- From: Windy Road <tom@windyroad.org>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 17:29:35 +1000
- To: www-style@w3.org
On 06/06/07, David Woolley <forums@david-woolley.me.uk> wrote: > > Yes. That's the point. It wouldn't make sense to have width 400px and > > font-size:auto ad it leaves no way for a browser to calculate a correct > > font-size. > > I had assumed that you were doing a 2D fit. Ah, now I understand you're concerns. No, the proposal is just for the font-size to be based on the width of the element (rather than the other way around). > > This is likely to result in very small fonts > > > How so? Just say you have a browser window, which is 1024px across. If > > the properties above were applied to the body, the width of the body > > (including the margins) would be 54em, resulting in a font size of ~ > > 19px. At a width of 800px, the font-size would be ~ 15px and at 640px > > it would be ~12px. In the example I provided, the text is actually > > more > > And with typical PDAs, at 150px, it would be of the order of 3px. More > realistically, given the font sizes that seem to be preferred by > designers, one would start at 7px and reduce to about 1px, i.e. font > sizes tend to start at the smallest size that is renderable as > recognizable characters (and assumes good vision on the part of the user!). Let's run with that though. Imagine you have no minimum font-size, then you're right on a 150px PDA, you won't be able to read a thing. However you will get a very good overview of the page. Now say the PDA has a zoom facility (hmm.. kind of like the effect demoed on the iPhone), then user can zoom in to the bit they are interested in and start reading. Cheers, -- Tom Howard http://windyroad.org
Received on Wednesday, 6 June 2007 07:29:40 UTC