W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > January to March 2001

Re: CSS - font-size

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2001 18:27:01 -0500 (EST)
To: Laurie Davis-Covin <ldavisco@nist.gov>
cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0103271822400.22781-100000@tux.w3.org>
Laurie,

pixels are not relative in the sense of being relative to the other types of
font. They are relative in the sense that they are not the same size on
different machines. So they aren't very helpful for a given user, since it is
hard to change the size of a pixel.

I think the best technique is to use percentages, or em units. The problem
with smaller and larger is that some browsers define them as a LOT smaller -
to the point of being hard to read - typical use cases don't go that far. But
there is no intrinsic reason not to mix those with percentages / ems.

just my .02 em worth...

Charles McCN

On Mon, 26 Mar 2001, Laurie Davis-Covin wrote:
[snip]
  I've written style sheets that do not declare a font-size in the body
  element, thereby, bringing in the default 'medium' (as understand it does),
  then going to percentages, or using the relative 'smaller', 'larger'.  I've
  tried pixels.  But I'm getting the impression pixels are not the way to
  go.  But, I don't know why.

  Is there a 'best' technique?

  If not best, is it okay (for accesssibility and CSS1 standards) to mix
  percentages and the relative '"smaller" etc., in one style sheet?
  It was suggested by one expert that I use an absolute font size in the body
  element, then go to percentages and/or relatives such as smaller, larger.
Received on Tuesday, 27 March 2001 18:27:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:53 GMT