RE: [WSG] Pixel to EM conversion
Hi Scott, Thanks it is cool and very useful. I needed a calculator/ tool to convert Dialogue Unit dlu to pixels. Has any one come across such a tool, please let me know. Thanks in advance. Thanks Regards, Mithil Yadav Usability Professional Mastek Ltd. Phone: +91 22 67914545/ 4646 Ext: 2108 Mobile: +91 9820766147 -Original Message- From: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Swabey Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 1:49 PM To: WSG Mailing List Subject: [WSG] Pixel to EM conversion Hi all I came across a very neat, and immensely useful tool online today that converts fixed pixel sizes to their relative em size equivalents. The Em Calculator[1] bases conversions on a specified base pixel conversion ratio, and provides you with immediate calculations for nested child and sibling nodes of the DOM tree. Very cool! [1] http://riddle.pl/emcalc/ -- Scott Swabey Design Development Director - Lafinboy Productions www.lafinboy.com | www.thought-after.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** MASTEK Making a valuable difference Mastek in NASSCOM's 'India Top 20' Software Service Exporters List. In the US, we're called MAJESCOMASTEK ~~ Opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual and not that of Mastek Limited, unless specifically indicated to that effect. Mastek Limited does not accept any responsibility or liability for it. This e-mail and attachments (if any) transmitted with it are confidential and/or privileged and solely for the use of the intended person or entity to which it is addressed. Any review, re-transmission, dissemination or other use of or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. This e-mail and its attachments have been scanned for the presence of computer viruses. It is the responsibility of the recipient to run the virus check on e-mails and attachments before opening them. If you have received this e-mail in error, kindly delete this e-mail from all computers. ~~ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Pixel to Em conversion.
Thank you, but there seems to be more to it than that. I've put width:220px; on #sidebar and margin-right:220px; on #content, but the design breaks badly. I think I need to set some % or em units on the header and menu, but I don't quite understand how to. The header has a middle gif that repeats on the X-axis. There is also a left and right gif to give the rounded corner effect. Each button has two gifs. One that repeats from the left to the right, and on that make up the seperator. How should I set the units for these two elements? RegardsMortenOn 4/27/06, Lachlan Hardy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: morten fjellman wrote: I'm trying to get this layout to work with min- and max-width. The max-width needs to be 880px wide and the min-width must be 680px. I have made the header and menu in such a way that they can be compressed (to a point), but I can't seem to figure out how to set the correct em or %. The right column must have a fixed width of 220px and the main content area must have a flexible width. IE problems with min- and max-width is not an issue on this project.G'day MortenGerardo is right. All you need to do is specify 'width: 200px;' on#sidebar and specify 'margin-right: 220px;' to #content (where the rightmargin equals the width of #sidebar + appropriate amount of whitespace between the columns)Then simply remove your width definition from #content and it will workas I suspect you requireThis reveals some issues with your menu wrapping. And also be wary ofyour final menu item dropdown going off screen to the right :) Let us know if that wasn't what you were afterLachlan Hardy(The Other Lachlan)**The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Pixel to Em conversion.
morten fjellman wrote:
Thank you, but there seems to be more to it than that. I've put
width:220px; on #sidebar and margin-right:220px; on #content, but the
design breaks badly. I think I need to set some % or em units on the
header and menu, but I don't quite understand how to. The header has
a middle gif that repeats on the X-axis. There is also a left and
right gif to give the rounded corner effect. Each button has two
gifs. One that repeats from the left to the right, and on that make
up the seperator. How should I set the units for these two elements?
I came in late on this - after all the irony / had ended :-)
Here's a serious, and working, solution - the Norwegian way:
First: there's no need to convert between units. The browsers can
handle it just fine without /any/ given width-values.
-
1: add...
#container {clear: both;}
...to prevent any breaking in the header/menu part from messing up the
columns below.
2: don't float the middle-section, and let it default to 'width: auto'.
Add a padding and adjust height for it, to prevent 'margin-collapsing'.
#headerMiddle {
background-image:url(middleHe.gif);
background-repeat:repeat-x;
height:169px;
padding-top: 1px;
}
3: change float-direction and reposition the right corner...
#headerRight {
float:right /* use this value */;
background-image:url(rightHea.gif);
background-repeat:no-repeat;
height:170px;
width:20px;
margin-top: -170px /* use this value */;
}
-
I can think of a few ways to improve on this, but the above will work
just fine. Some fine-tuning is needed near the footer though.
