regardless* if I used px of percentage, will be interpreted (or misinterpreted, as the case may be). > That isn't what the specification says, and > so you're relying on the generosity of browsers like Moz, Opera etc. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > If, on the other hand, you would use appropriate sizing units Appropriate? The only thing that's appropriate is a font size the browser can display. What difference does it make if I say 100% or 16px? What's displayed in the client's browser is a matter of preference - known only by the user. > you > wouldn't need to rely on user-friendly browsers There is absolutely no reason *not* to rely on such browser features. Thinking otherwise is a completely Luddite attitude. > not taking your > proposals seriously, and you wouldn't have to face the problem of > visually disabled users of IE needing to find an obscure option to > disable font sizing. Fair enough. Visually disabled users will hate my site. >> Using a percentage-based scale that requires rounding to a valid >> font size is inherently inaccurate if the basis for the scale (user [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Seems to me that you're missing the point. What point? The only point is this: *Users should be able to adjust the size of the text in web site.* I'm suggesting that they can do this regardless of how the page author has specified font sizes in his markup. >> override vs. scale... who cares. > > If the user overrides your sizing, then your sizing proposals have > *no* effect. The user gets h1, h2, p, big, small etc. sized as > determined by /their/ browser or stylesheet, irrespective of your > intentions. And would this be any different if I used percentage sized fonts? No, it would not make any difference at all. >> turn the knob one way, the font gets bigger; the other way, smaller. >> That's all that matters. > > Really? Yes, of course. > Using a percentage-based scale that requires rounding to a valid font size is > inherently inaccurate if the basis for the scale (user preference) is unknown. Does it really matter whether my default font size is 13px and your heading (with a font-size of 130%) is 17px, or my default font size is 16px and your heading is 22px? If so, then HTML+CSS is the wrong medium for your content. > If everyone who uses a browser agrees to set his default font size to 16, The phrase "unclear on the concept" comes to mind... > well, this is semantics... override vs. scale... who cares. Well, here's a "scale" that you proposed using in an earlier message: 16px = 100% 14px = 87.5% 13px = 81.25% 12px = 75% 10px = 62.5% and here's what my browser would display, as it's normally configured: 100% = 13px 87.5% = 12px 81.25% = 12px 75% = 12px 62.5% = 12px So, what's the difference between the browser overriding the font size or scaling the font size? SignatureDarin McGrew, mcgrew@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/ Web Design Group, darin@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/ "Good teachers are costly. Bad teachers cost more." - Bob Talbert [...] > So, what's the difference between the browser overriding the font > size or scaling the font size? The difference, as I see it, is between - on the one hand - an author asking for something inappropriate (in this case, absolute or px size units for use in the general web context), and relying on (most) browsers to do something more sensible instead of what he asked for; and - on the other hand - an author who is working *with* the medium, rather than against it. > Does it really matter whether my default font size is 13px and your heading > (with a font-size of 130%) is 17px, or my default font size is 16px and > your heading is 22px? If it does not matter, then authors should not specify any font size at all! What you are saying, in effect, is that users should program their browsers and ignore the author's design proposal. That's silly. When you buy a magazine you expect an attractive format by default. Would you want to program the magazine with your explicit preferences through an interface on the cover before your read it? Of course not. > Well, here's a "scale" that you proposed using in an earlier message: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > So, what's the difference between the browser overriding the font size or > scaling the font size? What you're saying is that if you visit a site with px-designated font sizes, the fact that you can adjust the font size up or down is of little consequence because the page does not display according to your preferences to begin with (because your preferences are expressed in percentage while the author's preferences are expressed in px). Fair enough. That's a reasonable argument. But it's weakened by the fact that the vast majority of users would rather accept an author's design than specify their own. Furthermore, it assumes every page author is proposing an undesirable design. This is perhaps the crux of the matter. An undesirable design is one that is illegible. Thus it is incumbent upon an author to design legible pages using reasonable font sizes. In the case of a poorly designed page, or users with poor vision, the problem of legibility is solved (for px-authored pages) by the browser's override feature which allows users to increase or decrease the text size. Now if you say, "I will not tolerate any author's grubby design! I must have complete control over every piece of text my browser displays!", then we are no longer talking about usability, or accommodating users with poor vision. We might as well argue about the color of the rug. I'm inclined to trust an author to provide a desirable design. This may be because I have confidence in my own ability as a web designer. I agree usability is paramount, but that does not mean using percentage-based font sizes. In the absence of agreement on a size scale, px will ensure that a design is rendered properly. If there were agreement, there would not be a problem. When I