Sent by lon.kraemer on 26 August 2002 23:11
> I've found in testing so far that I'm getting fairly
> reliable results across browsers by setting the font-size
> on the body to 100% (i.e. the user's default) in CSS,
> and then using ems for text size after that. e.g.
> Without wanting to start a Holy War, what drawbacks
> have others who use this method found? What drawbacks
> in this method do list members know of?
I'm with you there Duncan. Is this Camp 2a Tim?
The only drawback I can think of has to do with designing without
considering the ramifications of "the user's default" that you allude
to. For a 54 year old, I'm rather well sighted (20/15) and typically
retain my browser's default setting of "medium". As a designer though,
on IE6-W2KP, I even find that a bit too large, so I'll use 85-90% as my
body declaration (which is actually a bit larger than the browser
menubar size).
With this in mind, and being conscientious of those lesser endowed, I
try to create designs with sufficient "space" to accommodate those whom
may have their default size set to "largest". IOW, I leave room to grow
without the effect of having the layout "explode" into something
undesired.
Of course, there are limits, but this attitude can reduce the
"hair-pulling" fits that pixel-perfect designers often experience.
Don't get me wrong. This is not all that simple. It takes a concrete
knowledge of "web typography". It becomes imperative to make almost
every CSS sizing declaration fluid... font size, line-height (especially
unit vs. multiplier), width, margin, padding, etc.
More than you asked for?
--
Lon Kraemer
-----------------------------------------
