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

On 2010/10/12 11:18 (GMT-0400) Shelby Moore composed:

> 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).

You, as most web stylists, seem to forget that CSS is a language of
suggestion, not demand. The user is supposed to retain ultimate control,
while the evolution of CSS and web design seem to want to relegate that
ultimate control to mere lip service.

A corollary to above is that a major advantage web has over print is the
users' putative ability to control size, and thus enjoy legibility and
comfort in reading that might otherwise be impossible.

Pt instead of em might do just as well for users, but only if users were
offered an easy and readily apparent method to determine how big is the pt on
their systems. This may or may not come to pass, but in the meantime em does
work for users, being easy enough to adjust in most cases.

Set the browsers you design with to the psychophysic size that suits you, and
then your em-sized styling should work satisfactorily for the vast majority
of users who have their browsers correctly configured for their environments.
The bonus is you show them respect, and give them one less reason to hit the
back button.

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

I looked there first.

FWIW, full-quoted top posting is disrespectful. If you're not replying point
by point, what's the point of quoting but to multiply the size of the archive?
-- 
"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 15:49:42 UTC