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

Re: Relative Font Size

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 09:41:09 +0200
Cc: <yoan.simonian@snv.jussieu.fr>, "w3c-wai-ig@w3.org" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
To: Julia Collins <julia@we3.co.uk>
Message-Id: <64527870-A229-11D7-B026-000A958826AA@sidar.org>

This shows the problem with small, medium, etc - "very large" is a 
really unreliable number. At the moment I am working mostly on 20pt 
fonts (having lost my glasses), and they seem small and hard to read 
(but I struggle away because I like having a scannable screen - 
comfortable would be about 30pt.

My experience has been that em and percentage do this a bit better - 
the other thing is that at larger base sizes I want to reduce the size 
difference - the gap between 36 and 42 pt is much easier to see than 
the gap between 10 and 12 pt, although it is a smaller percentage 
difference. When I get a CSS-3 capable browser I will be a happy camper.



On Tuesday, Jun 17, 2003, at 18:21 Europe/Zurich, Julia Collins wrote:

> 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....
Charles McCathieNevile                          Fundación Sidar
charles@sidar.org                                http://www.sidar.org
Received on Thursday, 19 June 2003 03:42:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:24 UTC