I only tested in various Opera and Firefox versions.
regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] Pixel to Em conversion.
Outstanding! :)Thanks a lot! Can I trouble you for an explanation on how to get the menu to compress as well? You don't have to set up the code, but I would be gratefull for a push in the right direction.Regards
MortenOn 4/27/06, Gunlaug Sørtun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
morten fjellman wrote: Thank you, but there seems to be more to it than that. I've put width:220px; on #sidebar and margin-right:220px; on #content, but thedesign breaks badly. I think I need to set some % or em units on the
header and menu, but I don't quite understand how to. The header hasa middle gif that repeats on the X-axis. There is also a left and right gif to give the rounded corner effect. Each button has two
gifs. One that repeats from the left to the right, and on that make up the seperator. How should I set the units for these two elements?I came in late on this - after all the irony / had ended :-)
Here's a serious, and working, solution - the Norwegian way:First: there's no need to convert between units. The browsers canhandle it just fine without /any/ given width-values.-
1: add...#container {clear: both;}...to prevent any breaking in the header/menu part from messing up thecolumns below.2: don't float the middle-section, and let it default to 'width: auto'.
Add a padding and adjust height for it, to prevent 'margin-collapsing'.#headerMiddle {background-image:url(middleHe.gif);background-repeat:repeat-x;height:169px;padding-top: 1px;
}3: change float-direction and reposition the right corner...#headerRight {float:right /* use this value */;background-image:url(rightHea.gif);background-repeat:no-repeat;
height:170px;width:20px;margin-top: -170px /* use this value */;}-I can think of a few ways to improve on this, but the above will workjust fine. Some fine-tuning is needed near the footer though.
I only tested in various Opera and Firefox versions.regardsGeorg--http://www.gunlaug.no**
The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] Pixel to Em conversion.
morten fjellman wrote:
Outstanding! :) Thanks a lot! Can I trouble you for an explanation on
how to get the menu to compress as well? You don't have to set up
the code, but I would be gratefull for a push in the right direction.
Easier to push with a bit of CSS-code :-)
Browsers like it better too.
Manipulating a few width-values in percentages based on wrap-width,
should be enough for such a small width-range.
Changing and adding values to something like...
ul {width: 105%;} /* yes, it is overshooting #wrap */
li {width: 12%;}
.menuPic, .menuPicEnd {width: 100%;}
li li {width: 145px;}
#wrap {overflow-x: hidden;} /* fix the overshot where needed */
...will work.
You'll then have to make sure the last menu-dropdown ul is positioned
within the wrap-area so it doesn't get cut off in Firefox and IE. Giving
that last menu-dropdown ul a 'right: 0;' and some cosmetics, should
solve that.
CSS sure is fun - and it keeps getting funnier ;-)
Ha det morsomt!
regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] Pixel to Em conversion.
I thought I had a good handle on things...until I met you. Thank you .)That hit spot!*imponert!*C.KOn 4/27/06, Gunlaug Sørtun
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:morten fjellman wrote:
Outstanding! :) Thanks a lot! Can I trouble you for an explanation onhow to get the menu to compress as well? You don't have to set up the code, but I would be gratefull for a push in the right direction.
Easier to push with a bit of CSS-code :-)Browsers like it better too.Manipulating a few width-values in percentages based on wrap-width,should be enough for such a small width-range.Changing and adding values to something like...
ul {width: 105%;} /* yes, it is overshooting #wrap */li {width: 12%;}.menuPic, .menuPicEnd {width: 100%;}li li {width: 145px;}#wrap {overflow-x: hidden;} /* fix the overshot where needed */
...will work.You'll then have to make sure the last menu-dropdown ul is positionedwithin the wrap-area so it doesn't get cut off in Firefox and IE. Givingthat last menu-dropdown ul a 'right: 0;' and some cosmetics, should
solve that.CSS sure is fun - and it keeps getting funnier ;-)Ha det morsomt!regardsGeorg--http://www.gunlaug.no**
The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] Pixel to Em conversion - opera web team test
Thank you for your input, but all issues have been resolved so there is no need for further assistance.Thanks anyway :)RegardsMortenOn 4/27/06,
Joseph R. B. Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All opinions on your design decisions aside,this is the easiest way todo what you are trying to do.1. wrap your page in a div.You can call it #wrapper or whatever.2. add the following CSS to the div:
#wrapper{margin: 0 auto; /* centers it */padding: 0;min-width: 680px;max-width: 880px;}You can then use a float and widths/margins to line up your content asyou want.There's one problem - IE doesn't support min OR max widths...there are a
couple work arounds through.If you get to the point where all thats left is the IE (fixable) bugs,you're doing well and learning alot.Joseph R. B. TaylorSites by Joe, LLC
http://sitesbyjoe.com(609)335-3076[EMAIL PROTECTED]Felix Miata wrote: On 06/04/26 20:02 (GMT-0400) morten fjellman apparently typed:
I'm trying to get this layout to work with min- and max-width. The max-widthneeds to be 880px wide and the min-width must be 680px. I have made theheader and menu in such a way that they can be compressed (to a point), but
I can't seem to figure out how to set the correct em or %. The right columnmust have a fixed width of 220px and the main content area must have aflexible width. IE problems with min- and max-width is not an issue on this
project.Anyone who can explain to me how I should go about this?The site can be seen here: http://www.fjellman.no/test/I'm really stuck, so help is appreciated :)
880 is an odd max width. Why is that a requirement? Why not use text relative widths? Make the left 36em wide and the right 12em wide. That's a fluid design, just what the web was designed to be.
