Den 20.04.2014 04:14, Tedd Sperling wrote:
The thing that was missing is I should have added that *all* measurements are
done in ems and thus no scaling difference between text and images thereby
holding the layout static.
Which is what I object to. "Text-only zoom" should not be made to behave
as "Full-Page zoom". Besides, "static" can be understood as the opposite
of "responsive", which, if I understand you correctly, makes your
practice both counterproductive and hopelessly out of date when we look
at the wide range of screens/devices most layouts have to work
reasonable well across.
Having images scale with text-size is not what I would call good practice, as that makes
"text-only zooming" pretty useless for end-user.
While respecting your opinion (I've read your post for many years and you
provide great advice).
I wouldn't call it "Good" or "Bad" practice. For example, if you have poor
eyesight (i.e., older) and just want to see the page larger by using zoom, then it's good practice
-- don't you think?
Nope. Browsers' "Full-page zoom" works that way regardless, and that
built-in functionality doesn't need any "help" from us. All you have
achieved by sizing images in 'em', is to literally disable "text-only
zoom" in those browsers that have that option.
Knowingly disabling /any/ well-working browser option is bad practice in
my book, and it is way more confusing to people of all ages and
(dis)abilities than what you further down call "broken" layout.
I only define 'max-width' for images, to make sure they stay within available
space regardless of screen/window/page width, and for this I use '%' of
container width. The rest I leave to end-users.
That's one way to do it. But I still think that practice can confuse older users. I know
if I were to zoom something so I could see it better (as I often do), it would confuse me
if suddenly the *layout* became "broken" and text/graphics didn't hold their
respective positions.
Anything one isn't used to, can be confusing at first. Age isn't a good
excuse here, although one can expect that most younger people do get
past "the state of being confused" a few seconds quicker than older
people ... at least that is my experience in working with and discussing
these things with end-users of all ages and (dis)abilities - only seconds...
The only time I size images in 'em', is when a really small image of
"text" shall line up with the text that surrounds it. Like for instance
my own signature at bottom of articles I write. That, and similar "minor
adjustments of images using 'em'", is something I also sometimes find
necessary in order to make everything /appear/ correct in context - even
if it actually isn't.
But what do I know? I'm just an old guy.
Well, I am not sure which one of us should say "welcome to the club" :-)
PS: However, please note that Browsers' zooms scale different. IOW, zoom levels
(i.e., magnification) for one Browser doesn't always match the zoom level for
another -- there are scaling differences. Or least that's what my old test have
shown -- however, those test were taken many years ago.
Same full-page zoom function, but different "step-height", yes. Does not
really matter, as most end-users use only one browser on each device
they use, so it is always the same behavior on each screen to each of
them - unless someone breaks it.
Only we designers/developers/coders compare between browsers on a
somewhat regular basis, and I can't see any real problems going from
"Full-Page zooming" in one browser to "Full-Page zooming" in another, in
browsers on my test-lists that have such a functionality...
http://www.gunlaug.com/contents/basics/compatible.html
regards
Georg
______________________________________________________________________
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/
