On 2014-04-07 16:59 (GMT+0200) Georg composed:
Davies, Elizabeth composed:
Correct that example URL to https://www.gallupstrengthscenter.com/ ... The same inflation occurs on the GSC site. And it happens whether I put everything to em's, strip out the IE cascade, put all the media queries to em's or rem's.
The design stays proportional and does not break, it just gets larger.
Not sure, but I have a feeling the answer to what is happening can be found here... http://www.gunlaug.no/contents/wd_1_03_04.html
If so, it is an old problem that reappears in a new form, caused by the fact that you start small on font-size and then size up further in.
On 2014-04-07 10:41 (GMT-0400) Tom Livingston composed:
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.
For several reasons, I'm not going to say much of invest time in this particular thread. Among the reasons:
1: I think Georg is probably on the right track. http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/Clagnut/bbcnSS.html has more on this one not a whole lot younger than Georg's original edition.
2: https://www.gallupstrengthscenter.com/Content/screen2014.css is 105510 bytes. That represents an enormously complicated and IMO grossly excessive attempt to control the uncontrollable.
3: https://www.gallupstrengthscenter.com/Content/screen2014.css contains px contraints that are not superceded by rem/em constraints for the better browsers, plus a number of other usages of px sizing.
4: https://www.gallupstrengthscenter.com/ is not the OP's site, or under her control.
5: http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/daviEliz01-120.png and http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/daviEliz01-144.png show it not happening here using configs I commonly test with when expecting screen density impacts. In both browsers, default size is identical @20px for 120DPI, @24px for 144DPI.
IMO that much CSS weight, combined with mixing px sizes and other, combined with media queries, and combined with Clagnut sizing methodology, is asking to be driven nuts.
I suggest to start thinking like a puter instead of a human. By that I mean the decimal system is fine for common measurements by ordinary humans. But, puters use binary, and its octal and hexidecimal extensions, which suggests humans working extensively with puters are better off adapting, using computer math instead of the decimal system for sizing.
Computer fonts are happiest using harmonics of the 8 bit byte, which is why 96 DPI and 1/4 multiples of it (120, 144, 168, 192, etc.) work well, all being evenly divisible by 8. This harmonizes nicely with the most commonly shipped 16px browser default text size. Embracing this fortune instead of applying the convoluted X.625X1.6 methodology should pay off exponentially.
-- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.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/