Everyone with a reasonably sized window will see the same line lengths, regardless of their default text size, like here: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Sites/dlviolin.html
**The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See
http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] Pixel to Em conversion - opera web team test
Felix Miata wrote: Why not use text relative widths? Make the left 36em wide and the right 12em wide. That's a fluid design, just what the web was designed to be. Everyone with a reasonably sized window will see the same line lengths, regardless of their default text size, like here: http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Sites/dlviolin.html Nice to see that 'window-width' is taken into account on that example-page, but you've left out the fact that there are more than one way to resize text on pages, so it doesn't work all that well in all situations. I've been wondering why one should set 'em-width' on each part/column, when an 'em-width' on a outer wrapper (with max-width fall-back to window-width), and the rest in 'percentage-width', will expand just as nicely - without causing so much overlapping when a certain amount of font-resizing is applied. Also, such an approach won't break if different font-sizes affects each column-width and the 'minimum font-size' option is applied in browsers. It's of course another matter if one wants to combine 'em-width' columns with 'px-width' or 'percentage-width' ones. One can have lots of fun with such combined layouts. Think we may need a new definition for 'fixed fluidity'... regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Pixel to Em conversion.
irony-warning Obviously you guys are not up on the latest... Spacer gifs. You can add them into each table cell and force the cell to any width. I'm thinking of writing a tutorial on it... Never mind that... we're to busy adding the even more unobtrusive spacer divs to our XHTML, so we can replicate tables with divs - even when tables are the right thing for the job. Much more semantic. So if we follow your tutorial (once written), does that make us all spacer cadets? Just measure empty space between ears. If there's enough of it, then we may add 'spacer admiral' to any title we otherwise may use to describe what we are doing here. /irony-warning ...I think ;-) duck Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Pixel to Em conversion.
Gunlaug Sørtun wrote: irony-warning Never mind that... we're to busy adding the even more unobtrusive spacer divs to our XHTML, so we can replicate tables with divs - even when tables are the right thing for the job. Much more semantic. Wow, What are you guys thinking!? You have built all this cool code, and then allow any old user to view it with their right click?? No! You have to create some sort of javascript code to prevent users from right-clicking! And while you are there, you might as well have a cursor-trail. And, because this site is just so cool, it has to have a splash page using the blink tag! Because everybody loves the blink tag, it's just so cool. /irony-warning Kat ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Pixel to Em conversion.
I dunno if I understand correctly your question, but if you need to have a fixed width for the right column I think that you should put it in as pixels (220px) and give right-margin to the main content area of 220px -Mensaje original- De: listdad@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] En nombre de morten fjellman Enviado el: Miércoles, 26 de Abril de 2006 07:02 p.m. Para: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Asunto: [WSG] Pixel to Em conversion. Hi, I'm trying to get this layout to work with min- and max-width. The max-width needs to be 880px wide and the min-width must be 680px. I have made the header and menu in such a way that they can be compressed (to a point), but I can't seem to figure out how to set the correct em or %. The right column must have a fixed width of 220px and the main content area must have a flexible width. IE problems with min- and max-width is not an issue on this project. Anyone who can explain to me how I should go about this? The site can be seen here: http://www.fjellman.no/test/ I'm really stuck, so help is appreciated :) Regards Morten This message has been scanned by BitDefender and found to be clean.
