RE: Relative Font Size

John

LOL... humble or otherwise I like _that_ argument. Practicality and consistency in presentation matters is probably not going to hurt a site's accessibility one iota. However, the original question still remains unanswered; is there any accessibility-based reason for using em rather than % to specify font sizes? 

--J.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Foliot - WATS.ca [mailto:foliot@wats.ca]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 4:12 PM
> To: Scarlett Julian (ED); w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Relative Font Size
> 
> 
> Julian,
> 
> May I humbly point you to 
> http://wats.ca/resources/relativesizing/20.  In this case, by 
> using ems I can apply the sizing to more than just fonts.  To 
> that end then, ems would be more "practical"?
> 
> Just my $.03 (which given the current US/Canadian exchange 
> rate is about $.02...)
> 
> JF
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On
> > Behalf Of Scarlett Julian (ED)
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 9:33 AM
> > To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Relative Font Size
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 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 Håkon 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.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
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 Thursday, 19 June 2003 03:43:46 UTC