RE: pt vs px for font sizes.

There are two potential problems with the named sizes too. Where users want
to increase the size a lot, the differences in size become too great.

And in browsers which followed the original CSS recommendation on how big the
named sizes should be the differences are already too much for many people.

In each case it means the user really eneds to set up their own fairly
complete style sheet for sizes :( Not impossible, but a frustration. The
AWARE project at the HTML Writers' Guild was collecting style sheets that
would be helpful for users:

http://aware.hwg.org/styles/

(Oh, and please don't make normal text bigger or smaller than the user's
default. Although some people can't change their default size, it is
frustrating for people who have set a size that they need.)

cheers

Chaals

On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Jon Hanna wrote:

>
>> What do people feel is best, px, pt, or some other CSS varient?
>
>Points and pixels are both dreadful. Points are at least theoretically
>accessible, since theoretically one can adjust the mapping between points
>and pixels in such a way as to ensure the readability of most commonly used
>sizes (8pt+), but currently such support is rare or absent. Pixels give you
>the same issues as text-as-images do for people with poor vision. I wouldn't
>rule out pixels if the size was so large as to guarantee that *everyone*
>could see it, which could conceivably be something you would want in a
>design, but isn't likely to arise very often.
>
>The best sizes to use are the named sizes.
>

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  tel: +61 409 134 136
SWAD-E http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe ------------ WAI http://www.w3.org/WAI
 21 Mitchell street, FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia  fax(fr): +33 4 92 38 78 22
 W3C, 2004 Route des Lucioles, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France

Received on Tuesday, 10 September 2002 06:19:32 UTC