Re: [WSG] Pixel to Em conversion.
morten fjellman wrote: I'm trying to get this layout to work with min- and max-width. The max-width needs to be 880px wide and the min-width must be 680px. I have made the header and menu in such a way that they can be compressed (to a point), but I can't seem to figure out how to set the correct em or %. The right column must have a fixed width of 220px and the main content area must have a flexible width. IE problems with min- and max-width is not an issue on this project. G'day Morten Gerardo is right. All you need to do is specify 'width: 200px;' on #sidebar and specify 'margin-right: 220px;' to #content (where the right margin equals the width of #sidebar + appropriate amount of whitespace between the columns) Then simply remove your width definition from #content and it will work as I suspect you require This reveals some issues with your menu wrapping. And also be wary of your final menu item dropdown going off screen to the right :) Let us know if that wasn't what you were after Lachlan Hardy (The Other Lachlan) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Pixel to Em conversion.
Susie Gardner-Brown wrote: Back in the olden days of table layouts, you’d have the right col (td) at 220px, and the rest at 100%! Actually, you wouldn't. You'd have the *table* set to 100%, and the left column to 220px. -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Pixel to Em conversion.
-Original Message- From: Patrick H. Lauke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Susie Gardner-Brown wrote: Back in the olden days of table layouts, youd have the right col (td) at 220px, and the rest at 100%! Actually, you wouldn't. You'd have the *table* set to 100%, and the left column to 220px. -- Patrick H. Lauke Surely you'd just insert the concept design as one big img and ensure the alt was sufficiently descriptive...? Lisa M. Herrod ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Pixel to Em conversion.
I think I understand what you are saying and i actually used this tutorial to help me with a similar problem (may or may not help)http://css.maxdesign.com.au/floatutorial/tutorial0816.htm On 4/27/06, Lachlan Hardy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: morten fjellman wrote: I'm trying to get this layout to work with min- and max-width. The max-width needs to be 880px wide and the min-width must be 680px. I have made the header and menu in such a way that they can be compressed (to a point), but I can't seem to figure out how to set the correct em or %. The right column must have a fixed width of 220px and the main content area must have a flexible width. IE problems with min- and max-width is not an issue on this project.G'day MortenGerardo is right. All you need to do is specify 'width: 200px;' on#sidebar and specify 'margin-right: 220px;' to #content (where the rightmargin equals the width of #sidebar + appropriate amount of whitespace between the columns)Then simply remove your width definition from #content and it will workas I suspect you requireThis reveals some issues with your menu wrapping. And also be wary ofyour final menu item dropdown going off screen to the right :) Let us know if that wasn't what you were afterLachlan Hardy(The Other Lachlan)**The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **-- GermWorkshttp://www.germworks.net http://germworks.blogspot.com/http://www.germworks.net/Phantom
Re: [WSG] Pixel to Em conversion.
take too long to load for ppl with a slow modem among other reasons why you wouldnt do thatOn 4/27/06, Herrod, Lisa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:-Original Message- From: Patrick H. Lauke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Susie Gardner-Brown wrote: Back in the olden days of table layouts, you'd have theright col (td) at 220px, and the rest at 100%!Actually, you wouldn't. You'd have the *table* set to 100%,and the leftcolumn to 220px.--Patrick H. LaukeSurely you'd just insert the concept design as one big img and ensure the alt was sufficiently descriptive...?Lisa M. Herrod**The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help** -- GermWorkshttp://www.germworks.nethttp://germworks.blogspot.com/ http://www.germworks.net/Phantom
Re: [WSG] Pixel to Em conversion.
Herrod, Lisa wrote: Surely you'd just insert the concept design as one big img and ensure the alt was sufficiently descriptive...? Nah, you'd chop up the big image into 30+ small images because, you know, the small files load faster than the single big image (which is disputed anyway). And then make sure you add alt=image to all of them ;) -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Pixel to Em conversion.
Actually, you wouldn't. You'd have the *table* set to 100%, and the left column to 220px. Surely you'd just insert the concept design as one big img and ensure the alt was sufficiently descriptive...? Obviously you guys are not up on the latest... Spacer gifs. You can add them into each table cell and force the cell to any width. I'm thinking of writing a tutorial on it... russ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Pixel to Em conversion.
