W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webplatform@w3.org > January 2013

Re: sample CSS property page: font-size

From: Alex Komoroske <komoroske@google.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 19:01:23 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPwaZpW8ytfhGc8MnZrGYiq1vAkBjAQVgszDi1e7bX6Tq4+Xvw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Mills <cmills@opera.com>, Paul Irish <paulirish@google.com>
Cc: Mike Sierra <letmespellitoutforyou@gmail.com>, "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>, Jonathan Garbee <jonathan@garbee.me>
I sat down to provide detailed commentary on this page, and... I don't
really have much. :-)

It looks great overall to me.

Here are a few random thoughts:

   - How does the very short right-aligned description relate to the
   one-line overview? They seem to substantially overlap in terms of
   information in this case, although I could imagine the overview might have
   more information for more complicated properties.
   - The "See CSS Text Styling Fundamentals for an overview." looks a bit
   out of place as a prose parenthetical tacked on the end. Should that be
   presented in a more structured way?
   - The green check marks draw a bit too much attention because that all
   of the other cells in the overview table are just text.
   - We need to carefully think about the compatibility table design; this
   is a complex area and we shouldn't jump into a given design without
   considering the consequences. Font-size is a pretty straightforward
   property, but other complications to consider include: how to show that
   support started prefixed at one version and unprefixed at another, as well
   as how to include information about sub-compatiblity information. For
   example, MDN's box-shadow page [1] has four separate rows for basic
   support, multiples, inset, and spread radius. That said, I like this
   compatibility design a fair bit; the use of color for supported status
   makes it work both at a glance and when you want specific versions.

Thanks for doing such an awesome job on this!


[1] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/CSS/box-shadow

On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 1:23 AM, Chris Mills <cmills@opera.com> wrote:

> Thanks for your continued work on this Mike - your comments all make sense
> to me. Just one specific thing you asked for comment on:
> The question of font-size: 62.5% versus font-size: 10px - this is a good
> point, and I think that these days it makes very little difference; it used
> to be that in the old days, using pixel sizes was bad because old IE
> versions couldn't zoom content sized in this way. But that is a problem of
> the past, pretty much.
> Chris Mills
> Opera Software, dev.opera.com
> W3C Fellow, web education and webplatform.org
> Author of "Practical CSS3: Develop and Design" (http://goo.gl/AKf9M)
> On 22 Jan 2013, at 22:20, Mike Sierra <letmespellitoutforyou@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Mike Sierra
> > <letmespellitoutforyou@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Mike Sierra
> >> <letmespellitoutforyou@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Great comments. Replies inline marked SIERRA below.  I think it's wise
> >>> to keep a tally of the major template/skin enhancements necessary to
> >>> produce this suggested design -- will do that.
> >>
> >> As promised, a list of features needed to fine-tune the design:
> >
> > At Julee's suggestion, I captured these suggestions as a proposal here:
> >
> > http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/WPD:Proposals/css_prop_enhancements
> >
> > --Mike Sierra
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2013 03:02:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:20:46 UTC