suggested 16px as a default, I was only illustrating how this would make things easier for everyone (by the way, all the major browser manufactures did, in fact, agree, in 2000, to 16px for their browsers' default font size setting). When everyone does agree, we might have a more intuitive scale, perhaps: xx-small x-small small medium large x-large xx-large And, yes, it would be easier if government were a dictatorship ;) I wrote: >> Does it really matter whether my default font size is 13px and your heading >> (with a font-size of 130%) is 17px, or my default font size is 16px and >> your heading is 22px? > If it does not matter, then authors should not specify any font size at all! Apparently I did not make myself clear. Authors should leave the font size for body text alone. That is, they should specify a font size of 100% for body text. Headings and such can be specified with relative font sizes larger than 100%. Legalese and similar fine print that the average reader can safely ignore can be specified with relative font sizes smaller than 100%. If all you want is for the headings to be larger than the body text (e.g., 130%), then HTML+CSS is an appropriate medium If you want the body text and headings to be specific sizes (e.g., 16px and 22px), then HTML+CSS is not an appropriate medium. As others have suggested, PDF might be a better alternative in such situations. > What you are saying, in effect, is that users should program their > browsers and ignore the author's design proposal. If necessary, yes. If the author's design adapts to my display environment, then I'll leave it alone. If it doesn't, then I'll switch to my browser's user mode and the author's design is stripped away, leaving the bare content. > That's silly. When you buy a magazine you expect an attractive format by > default. The web is not a dead-trees magazine. See http://www.westciv.com/style_master/house/good_oil/not_paper/ >> Well, here's a "scale" that you proposed using in an earlier message: >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> So, what's the difference between the browser overriding the font size or >> scaling the font size? > What you're saying is that if you visit a site with px-designated font > sizes, the fact that you can adjust the font size up or down is of little > consequence because the page does not display according to your > preferences to begin with (because your preferences are expressed in > percentage while the author's preferences are expressed in px). No. I'm saying that my browser will enforce a minimum font size. The author's font sizes (whether specified in px, percentages, or something else) will scale as long as they don't go below my minimum font size. If they go below my minimum font size, then my browser will override them. > But it's weakened by the fact that the vast majority of users would rather > accept an author's design than specify their own. I admit that I am atypical. I configure my browser to display content in spite of the author's broken design. Most users would just leave the site. > Furthermore, it assumes every page author is proposing an undesirable > design. Not at all. I simply configure my browser to enforce a few reasonable constraints. Sites that adapt to my browsing environment are displayed in all their glory. Sites that fight my browsing environment are displayed in user mode, with the author's design stripped away. > In the absence of agreement on a size scale, px will ensure that a > design is rendered properly. No, it won't. For one thing, it creates the the illusion that you have pixel-perfect control of your page layout. SignatureDarin McGrew, mcgrew@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/ Web Design Group, darin@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/ Why is "abbreviated" such a long word? > If it does not matter, then authors should not specify any font size at all! By George, I think he's got it! > What you are saying, in effect, is that users should program their browsers and > ignore the author's design proposal. Not ignore - join the cascade instead. > When you buy a magazine you expect an attractive format by default. Yes, and for 500-year-old printed paper that's the best I could hope for. Now we have the web, and the author's size is a _default_, not a fixed final size. I can adjust it, according to my personal circumstances (which of course the author can't know about). This is actually an improvement! > > Well, here's a "scale" that you proposed using in an earlier message: > > > > 16px = 100% Works great on my desktop, bit useless on my phone though. > Does it really matter whether my default font size is 13px and your heading > (with a font-size of 130%) is 17px, or my default font size is 16px and > your heading is 22px? > > If so, then HTML+CSS is the wrong medium for your content. If it does matter (and sometimes, legitimately, then it might matter) HTML+CSS is still an appropriate medium. The CSS protocol allows the _choice_ of sizing behaviour, it's the mis-use of CSS dimension units that has caused the problem. If it doesn't matter, then use ems. If it does matter then use pixels. Everyone is happy -- or at least they are until some dezyner insists their presentation is more important than usable access to their content. ...And of course, Firefox has broken the whole model, from the best of pragmatic intentions. What would a dingbat know about character fonts anyway? ;-) SignatureMatt Silberstein Do something today about the Darfur Genocide http://www.beawitness.org http://www.darfurgenocide.org http://www.savedarfur.org "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop" > What would a dingbat know about character fonts anyway? Oddly that's _not_ where the username came from. It began as a mainframe user home directory called DING$BAT, about 20 years ago. I wrote: >> Does it really matter whether my default font size is 13px and your heading >> (with a font-size of 130%) is 17px, or my default font size is 16px and >> your heading is 22px? >> >> If so, then HTML+CSS is the wrong medium for your content. > If it does matter (and sometimes, legitimately, then it might matter) > HTML+CSS is still an appropriate medium. The CSS protocol allows the > _choice_ of sizing behaviour, it's the mis-use of CSS dimension units > that has caused the problem. If it doesn't matter, then use ems. If it > does matter then use pixels. But CSS is optional, by design. If the size in pixels (or points, or inches, or...) really matters, then the distinction will be lost when the author's CSS is disabled/ignored. Or in media where the concept of pixels (or points, or inches, or...) is irrelevant. If the exact font size matters, then HTML+CSS is still the wrong medium. SignatureDarin McGrew, mcgrew@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/ Web Design Group, darin@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/ "Cheaters never win; they just finish first." - Johhny Hart >>> Does it really matter whether my default font size is 13px and your heading >>> (with a font-size of 130%) is 17px, or my default font size is 16px and [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > If the exact font size matters, then HTML+CSS is still the wrong medium. I don't think format is relevant to this discussion (which I've been enjoying, by the way). I see only two issues here. One is about usability. And this is the far more important issue - users should be able to adjust the text size in a page (regardless of format, pixels, percent, etc). With modern browsers/viewers, they can, and I think we all agree on this. That's pretty much the end of it for me, but here's the other issue: The second issue is one of accommodating user's preferences. That is, some users (a small minority) want to be able to scale the page author's proposed font sizes automatically, according to their predefined browser settings. So, when a page is rendered, 100% is mapped to 80%, 30% is mapped to 60%, and so on. This has nothing to do with usability. It's pure preference. The problem for users who set their browsers to do this - to change the way a page has been authored to meet their preferences - is that current browser technology cannot easily map px-designated font sizes to their preferences (while percentage-based font sizes are more readily adjustable). So the px vs. percentage debate is a tempest in a teapot. It makes absolutely no difference in regard to usability, and very little difference for those very few who want to alter a page author's design. > So the px vs. percentage debate is a tempest in a teapot. It makes > absolutely no difference in regard to usability, and very little > difference for those very few who want to alter a page author's design. By definition, px font sizes do not adapt to the user's default font size. Sure, readers can override px font sizes (e.g., with a minimum font size setting or by ignoring document font sizes). By definition, percentage font sizes (or em font sizes, but in practice you need to work around a bug in MSIE) do adapt to the user's default font size. Sure, web deezyners can still specify font sizes smaller than 100% (1em), and readers can still override such microfonts. But at a fundamental level, percentage (em) font sizes adapt to the user's default font size in a way that px font sizes don't. Maybe it's time to bring this quote up again: The font size chosen by the user as a comfortable default (1 em) [or 100%] provides more truly useful information about the rendering environment than all the resolution-sniffing, window-querying, "open-this-wide" logic you can throw at the problem. -- Todd Fahrner SignatureDarin McGrew, mcgrew@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/ Web Design Group, darin@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/ "Experience is what allows you to recognize a mistake when you make it again." > But at a fundamental level, percentage (em) font sizes adapt to > the user's default font size in a way that px font sizes don't. Absolutely. But for over 90% of users (those who don't change their browser settings), the default font size is 16px (the browser's default), which is unattractively large. Most page authors will adjust this down a bit, say to 14px, in an effort to make their pages more attractive. An author can specify either 87.5% or 14px to make that adjustment. Either way he can expect his design to be rendered properly for those 90% of users. For those few users who *do* change their browser's default font size, we have a problem. If they set the default size to 14px, then the author's 87.5% becomes 12.25px, which is a bogus size. There is no 12.25px font size. We can hope it will be rounded, but we really don't know what we're going to get. This results in a "crap shoot" when it comes to rendering the author's design. An author who uses percentage-based font sizes, therefore, is effectively making his design meaningless for users who adjust their browser's default font size. For those who don't change their default font size, it makes no difference how the author designated his font sizes. Nevertheless, everyone still has the ability to *manually* adjust the font size (the browser's override feature). The downside of px-based font size designations is that the author's design will not *automatically* adjust to user-defined preferences. As I mentioned earlier, this is a preference issue, not a usability issue. The root of the problem is that browsers' default settings are specified in px - and percentages cannot accurately be mapped to px. If browsers specified more intuitive sizes - like small, medium, large, etc. - there would not be a problem (other than coming to an agreement on what "medium" is). Authors would then have assurance that their designs would scale proportionately to accommodate user preference. I wrote: >> But at a fundamental level, percentage (em) font sizes adapt to >> the user's default font size in a way that px font sizes don't. > Absolutely. But