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 12:37 pm, Lachlan Hunt wrote: Herrod, Lisa wrote: From: Patrick H. Lauke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] You can use the alt tag for keyword stuffing to help boost your search engine rankings. Also remember to use alt=spacer for spacer gifs so that screen readers can describe the layout to users. rofl - and to think its only 5 years ago ;-) -- Regards, Steve Bathurst Computer Solutions URL: www.bathurstcomputers.com.au e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mobile: 0407 224 251 _ ... (0) ... / / \ .. / / . ) .. V_/_ Linux Powered! ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Pixel to Em conversion.
Im one of the ppl tat still have a 56k modem. Its impossible for me to get broadband were I live and tat is in Perth Oz, let alone in the country areas.On 4/27/06, Mark Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Germ wrote: take too long to load for ppl with a slow modem among other reasons why you wouldnt do thatmeh. Just tell them to upgradeAnd don't forget the Best Viewed In graphic and all your Site of the month/week/millenium award badges--mark**The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help** -- GermWorkshttp://www.germworks.nethttp://germworks.blogspot.com/ http://www.germworks.net/Phantom
Re: [WSG] Pixel to Em conversion.
I am another that can't get a "real" internet connection. Although my modem is 56k, I never ever get online at more then 26.4. We live in the central area of Texas in the USA, rural but only 5 miles out of town and just a tad too far from the DSL loop or so we have been told. We also don't have cable TV available here. - Original Message - From: Germ To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 10:10 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] Pixel to Em conversion. Im one of the ppl tat still have a 56k modem. Its impossible for me to get broadband were I live and tat is in Perth Oz, let alone in the country areas. On 4/27/06, Mark Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Germ wrote: take too long to load for ppl with a slow modem among other reasons why you wouldnt do thatmeh. Just tell them to upgradeAnd don't forget the "Best Viewed In" graphic and all your "Site of the month/week/millenium" award badges--mark**The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfmfor some hints on posting to the list getting help** -- GermWorkshttp://www.germworks.nethttp://germworks.blogspot.com/http://www.germworks.net/Phantom No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.4/320 - Release Date: 4/20/2006
Re: [WSG] Pixel to Em conversion.
Title: Re: [WSG] Pixel to Em conversion. On 27/4/06 1:10 PM, Germ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Im one of the ppl tat still have a 56k modem. Its impossible for me to get broadband were I live and tat is in Perth Oz, let alone in the country areas. Looks like your keyboard might be missing the h key too ... -- Kevin Futter Webmaster, St. Bernard's College http://www.sbc.melb.catholic.edu.au/
Re: [WSG] Pixel to Em conversion - understanding IRONY
OK, I'm getting a little worried here. Some of the recent posts have used a relatively new concept called irony. For those who haven't heard of this, here is a brief description: Irony is a form of speech in which the real meaning is concealed or contradicted by the words used. Irony involves the perception that things are not what they are said to be or what they seem. So, when people are posting messages about using large images with alt attributes, spacer gifs etc, you can rest assured that they are using this new fangled irony thing. Feel free to try it out on your friends... Lots of fun. Russ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Pixel to Em conversion - understanding IRONY
Russ,I always thought irony was like goldy and silvery. Thanks for the clarification.SteveOn 27/04/06, russ - maxdesign [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:OK, I'm getting a little worried here. Some of the recent posts have used a relatively new concept called irony. For those who haven't heard of this,here is a brief description:Irony is a form of speech in which the real meaning is concealed orcontradicted by the words used. Irony involves the perception that things are not what they are said to be or what they seem.So, when people are posting messages about using large images with altattributes, spacer gifs etc, you can rest assured that they are using this new fangled irony thing.
Re: [WSG] Pixel to Em conversion - understanding IRONY
russ - maxdesign wrote: Irony is a form of speech in which the real meaning is concealed or contradicted by the words used. Irony involves the perception that things are not what they are said to be or what they seem. So irony isn't a a black fly in your Chardonnay or a traffic jam when you're already late? Lachlan Hardy (The Off-Topic Lachlan) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] Pixel to Em conversion - understanding IRONY
russ - maxdesign wrote: OK, I'm getting a little worried here. Some of the recent posts have used a relatively new concept called irony. I thought it was sarcasm. Irony is a form of speech in which the real meaning is concealed or contradicted by the words used. Irony involves the perception that things are not what they are said to be or what they seem. And I thought irony was what my mum does to get the wrinkles out of my clothes. :-) -- Lachlan Hunt http://lachy.id.au/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] Pixel to Em conversion - understanding IRONY
From: Lachlan Hunt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] And I thought irony was what my mum does to get the wrinkles out of my clothes. :-) yes, just before she puts them in the 'Cupboardy' :) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
