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

RE: Relative Font Size

From: ED <Julian.Scarlett@sheffield.gov.uk>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 14:33:03 +0100
Message-ID: <F9BE3B1AB649D311A573009027852E4D02879927@EDUC_MXS>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

Jesper

I don't have that book; could you elaborate on your/it's argument? I don't accept that a term's length of usage or perceived professionalism is reason for using it. Pixel is a professional term in web typography but we don't want that used for font sizes do we? 

Again I would say that since em and % produce the same result in terms of accessibility then there is no reason to use one over the other. Unless you have another (better) argument.

Please don't think that I'm being pedantic; it's just that your argument doesn't make sense and since you stated categorically that using em is 'best practice' I feel you should qualify it.

regards
Julian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jesper Tverskov [mailto:jesper.tverskov@mail.tele.dk]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 2:11 PM
> To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Relative Font Size
> 
> 
> 
> Jesper wrote wrote:
> > Em is Best Practice for relative font-size but % works the 
> same. I always use em.
> 
> Julian asked:
> > Why? If they both work the same and are both relative units 
> why is em better practice than %?
> 
> The em unit has a long tradition in typography and is the 
> professionel term also in web design. "%" is more the 
> expression of the people.
> 
> See: "The amazing em unit and other best practices", in:
> 
> Cascading Style Sheets
> Designing for the web,
> 2. edition, 1999
> ISBN 0-201-59625-3
> 
> by HÃ¥kon Wium Lie and Bert Bos
> 
> Best regards,
> Jesper
> 
> 
The information in this email is confidential. The contents may not be disclosed or used by anyone other than the addressee.  If you are not the addressee, please tell us by using the reply facility in your email software as soon as possible. Sheffield City Council cannot accept any responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of this message as it has been transmitted over a public network.  If you suspect that the message may have been intercepted or amended please tell us as soon as possible.
Received on Wednesday, 18 June 2003 09:29:38 GMT

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