for over 90% of users (those who don't change their browser > settings), the default font size is 16px (the browser's default), which is > unattractively large. Most page authors will adjust this down a bit, say to > 14px, in an effort to make their pages more attractive. IMHO, it's a misguided effort. See also http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/fontsize.html > An author can specify either 87.5% or 14px to make that adjustment. There's a quote in my .sig file that seems appropriate: "There is no right way to do the wrong thing." > If they set the default size to 14px, then the author's 87.5% becomes > 12.25px, which is a bogus size. There is no 12.25px font size. We can [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > therefore, is effectively making his design meaningless for users who > adjust their browser's default font size. IMHO, a font size smaller than 100% is appropriate only for legalese and similar fine print that the average reader can safely ignore. Once you make the mistake of setting the font size for body text at 87.5%, all the issues you're so concerned about become relatively minor. > Nevertheless, everyone still has the ability to *manually* adjust the > font size (the browser's override feature). Wouldn't it be better to adapt to the browser configuration, so the user isn't expected to override anything? > The downside of px-based font size designations is that the author's > design will not *automatically* adjust to user-defined preferences. > As I mentioned earlier, this is a preference issue, not a usability > issue. Or maybe it's an accessibility issue. I find microfonts to be a significant usability problem, and I've got better than 20/20 vision. That's why I enforce a minimum font size. But you're free to write that off as merely my "preference" if you like. > If browsers specified more intuitive sizes - like small, medium, large, > etc. - there would not be a problem (other than coming to an agreement > on what "medium" is). Authors would then have assurance that their > designs would scale proportionately to accommodate user preference. A very common browser-like OS component (you may have heard of it) allows the user to specify font sizes only as Smallest, Smaller, Medium, Larger, and Largest. CSS provides the font sizes xx-small, x-small, small, medium, large, x-large, and xx-large, as well as larger and smaller. How has that assured authors of anything? Web sites with microfonts are still common enough that web browsers provide minimum font size settings. SignatureDarin McGrew, mcgrew@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/ Web Design Group, darin@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/ "Shin: a device for finding furniture in the dark." - Steven Wright > Absolutely. But for over 90% of users You've actually been out there and looked over their shoulders and counted them? > (those who don't change their browser settings), the default font > size is 16px (the browser's default), which is unattractively large. *You* might think so. But if *they* thought so, don't you suppose they would start asking why, and what they could do about it? > Most page authors will adjust this down a bit, So now we're into a deadly spiral. Authors crank the fonts down to smaller than the user wants, so users crank it up to more than the author wants. The authors then will respond by cranking it down even smaller, and the users will want to compensate even further. So why not get out of this spiral before it's even started. Design your pages so that they can *also* cope with readers who display text larger than you would prefer it to be. > Either way he can expect his design to be rendered properly for > those 90% of users. "For some value of properly". There *is* an interworking specification, after all. > For those few users who *do* change their browser's default font > size, we have a problem. You have a problem for *all* users, excepting only those who *wanted* your choice of font size. You have no idea who those are, nor even how many. > If they set the default size to 14px, then the author's 87.5% becomes 12.25px, > which is a bogus size. There is no 12.25px font size. We can hope it will be > rounded, but we really don't know what we're going to get. Again you're arguing around in circles again. With 1.0em or 100%, we *know* that users will get the text size that they selected - which in many cases will be the size chosen by their chosen OS vendor. Are you *SO* certain that you know so much better what they could possibly want, than their vendor knows? > This results in a "crap shoot" when it comes to rendering the > author's design. It does, if the author is incapable of designing flexibly. > An author who uses percentage-based font sizes, therefore, is > effectively making his design meaningless for users who adjust their > browser's default font size. That's drivel. I've had enough of this. You're just trolling on and on, round and round the same imponderables, and getting nowhere. The reason is that you're focussing on fixing factors which the WWW simply refuses to allow you to fix, and apparently ignoring the solution which has been staring you in the face all the time. And then you try to comfort yourself with the thought that you'd only be excluding your invented figure of 10% of users. That's pathetic. Bye. >> But at a fundamental level, percentage (em) font sizes adapt to >> the user's default font size in a way that px font sizes don't. