On 02/03/2011 06:15 PM, David Nadlinger wrote:
This is exactly the issue I was talking about, using relative font sizes in their current incarnation doesn't solve any problems per se.
It does, as I explained in my other post to you. Repeating an assertion is not a logical argument.
Also, it's precisely the point where one's ideal conceptions and reality differ. Just imagine what would happen if Wikipedia used a font-size of 1: Millions of users would complain that the body copy is way too large for something encyclopedic in nature.
Imagine if they used a font-size of 1 and hardly anybody complained. You just made up some crazy number.
I'd like to know exactly why Wikipedia chose the font size they did. I looked around and couldn't find any reason for it. They did at one time do a usability study, but it didn't mention anything about font sizes. I'm willing to bet this decision was poorly made by scant evidence and personal preference of a few.
In the end, web development is not about constructing an ideal(istic) world, but about catering end user needs. If you can unite the two goals, that's great, but ignoring reality usually doesn't quite work out well…
Exactly so, but the problem is that a certain set of web designers have fooled themselves into a fantasy that they have actually come to some practical solution by settling on "standard" pixel sizes, when they have chosen a solution that cannot work and fails in practice.
At least when you use default sizes and flow layout it works in a usable manner, meaning zoom works properly and the text should be at a readable size. It also allows for an approach where at least a user has a standard way to display their preferred font size by default instead of by the whims of some designer who treats the web as a print medium.
