On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Jens Hoffrichter < jens.hoffrich...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We have worked now for a couple of projects with Blueprint, > http://www.blueprintcss.org/ - I can really recommend that, it makes > I really like the ideas of Blueprint and also the 960 one mentioned earlier. But both suffer from a pretty fundamental flaw: they cannot scale. They make pretty sites so long as you don't scale them too much. (Try it here<http://www.blueprintcss.org/tests/parts/grid.html> .) I don't mean "scale" like a database scales; I mean when you zoom-in on the browser to make the type and other elements bigger, the grids fall apart. They mostly fall apart gracefully, but what makes them attractive disappears (the vertical meter and so-forth). In my opinion, any decent css web grid system needs to be done in ems or percentages so this can work. Also, a nitpick about blueprint; it assumes a very small pixel size to start with (12px). Smaller text (like the demo sidebar here<http://www.blueprintcss.org/tests/parts/sample.html>) is even smaller. On some displays (like a 17" 1920x1200 laptop) this is way too tiny. Of course most people don't have these displays, and as implied by the "960" most are still targeting 1024x768. But still. 12px is too small at 96dpi, let alone at higher ppi. Zoom-ability matters to me, and I think it should matter to anybody laying out pages. There is a derivative of the 960 one that is purports to be scalable... which I discovered today because of Doug earlier. Thanks! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "pylons-discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to pylons-disc...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to pylons-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en.
