This a curious subject that you've brought up. So to satisfy my curiosity as to the size of an em and an ex, I tried the most boring experiment possible: http://cssdesk.com/aHUQR
From my this, it really visually appears as if the em is not an "m" or an "M" in even the most plain typeface. That's when the text is centered. If it's left or right aligned, you can fit in two more "m". However, the x is definitely an "x" and not an "X". (at least in Chrome on a Mac) more interestingly, I looked at the "computed size" in Chrome, and it reported that the div had a calculated size of 140px. Now I really feel ignorant on the subject of font-size calculation. Good job! (that's a compliment, not sarcasm). </email> <signature id="paceaux"> Frank M Taylor http://frankmtaylor.com @paceaux </signature> On Jan 24, 2012, at 1:06 PM, Paceaux wrote: > I think other comments have kind of addressed that for most of us in this > discussion group, we knew that the em isn't one "M". > > Regarding your article, I have a few thoughts: > 1. Experiments have results. For the sake of your readers, provide the > results of the experiment. > 2. explain the experiment. I can see you've bordered out the width and > height, but for a reader unfamiliar with em calculation, they won't > understand the relationship that pixels will have to it. > 3. I'm struggling to understand your thesis or argument. Is it that the em is > not the best letter to measure by? Or is it that the em isn't always an > "em"? The statement "I have a really big m" doesn't support either of the > arguments. That's fine if it doesn't, but you should clearly, in the first > two sentences, state your argument/thesis. > > A few other things to consider: > > "em" is generally thought as the relative width of the relevant font. The > CSS2 spec, however, doesn't say that explicitly. It refers to the "em square" > "ex" is relative height of the relevant font. > Some UAs may base x-height on a measurement between "o" and the baseline. > I've read where the em is calculated based on the "default" font size. so you > may want to rerun the experiment with a default font. > > Also: > I think if you're making the argument that an em isn't always an "M", why not > also check to see if an "ex" is an "x" > > > > > </email> > <signature id="paceaux"> > Frank M Taylor > http://frankmtaylor.com > @paceaux > </signature> > > On Jan 23, 2012, at 11:23 PM, Ghodmode wrote: > >> I wrote a new blog entry inspired by past discussions on WebDesign-L >> and CSS-D: "I Hava a Really Big 'm'" >> >> <blockquote> >> Contemporary wisdom says that we should use the relative unit ‘em‘ >> for most, if not all, element measurements in web design. >> >> So, how big is an ‘em’? I set up a small experiment to tell me just that. >> >> Continue reading → >> http://www.ghodmode.com/blog/2012/01/i-have-a-really-big-m/ >> </blockquote> >> >> I appreciate any comments, questions, or complaints. >> >> Thank you. >> >> -- >> Ghodmode >> http://www.ghodmode.com >> ______________________________________________________________________ >> css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] >> http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d >> List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ >> List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html >> Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/ > > ______________________________________________________________________ > css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] > http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d > List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ > List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html > Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/ ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
