I'm not _sure that it's a fix all solution. Absent the ability to
gather and process all of these settings that the end user has, I'm not
sure there exists a perfect solution. Your best bet for this, if it's
a concern might be to use additional style sheets with the AAA (little
A, medium A and big A) links to change out the style.
--- Jacques Le Roux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks Chris,
>
> I did not notice (or did not read thoroughly) this discussion.
>
> From experienced Web designers it seemed that playing with em was
> always disappointments. But if you are sure of your solution it's
> ok to me as I have no time to look in it further...
>
> Jacques
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Chris Howe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <dev@ofbiz.apache.org>; "Jacques Le Roux"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2007 4:39 PM
> Subject: Re: HTML/CSS Best Practices
>
>
> > Hey Jacques,
> >
> > Thanks for that excerpt. In reading that did you find any
> discussion
> > on the
> > BODY{
> > font-size:62.5%;
> > }
> > trick?
> >
> > This dampens much of the default font size extremes (though doesn't
> > completely eliminate it). This sets the default size of the page
> to
> > the following depending on the user's settings:
> >
> > Default|Result
> > 16px | 10px
> > 14px | 8.75px
> > 12px | 7.5px
> > 10px | 6.25px
> >
> > Notice it's only decreasing font-size by 1.25 px per 2 px step.
> >
> > --- Jacques Le Roux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > Adrian, all,
> > >
> > > I do not agree on em being best practise let me explain why with
> this
> > > extract from chapter 13 of Jeffrey Zeldman's "Designing With
> > > Web Standards" (as I said before it's a little verbose):
> > >
> > >
> >
>
==============================================================================
> > > The Heartbreak of Ems
> > > Accessibility advocates and the creators of CSS have long agreed
> that
> > > ems are the way to go. Sadly, they are often the way to go to
> > > hell. Listen to all the lectures, read all the books and
> articles,
> > > and you will come away feeling dirty and ashamed if you use
> > > anything other than ems to specify your type sizes. But the
> beautiful
> > > theory of ems breaks down in coarse practice and not only in
> > > browsers that fail to support the common default font size.
> > >
> > > On a minor note, there is the problem of old browsers. Netscape 4
> > > ignores em and ex units that are applied to text, although it
> > > bizarrely respects these units when they are used for line
> height.
> > > IE3 treats em units as pixels. Thus, 2em is mistranslated as 2
> > > pixels tall. Almost no one uses IE3 any more, but still.
> > >
> > > Likewise, older browsers often bungle inheritance on nested
> elements
> > > sized with em units. Because fewer and fewer people are stuck
> > > with Netscape 4, we won't waste your time going into the details
> of
> > > that browser's mishandling of relatively sized nested elements.
> > > Just know that if you need to support outdated browsers and if
> you
> > > use em units (especially on nested elements), you are letting
> > > yourself and your users in for a world of pain [13.11].
> > >
> > > 13.11. What's in an em? Not cross-platform, cross-browser size
> > > consistency, that's for sure
> > > (http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/box_lesson/font/).
> > >
> > >
> > > User Choices and Em Units
> > > A more common problem with em units is that users often downsize
> > > their default font size settings as noted several times in this
> > > chapter. Mac users switch back to 12px/72ppi; Windows folks set
> their
> > > browsers' View: Text Size menu to "small" rather than
> > > "medium." Such changes make any text sized below 1em smaller than
> it
> > > is supposed to be and might make it too small to be read. In
> > > 2002, CSS/DHTML expert Owen Briggs tested every available text
> sizing
> > > method across a vast range of browsers and platforms to find
> > > out what worked and what failed. 264 screen shots later, despite
> > > hoping to prove that ems were always viable, he had actually
> > > discovered the opposite [13.11].
> > >
> > > Ems work well as long as you never spec your text below the
> user's
> > > default size. Ems work well as long as users never adjust their
> > > preferences. But most designers and many clients favor smaller
> type
> > > and many designs require them. Many users consider the 16px
> > > default size uncomfortable for normal reading and change their
> > > preference settings accordingly. When em units are used to design
> > > sites, the designer's and user's shrinkage efforts compound on
> one
> > > another, resulting in text that might be hard to read or even
> > > entirely illegible.
> > >
> > > When you set small type with em units (or percentages), you run
> afoul
> > > of a universe of unknowable, uncontrollable user preference
> > > settings. What looks elegant on your monitor might be mouse type
> on
> > > your users'. If you commit this act in the name of
> > > accessibility, you're kidding yourself.
> > >
> > > In the i3Forum site, we tried to minimize the potential damage by
> > > sticking to sizes that were only slightly smaller than 1em. But
> > > the user's mileage might vary.
> > >
> > > Alternatively (http://www.alistapart.com/stories/dao/), client
> and
> > > aesthetics permitting, you can design all your sites using only
> > > normal or oversized type set with em units. This will avoid
> > > size-based accessibility problems. But very few designs work with
> a
> > > default size of 16px and higherand some users will complain that
> your
> > > site is ugly because the text is "too big." If the moral seems
> > > to be that you can't please everybody, the additional moral is
> that
> > > you are even less likely to please everybody when you use em
> > > units to specify your text size.
> > >
> > > Some standards evangelists and some accessibility advocates will
> > > choose to disbelieve what we've said, just as some people choose
> to
> > > believe that the 1969 moon landing was a hoax. Was it T.S. Eliot
> or
> > > Woody Allen who said, "Too much reality is not what the people
> > > want."? Whoever said it first, he was right.
> > >
> > > So what do the people want? They might want the two methods
> described
> > > in the remainder of this chapter, which seem to work better
> > > than any we have considered so far, although even the methods we
> are
> > > about to discuss have their problems.
> > >
> >
>
==============================================================================
> > >
> > > The 2 methods he advocates are "Pixels Prove Pixels Work" and
> "The
> > > Font Size Keyword Method" (Fahrner's Method). If you are
> > > interested by those I may put a link on my site for this stuffes
> > > (perhaps I should have better do that for extract above also)
> > >
> > > Jacques
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Adrian Crum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > To: <dev@ofbiz.apache.org>
> > > Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 8:51 PM
> > > Subject: RFC: HTML/CSS Best Practices
> > >
> > >
> > > > The proposed HTML/CSS coding guidelines/best practices. My
> comments
> > > are in
> > > > brackets [] - they are not intended to be a part of the final
> > > version.
> > > >
> > > > These guidelines are short and to the point. I could go into
> more
> > > detail, but
> > > > then that would be bordering on writing a book about web
> design.
> > > Instead, I took
> > > > the approach that the reader has already read books on HTML and
> > > CSS, and they
> > > > just need some basic guidelines.
> > > >
> > > > Your comments and suggestions are welcome. Once everyone has
> > > commented, I will
> > > > post the final version on the Wiki.
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------
> > > > OFBiz HTML and CSS Best Practices
> > > > ---------------------------------
> > > >
>
=== message truncated ===
