On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 10:30 AM, Davies, Elizabeth <elizabeth_dav...@gallup.com> wrote: > I've not used PX sizing for well over a decade. We did recently change to > using REM's off of a % on the HTML. > > The site in question uses a % on the HTML and REM's on the typography with PX > in a legacy IE-only (for those that don't support REM). I can't post an URL > as its internal, but it uses similar base to > http://www.gallupstrengthsfinder.com (except the GSC site cascades PX to > REM's instead of having a separate conditional, the internal site has them > separated out with a conditional.) > > html { font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; > font-size: 62.5%; > -ms-text-size-adjust: 100%; > -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%; > } > > P (etc etc) { > font-size: 1.6rem; > line-height: 1.5; > } > > ELIZABETH DAVIES > Input | Intellection | Learner | Achiever | Belief >
I'm sure Felix can give an in depth explanation as to what's happening, but I have to ask... What's your reasoning for using 62.5% on the HTML element, then sizing body copy back UP with 1.6 rems? What is accomplished over 100% on HTML and 1rem on body copy? Did you try this to see if FF behaves better? As I said, Felix can give far more knowledge on this than I can, but to my eye, you are working harder to achieve the same thing and 100% on the HTML respects a users default browser settings. -- Tom Livingston | Senior Front-End Developer | Media Logic | ph: 518.456.3015x231 | fx: 518.456.4279 | mlinc.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/
