- From: Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net>
- Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 11:46:55 -0500
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 2010/01/06 22:08 (GMT-0500) Ambrose LI composed: > If you have inline images that act as text, you want the text to be > sized in px to accomodate the images, because doing it the other way > wouldn't be degradable. You want pt to act as a unit. _You_ as stylist may want to accommodate images as text. I as user would rather there be no such thing as images as text, since they're a major accessibility/usability obstacle. Virtually every financial or retail web site I visit uses text in images, and they're almost universally functionally illegible. Images _can_ be sized in em, just as text can be. Images that are upsized this way and degraded in the process are _no_ worse than images too small for the original quality to be enjoyed, which is the situation high resolution users typically and too often face now. > If you complain about text being unreadable because the font sizes > become too small when the screen resolution is too high, this is not > an argument against using pt, but rather for the use of pt. No it isn't, unless the user gets to decide how big a pt actually is. You may well know how big a pt should be, but you have no idea how it relates to an ideal size for any particular normal user, whose screen size and resolution you are in no position to know or need to know. OTOH, a root em is presumptively an ideal unit, so why not use it, and forget about pt for screen media altogether? -- "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams, 2nd US President Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
Received on Thursday, 7 January 2010 16:47:20 UTC