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > For those few users who *do* change their browser's default font size, > we have a problem. On the one hand, all these people, as they browse across the Internet day after day after day, are comfortable enough with the default font size not to bother taking five seconds to adjust it on their browser. On the other hand, when they come to your web site, the same size is so unattractively large that they rely on your to save them from the setting that they haven't bothered to change on their own. Seems like a fallacy to me. > If they set the default size to 14px, then the author's 87.5% becomes > 12.25px, which is a bogus size. There is no 12.25px font size. > We can > hope it will be rounded, but we really don't know what we're going to > get. This results in a "crap shoot" when it comes to rendering the > author's design. Exactly! It *is* a crap shoot! It isn't desktop publishing, where you have perfect control over the location and size of every glyph, line, and image. Rather than remaining in denial over that fact, the best way to design for the web is to treat it as what it is rather than as what it isn't. Now that Mr. Flavell has bowed out of the debate, I will declare check and mate on this argument and conclusively declare px the preferred font size designator for web development. The ax has already been laid at the root. Now, to the chagrin of some, the tree will fall. The pc (em or percentage-size) crowd scoffs at px (pixel-size) as if it were a fascist plot that imposes the will of the page author upon helpless users. The reality is that a benevolent designer will not mistreat his users, but rather will provide a good design. For who do not like the good of the author, or require special care, browser technology is at their disposal to adjust the author's design to suit their own preferences. Now, for those who insist that their preferences are more important than the designer's (this is a fallacy; there would be no art if this were true), technology is available in the form of a user stylesheet, which will ignore the good of the designer and let each man do what is right in his own eyes. Whatever the medium, format, or content, the designer has a responsibility to provide a good design, not simply throw text at his users. px ensures the good of the designer is not corrupted in translation; pc pretends there is no good. px is the currency of good; pc is the currency of anarchy. In the end, the pc vs. px debate is about preferences, or perhaps philosophy. If we are not arguing about the color of the rug, then we are arguing about the good. And designers, if the word means anything, are architects of good. > Now that Mr. Flavell has bowed out of the debate, I will declare check > and mate on this argument and conclusively declare px the preferred > font size designator for web development. The ax has already been > laid at the root. Now, to the chagrin of some, the tree will fall. No, you still lost. Days ago. Signature-bts -Warning: I brake for lawn deer > Now that Mr. Flavell has bowed out of the debate, I will declare check > and mate on this argument and conclusively declare px the preferred font > size designator for web development. The ax has already been laid at > the root. Now, to the chagrin of some, the tree will fall. You're like an ice sculptor who complains that his sculptures look different at the end of a party than they did at the beginning. Or a sand castle sculptor who complains that the incoming tide is destroying his masterpiece. Or a baker who complains about people who cut his creation into pieces and serve it to their wedding guests. Artist, learn thy medium. SignatureDarin McGrew, mcgrew@stanfordalumni.org, http://www.rahul.net/mcgrew/ Web Design Group, darin@htmlhelp.com, http://www.HTMLHelp.com/ "If you find yourself in a hole, stop digging." - Will Rogers > I will declare check and mate > on this argument and conclusively declare px the preferred font size designator > for web development. Just keep on doing what you are doing. That gives me more work when I have to fix clueless noob jobs after clients find out :) Nice money in that ;) > Nevertheless, everyone still has the ability to *manually* adjust the > font size (the browser's override feature). Until you understand that the user can select a standard font size, and not "adjust" it, and that this is a user preference, and not an "override feature", there's really no point in continuing this discussion. SignatureGarmt de Vries > Until you understand that the user can select a standard font size, and not > "adjust" it, and that this is a user preference, and not an "override > feature", there's really no point in continuing this discussion. I completely understand that it's "a user preference". The point I'm making is that it's foolish to try to accommodate this preference using percentage-sized fonts. The "default font size" feature is simply a bad idea. I'm willing to bet this feature will be dropped from future releases of Firefox and other browsers. You may already know that Microsoft's new IE 7 does NOT have a "default font size" feature. And if the past is any indicator of the future, IE 7 will likely become the browser of choice (or of default) for most Internet users. There are better ways to cater to user preference. Let's say page A is authored using these (px) font sizes: 13px 14px 16px 18px The larger sizes are used for headings and the smaller sizes are used for text. These sizes are entirely legible for the vast majority of readers. If someone has a vision problem (or just wants to see larger text), adjustments can be made using the browser. So who cares if font sizes are designated in px or percent? Both are adjustable. The only argument against using px-sized fonts is that of preference. That is, a user wants his preference to automatically trump the designer's by using a "default font size". And here is where we have a petty and meaningless debate over whose specification (the designer's or the user's) should have priority. Nevertheless, let's say page B is authored using these (percent) font sizes: 81.25% 87.5% 100% 112.5% Users who have not changed their browser's "default font size" (from the standard 16px) will see the exact same font sizes as displayed in page A. Those who have changed their default font size, to let's say, 17px, will have font sizes scaled as follows: 13.812px 14.875px 17px 19.125px With the exception of 17px, none of these font sizes exist! We are asking the browser to display indeterminate font sizes! How is this anyone's preference? The result (if the browser does not choke while rounding) is an approximation of both the author's design and the user's preference. Why should any user or page author accept this? The bottom line is that font sizes cannot be accurately scaled using percentage because they are integer values. px-based font sizes are the better option because they ensure the author's design is rendered according to specification. If a user wants to ignore authors' specifications, a user stylesheet can be used. Why have the browser perform inaccurate and wasteful processing scaling percentage-sized fonts? Users have better options to accommodate their preferences and/or requirements when it comes font size. In time, I expect percentage-based font-sizing to become a thing of the past. Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, deko <deko@nospam.com> declared in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets: > I'm willing to bet this feature will be dropped from future releases of Firefox > and other browsers. I'm willing to bet you'll want to forget you made that prediction. :-) > 13px > 14px > 16px > 18px Then the first 3 will be displayed at 16px on my browser. That's hardly what you want, is it? > The only argument against using px-sized fonts is that of preference. That they aren't relative to the user's preference, yes. And that they aren't resizable (without delving into obscure accessibility settings) in IE. And that pixels are going to be a different size for different users anyway. > That is, > a user wants his preference to automatically trump the designer's Absolutely. That's one of the strengths of the web. > And here is where we have a petty and meaningless debate > over whose specification (the designer's or the user's) should have priority. On the web, the user always wins. Again, this is a good thing. It's even written into the CSS specs. > 13.812px > 14.875px > 17px > 19.125px > > With the exception of 17px, none of these font sizes exist! So they get rounded to 13, 14, 17 and 19px (respectively). I defy you to tell the difference between something that is 13.812px and one that is 14px. > The result (if the browser does not choke while rounding) It would be a pretty lousy application if it did. > is an approximation of > both the author's design and the user's preference. Why should any user or page > author accept this? Why not? It's close enough. > The bottom line is that font sizes cannot be accurately > scaled using percentage because they are integer values. You still don't seem to be able to grasp that this is not a problem. > px-based font sizes are the better option because they ensure the author's > design is rendered according to specification. So go back to DTP. The web is obviously not for you. SignatureMark Parnell My Usenet is improved; yours could be too: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html > So go back to DTP. The web is obviously not for you. I surfed around a number of mainstream sites and looked at their stylesheets - all but one had px-designated font sizes. That's a small sample, but I think it's safe to assume the majority of designers are using, and will continue to use, px-sized fonts - just as the majority of users will not adjust their default font size. The web is not only for me, it is me. The percentage-size font police are the ones out of step with reality. Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, deko <deko@nospam.com> declared in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets: > I surfed around a number of mainstream sites and looked at their stylesheets - > all but one had px-designated font sizes. Shock! Horror! Lots of web sites have bad coding! Who would have thought? *sigh* As Alan (Flavell) said recently in ciwah, 'the saying about "billions of flies can't be wrong" comes unappetisingly to mind'. SignatureMark Parnell My Usenet is improved; yours could be too: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html > > The only argument against using px-sized fonts is that of preference. > > That they aren't relative to the user's preference, yes. And that they > aren't resizable (without delving into obscure accessibility settings) > in IE. You can click an icon on the IE toolbar and choose among five different font sizes. What's so obscure about that? Granted, most web pages become garbled when you do this, but that's the fault of incompetent web designers. SignatureWarren S. Sarle SAS Institute Inc. The opinions expressed here saswss@unx.sas.com SAS Campus Drive are mine and not necessarily (919) 677-8000 Cary, NC 27513, USA those of SAS Institute. > You can click an icon on the IE toolbar and choose among five > different font sizes. What's so obscure about that? It is poor! It's like American clothing sizes: You can only choose between S, M, L, XL. Can you imagine a word processor or page layout program that gives the user a choice between S, M, L, XL for font size? >>> The only argument against using px-sized fonts is that of >>> preference. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You can click an icon on the IE toolbar and choose among five > different font sizes. What's so obscure about that? Text will not resize in IE if the author assigned px (or pt) sizes. > Granted, most web pages become garbled when you do this, but that's > the fault of incompetent web designers. ..as is using px. :-) Signature-bts -Warning: I brake for lawn deer > > > The only argument against using px-sized fonts is that of > > > preference. