W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2012

Re: [css3-values] Physical length units

From: Matthew Wilcox <elvendil@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:12:43 +0000
Message-ID: <CAMCRKiJtMi0GwX9Cq9cnGqxqycCyWT0nS=hifd2JyRWcx0KCog@mail.gmail.com>
To: Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net>
Cc: www-style@w3.org
I disagree.

Regardless, this is off topic.

On 22 February 2012 11:02, Felix Miata <mrmazda@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On 2012/02/22 08:45 (GMT) Matthew Wilcox composed:
>
>
>> Well that's never going to happen.
>
>
> That what?
>
>
>>  Designers size text, and I think
>> it's their moral responsibility to do so in fact.
>
>
> Because the discussion is about sizing on the root element, changing the
> base size, the meaning of what you wrote is that it's the moral
> responsibility of designers to disrespect visitors by sizing text on the
> root element, to either disregard entirely or presume wrong the visitors'
> default settings. That's an oxymoron.
>
>
>>  The browser can
>> re-scale what we designers feel is an appropriate default, so there is
>> no loss for anyone.
>
>
> Of course there is a loss. Disrespecting defaults means the visitor loses
> time and is aggravated in being required to apply a defensive action in
> response to your offensive assumption that it's even possible for you to
> know his default is wrong coupled, with asserting your ridiculous assumption
> via a change in base font size. The loss is more than you probably imagine.
> Many people who could and would use a computer don't or won't due to the
> bother and difficulties the pervasiveness of tiny web fonts brings them.
>
> Again, changing the base size is saying the defaults are wrong, something no
> designer can possibly know. And it's saying it's not OK for users to
> "re"-size in advance by conforming their defaults to their own requirements,
> but instead should reserve that action via zoom for individual pages after
> loading them, which to you is OK, and never mind that browsers have minimum
> size options that when used destroy your contextual sizing.
>
>
>> Consider fonts where the x-height is considerably different.
>
>
> Different than what? Absent scripting gyrations, which is outside the scope
> of CSS, you can't know what my default's x-height is any more than you know
> where my tax collector's grandfather was born.
>
>
>>  I know a
>> few where the default '16px' browsers use is visually far too small to
>> be comparable with the standard fonts.
>
>
> Again, http://tobyinkster.co.uk/article/web-fonts/ addresses your assertion.
>
>
>> It's my duty to adjust that.
>
>
> Right, a "duty" to be disrespectful, since you don't know the meaning of
> size under this roof, my neighbor's roof or the anyone else's other than
> your own.
>
>
>> I do it by editing font sizes on html, and it would be wrong of me not to.
>
>
> Except as for correcting the legacy IE bug, it's always semantically wrong
> to apply any style whatsoever on the HTML element. And it's always rude to
> assume the visitors' defaults are wrong.
> http://fm.no-ip.com/Auth/rudeweb.html
>
> --
> "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 ** a11y rocks!
>
> Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/
>
Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2012 12:13:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:51 GMT