Sent by Scott Glasgow on 30 August 2005 22:10
Felix Miata wrote:
<<::SNIP::>>
> Small equals approximately 88.75%, so the result due to the cascade is
> the p text is 88.75% X 80% X 90%, or 63.9%. To the poor IE user
> already requiring "larger" or "largest" text in the first place,
> you're making it (unless a rare user who knows how to locate and
> select "ignore font sizes specified on web pages") impossible to make
> comfortably large enough to read if large enough to read at all:
> http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/SS/crysanct2.png
<<::SNIP::>>
This brings up a question I have been wondering about. What is the consensus
(if there is a consensus :-) on the best way to provide resizable
(accessible) text while still permitting reasonably consistent layout
without torturous CSS? Font-size keywords? Relative sizes? I've found and
read some online resources on the subject and I believe that I would lean
toward font-size keywords, but I'm interested in finding if there are more
reasons to choose a different method which I haven't encountered.
Cheers,
Scott
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [EMAIL-REMOVED]]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
