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: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 09:57:23 +0100
To: "John Foliot - WATS.ca" <foliot@wats.ca>, "Scarlett Julian (ED)" <Julian.Scarlett@sheffield.gov.uk>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BB173983.159F%julia@we3.co.uk>

And, as my last, somewhat garbled contribution to this thread tried to
express (and apologies for the garble - I had had my head in css for over 20
hours.....) that is extremely useful if, for example you are containing a
title in a div and want the div to expand nicely in relation to the font
size when people resize their fonts.

just my 0.25em.

Julia


----- 
we3

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



On 18/6/03 4:11 pm, "John Foliot - WATS.ca" <foliot@wats.ca> wrote:

> 
> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Thursday, 19 June 2003 04:54:58 GMT

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