On 06/06/16 14:06 (GMT-0400) Anthony Baker apparently typed: > Have been looking to different font sizing methods and decided to go > with a method suggested by Dan Cederholm (as I recall) )
Poor choice. Dan Cederholm isn't most people using your designs; he isn't a normal user: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/design_priorities.html . If Dan Cederholm likes small text, he should set his browser so his browser displays text smaller. That's why browsers have a user adjustable preference setting. > where the font > size is defined in the BODY tag Bad place. There's no good reason to set a size other than 100% (or medium or 1em) in the body rule. 100% is how you respect your visitors, using the size they prefer as your base size, from which you do your contextual sizing with other selectors. When you set some other size in body you're telling your visitors they did something wrong, disagreeing with their preference, which is rude. Everyone's browser defaults are wrong, right? Wrong: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/bigdefaults.html > and then percentages are used to > increase or decrease the size. EMs are used for line height. Em for line height is another bad idea. It really serves no good purpose, and should either be removed from the CSS3 spec, or its definition altered. http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/line-height-inherit.html shows why. > Example of the base setting: > body {font-size: small;} > This has worked fine across Safari and IE browsers and should work on > Firefox, but I've noticed that there's a distinct difference in the way > Firefox is rendering text -- both on the Mac and on IE. Maybe you see the result of a settings difference. Are you using a laptop? What's your DPI set to? The base size in most browsers is DPI dependant, with the user preference size set in pt. Firefox isn't, with preference set in px. > Does anyone know why this happens when IE and Safari work so well? It > may be a small issue, but damned if it isn't annoying. Overall, font > sizes seem smaller and line spacing tighter. In which? How about screenshots showing us exactly what you see that bothers you? NAICT, Safari & FF are a match. > Even on a site like the NY Times, this sort of thing seems to be > happening here and there -- particularly in the text of the body of an > article. Various browsers have differing rounding methods. Various font subsystems calculate leading slightly differently. Couple those differing methods with the differences in the way various font families scale, and you're insured against everything always looking the same in every browser. Take a look at http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Font/font-rounding.html in all your browsers and it is clear they don't all round the same. Generally, IE truncates (but not always), while Gecko uses mathematical rounding (often poorly - see https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=177805). See also: http://lists.css-discuss.org/mailman/private/css-d/2006-May/064598.html > Does anyone have a favorite method? body {font-size: 100%} (or just nothing, saving a dozen bytes per load). > Would love to get something that's accessible and as consistent as > possible. "Accessible" means you don't create artificial visitor difficulty by applying arbitrary adjustments to text size in body. "small" in body applies a size reduction from user preferred size to every letter you don't change elsewhere, resulting in increased reading difficulty, and thus decreased accessibility. Plus, it shows disrespect of your visitors. -- "All have sinned & fall short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
