- From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 07:52:34 +0000 (GMT)
- To: www-style@w3.org
> Well, only if your intention is that the webpage should scale according = > to=20 > the viewport. This might make the content too small to read, and it = > might=20 This is a general problem with your proposal, as the screen may be too small for your design. Moreover, I would point out that screen widths have never been the basis of default widths in CSS, only ever viewport (by which I really mean window) widths. (Note that on X, windows can be larger than the screen. That would also be sensible for PDAs.) You should note that, whilst it might appear to be relative, from the point of view of the Web Content Accessibility guidelines, fonts described in terms of your unit should be considered to be absolutely sized, and therefore require the provision of alternate means of access, under many legislative regimes (and moral codes). Using sizes relative to the containing block means that the design better tolerates style overrides and failures to take, because the relative sizing is corrected to fit its immediate container's actual size, not that of the whole document. There is a catch though, in that there are contexts where the size of the container is defined by the size of the content, so one would need to make sure that there were good disambiguating rules. > be better to have the user to choose between useing full size or = > scrolling. Most users who don't work full screen would prefer not to have the designer force them into such a choice. > Actually not a good Idea.=20 > One point is that the web-designer should be able to use the pixel sizes = Design in pixels sizes is normally a sign of bad web design. It means one is designing to particular technologies, and without regard to possible vision defects in the user, rather than designing to communicate in a medium that was intended to be universal. However, given that even your proposal requires fallback CSS rules to be coded in older units (so you still need to calculate using decimal fractions of em's etc.), I would suggest that a better approach would be to extend the definition of numbers in CSS to include rational numbers, so that you can code something like 10/1440. On the other hand, it's probably really a job for authoring software, and you can always write a fairly simple preprocessor that can convert to standard number forms. > in the design that corresponds to the screen resolution he actually is = > useing.=20 As I said, designing in pixels is wrong.
Received on Thursday, 20 February 2003 02:52:39 UTC