W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > October 2010

Re: about the use of pixels as a unit for typography

From: Shelby Moore <shelby@coolpage.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 11:18:11 -0400
Message-ID: <3a70ddc21e5af88bb8e4906b86e1e894.squirrel@sm.webmail.pair.com>
To: "Felix Miata" <mrmazda@earthlink.net>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
Disagree because em is not suitable as a general metric for sizing,
because it is relative to current font, not to the current
psychophysically consistent unit (as I proposed in prior email reply to
Peter).

Let's not conflate em with the psychophysically consistent unit. Please
see my prior reply to Peter.


> On 2010/10/12 23:13 (GMT+1100) Peter Moulder composed:
>
>> Using the em unit would sound like a good choice, but I'm told that it
>> too has
>> problems if many of your audience have an unsuitable default font size
>> and
>> won't change it.
>
> Of course there are exceptions to every rule. Some people simply will not
> do
> what they should do. This is no argument against sizing in em. All other
> options are worse.
>
> The only putatively legitimate reason not to size in em is the recurring
> image quality issue, to which I repeat should virtually always take a back
> seat to legibility, and has hope of eventual solution if web stylists quit
> avoiding the use of em for sizing.
>
> Every stylist should use em to decide how the puzzle pieces relate to each
> other, including sizing of both text and images, and every user should
> decide
> the em size that produces an acceptable comfort level. No better method
> exists, or is likely to exist during my lifetime.
> --
> "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
> words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)
>
>  Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
>
> Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2010 15:18:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:32 GMT