Sent by Dominik_Dröscher on 4 May 2003 13:01
Donna Casey wrote:
> Which I think is a problem with static widths--if the user changes the text
> size, it can get ugly--and hard to read because it affects the
> character/word count in a line.
This is why CSS3 needs a "ch" value for character width. "em"
already does a pretty good job in ensuring that if the user
changes the text size, the width of the column adjusts. But as
mentioned above it is still not 100% related to actual character
count.
http://area51.ddblog.org/ is an example where I am using "em"
values for almost everything (even bordes), ensuring that the
layout does not break down once a User resizes the text. The left
text column has a width of 30-40em (I am still looking for the
optimum). The right text column is fluid for the moment.
I succeeds although the top tabs make problems once someone zooms
in too close (>250% on 1600x1200) or rounding errors are present.
And as Tony Bounds put it nicely, "Users don't tend to be
typography aware.". If I go to a site as a visitor, even though I
am interested in this topic, and it is part of the job direction I
want to pursue, I don't want to hassle with the typographie. I
want the information.
--
Dominik
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [EMAIL-REMOVED]]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/