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You can click an icon on the IE toolbar and choose among five > different font sizes. All of which will be the same size, if the author has already set the size in px units. > What's so obscure about that? I might ask you the same question. You quoted the clear statement of the truth: > > they aren't resizable (without delving into obscure accessibility > > settings) in IE. , and you immediately started saying the opposite. Not good. I suppose you wouldn't care to actually *try* it, hmmm? >> ... >> You can click an icon on the IE toolbar and choose among five >> different font sizes. > > All of which will be the same size, if the author has already set the > size in px units. No, they won't, regardless of what units are used in the CSS. > I suppose you wouldn't care to actually *try* it, hmmm? I use that feature in IE6 all the time. I use the medium setting for most pages and switch to smaller or smallest for pages that are horribly garbled at medium. Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, Warren Sarle <saswss@unx.sas.com> declared in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets: > I use that feature in IE6 all the time. I use the medium setting for most > pages and switch to smaller or smallest for pages that are horribly > garbled at medium. If it works on pages where the font sizes have been specified in px, then at some point you must have delved into the accessibility options I mentioned. It is well documented (and easily tested) that IE does *not* resize fonts sized in px, unless you tell it to "Ignore font sizes specified in web pages" (under Tools>Internet Options>Accessibility). This setting is off by default. SignatureMark Parnell My Usenet is improved; yours could be too: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html >>> ... >>> You can click an icon on the IE toolbar and choose among five [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > most pages and switch to smaller or smallest for pages that are > horribly garbled at medium. With your IE set at Medium, have a look at this page: http://k75s.home.att.net/fontsize.html and change your IE size from Medium to Largest, then report back what happened to the text in the blue box to the right. Signature-bts -Warning: I brake for lawn deer deko <deko@nospam.com> scripsit: > You may already know that Microsoft's > new IE 7 does NOT have a "default font size" feature. What on &planet; are you talking about? IE 7, which currently exists as beta only, has as good and as poor font size control as IE 6. (Zooming is nice, but a completely different issue.) > These sizes [defined in pixels by author] are entirely legible for the > vast majority of > readers. One size fits all, you mean? > If someone has a vision problem (or just wants to see > larger text), adjustments can be made using the browser. Sizes defined in pixels cannot be adjusted, except by changing the size of a pixel. Browsers that behave differently behave against CSS specifications. Such sizes can be _overridden_ of course, but this means that all size differences in author style sheet are lost. > So who > cares if font sizes are designated in px or percent? Both are > adjustable. The px unit denotes a pixel. Don't you know what a pixel is? (It has somewhat different meanings in common IT language and in CSS terminology, but in either meaning, it is by essence not adjustable the way you imply.) SignatureJukka K. Korpela ("Yucca") http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ > In time, I expect percentage-based font-sizing to become a thing of the past. You're probably right. I don't remember the Enterprise's holodeck ever asking me for a default font size. However, in this century's web, you're still wrong. Signature-bts -Warning: I brake for lawn deer > Typography rules say, among other things, that a change in font size > should be clear enough so that it does not look like an error. The [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > sizes exist). Or it might be almost 20% larger than the basic font > size. I don't disagree with what you have written, as a theory. But what conclusions do you draw in terms of recommendations to authors? > For example, if the basic font size is 12pt, then 110% yields > 13.2pt, which I would expect to get rounded to 13pt. However, for > Times New Roman, I seem get a bigger font (13.5pt?), which is rather > big and looks bolded. If I set the font size to a smaller > percentage, there's the risk of getting no font size increase, for > some combinations of font face and basic size. Yes; and I get very different visual results depending on how I have set my font smoothing options. But these details of user settings are not something which an author can (or should) know, nor take into account in their CSS. regards Alan J. Flavell <flavell@physics.gla.ac.uk> scripsit: > I don't disagree with what you have written, as a theory. But what > conclusions do you draw in terms of recommendations to authors? I really don't know. It seems that one cannot use percentages reliably to create suitable variation in font size in text. Using the size keywords (e.g., font-size: larger) doesn't work well either, since I cannot know what they are really mapped to. > But these details of user settings are > not something which an author can (or should) know, nor take into > account in their CSS. The point is that this situation makes font size variation inside a document rather dubious, except for headings and other texts for which we use rather large font sizes. For example, to indicate a passage as less important, any method for making its font size smaller seems to be rather risky - the main risks being that the result is too small and that there is no actual change in font size SignatureJukka K. Korpela ("Yucca") http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ > David Dorward <dorward@yahoo.com> scripsit: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Roman, I seem get a bigger font (13.5pt?), which is rather big and looks > bolded. Since the quantum of the screen is the pixel, isn't it a question of whether the number of pixels that you think looks bigger than 13.2pt is a better fit than one pixel less would be, which might be more like 12.75pt? > If I set the font size to a smaller percentage, there's the risk > of getting no font size increase, for some combinations of font face