W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > April to June 2003

Re: Relative Font Size

From: Julia Collins <julia@we3.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 17:21:57 +0100
To: <yoan.simonian@snv.jussieu.fr>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BB14FEB5.151C%julia@we3.co.uk>

I agree, using the small, medium etc sizes is best, although beware because
medium is very large indeed!  Em is really useful when creating fluid
resizable layouts with css because it allows things like background colours
on divs to resize in relation to the font size when people up the text size
in their browsers, whereas percentages are a bit unreliable in this respect.
At least that's my experience....

btw have nearly cracked a fluid, resizable FOUR column layout using just
css.  where the entire layout of every page can be determined by the
external style sheet (and visitors can, if they are so minded, write a new
skin for it - it's a site aimed at youth) Could this be a world first?

Julia

----- 
we3

-----
design 
print
web
-----


On 17/6/03 5:44 pm, "yoan SIMONIAN" <yoan.simonian@snv.jussieu.fr> wrote:

> 
> The advantage of percentages is that they look "the same" in all browsers.
> Em look little in netscape and mozilla for example.
> it's better to use xx-large x-large large medium small x-small or xx-small
> The "problem" with em or medium ... is that you can't decrize the size of the
> caracters.
> 
> the best way is certainly to use percentage.
> 
> if you look at WAI css, medium ... sizes are used.
> 
> But in my own experience, percentage are better to all browsers
> compatiblility.
> 
> 
> 
>> When using relative font sizes in style sheets, I'm wondering if it's more
>> preferable to use the "em" unit rather and percentages.  W3C seems to
>> recommend the "em" unit, but I'm curious if percentages are ok?
>> 
>> ------------------
>> for example:
>> 
>> ..body   {FONT-SIZE: 70;FONT-FAMILY:verdana,arial;color:#000000;}
>> 
>> vs.
>> 
>> ..body   {FONT-SIZE: .75em;FONT-FAMILY:verdana,arial;color:#000000;}
>> ----------------
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> Eileen
>> 
>> 
>> Eileen O'Brien
>> Hubbard|One
>> p: 312.939.5000 x 223
>> e:  <mailto:eobrien@hubbardone.com> eobrien@hubbardone.com
>> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2003 12:19:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:10 GMT