and > basic size. Harlan Messinger <hmessinger.removethis@comcast.net> scripsit: > Since the quantum of the screen is the pixel, isn't it a question of > whether the number of pixels that you think looks bigger than 13.2pt > is a better fit than one pixel less would be, which might be more like > 12.75pt? Not really. It is possible that the available font sizes, which are selected by the browser by rounding the computed size to the closest of them, will be further "rounded" to pixels, i.e. the glyphs will be pixelized. This is, however, another aspect that does not change the primary issue that the repertoire of actual font sizes is, or could be, discrete and even relatively small. Moreover, on paper, different considerations apply. Even on screen, smoothing may imply that in practice, the pixel does not act as a simple quantum. SignatureJukka K. Korpela ("Yucca") http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ > however, another aspect that does not change the primary issue that > the repertoire of actual font sizes is, or could be, discrete and > even relatively small. Oh, indeed: on Lynx the repertoire of font sizes is one (and on a speaking browser, one could say that it is 'none'); but that doesn't discourage me from proposing sizes that are intended for the more mainstream browsing situation. CSS is optional, by design. If, in a small number of cases, a pair of proposed em or percent sizes results in the same display size, it's unfortunate, but it's hardly a tragedy, and I wouldn't want to go against other good principles merely to avoid this occasional possibility. > Moreover, on paper, different considerations apply. Even on screen, > smoothing may imply that in practice, the pixel does not act as a > simple quantum. Right. But even when designing a stylesheet for print-only, there's still the paper size question: you don't know whether they use A4 or US Letter (or maybe something else again). If it's about getting a paper form printed, that for some reason *has* to be an exact size, then PDF is still a better medium for doing that, IMHO. I value HTML+CSS for its flexibility and versatility, on the other hand. regards > As I understand it, most browser manufacturers have agreed on 16px > for their default font size. As I understand it, many discerning web users have agreed to choose the default font size which they prefer to read. > So, this should be an accurate conversion for percentages: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 12 = 75 > 10 = 62.5 Nobody seems to have come right out yet and told you that you're chasing the wrong hare. There's nothing useful that you could do with this information, even if it *is* a particular "manufacturer's" default. > I assume it's better to stick to a percentage that will yield a > round number - I'm not sure why. It's only a rendering proposal, after all. There's no way you can be assured of getting whole-numbers by specifying a percentage for all of us, no matter whether we configured our em unit as 13px or 16px or 25px or whatever - according to our display properties, our eyesight, whatever. Better to aim at a size which readers can comfortably read. And for normal body text, that's axiomatically 1.0em. Recommended reading: http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/fontsize.html There *is* no fixed table of correspondences between absolute size units and relative size units, nor can there be: that's the whole reason for having both[1] kinds, after all. So don't confuse yourself by trying to derive one. As the CSS specification perceptively remarks: "Absolute length units are only useful when the physical properties of the output medium are known." - which in the case of general WWW design, most assuredly they are *not* known. good luck [1] OK, technically speaking, CSS px units are neither absolute nor relative, in this sense, but are yet another kind of unit. But, so far, rarely implemented to specification > As I understand it, most browser manufacturers have agreed on 16px for their > default font size. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 12 = 75 > 10 = 62.5 Yes. And it is basically useless as a layout guide. Use percentages that produce the type of result you wish to display for a variety of default font sizes. > I assume it's better to stick to a percentage that will yield a round number - > rather than using something like 90% to get 14.4. A browser will just round up > or down to a font size it can display, correct? The number of decimal places in a percentage value is irrelevant. Round numbers are only easier for humans, not machines. > As for em, am I correct in saying 1em = 16px? No. It is the distance between baselines with a default line-height. Although for practical purposes it is close enough. > Does that mean 1.2em is 19.2px (rounded by the browser to 19px - if the default > size is 16)? Only if, in the current CSS context, the font size corresponds to 16px. If the font size has changed to font-size:125% (and assuming the original font-size was 16px), 1.2em is then 1.2 * (125% * 16px) = 24px. body { font-size: 100%; } p { font-size: 125%; } Signaturejmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com (Remove .AXSPAMGN for email) Jim Moe <jmm-list.AXSPAMGN@sohnen-moe.com> scripsit: >> As for em, am I correct in saying 1em = 16px? >> > No. It is the distance between baselines with a default line-height. No, 1em is the size of the font, and for font-size, it exceptionally means the font size of the enclosing element ("parent"). The distance between baselines is, by definition, the line height, which is generally larger than 1em. Typical browser defaults for line height are around 1.2em. > Although for practical purposes it is close enough. For practical purposes, 1em can be anything when mapped to a physical size. I don't think nobody argues about the observation that 16px is the most common browser default. SignatureJukka K. Korpela ("Yucca") http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.