On 2012/01/24 11:19 (GMT+0800) Ghodmode composed:
Felix Miata wrote:
...
Here are a few real-world examples of fixed width sites:
http://www.mashable.com 972px
http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/SC/sc-mashable2560-01.jpg
http://www.stackoverflow.com 960px
http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/SC/sc-s
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Ghodmode wrote:
How wide it should be is a matter of opinion, and I think that's the
original question... What do we, as a community, think is a good
width.
Ghodmode
http://www.ghodmode.com
--
Sigh. I have no idea what the community thinks is a "good wid
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Paceaux wrote:
> geeze, this morning I thought I knew this stuff. Now I'm lost.
See... it was a good blog entry... it made ya think :)
__
css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org]
http://www.css-
Thank you very much Paceaux. Youve made a number of good points. I
think I'll do a follow-up blog entry.
more comments inline ...
--
Ghodmode
http://www.ghodmode.com
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 4:06 AM, Paceaux wrote:
> I think other comments have kind of addressed that for most of us in this
>
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:43 AM, Felix Miata wrote:
> On 2012/01/24 19:15 (GMT+0800) Ghodmode composed:
>
>> I don't know about the original poster's target demographic, but 960px
>> works well on a modern computer or a modern mobile device
>
> Debatable...
I guess some of this stuff is a mat
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Paceaux wrote:
This morning I totally understood font-sizing. Now I don't know
anything. Please share any insights you have.
Frank M Taylor
http://frankmtaylor.com
Keep it simple. body{font:100%/1.4 sans-serif}. And allow the primary,
secondary, and tertiary c
On 2012/01/24 18:31 (GMT-0700) Paceaux composed:
geeze, this morning I thought I knew this stuff. Now I'm lost.
I wasn't thinking that the em or the ex stretched the glyph. I understand
that the font-size constructs a square out of the measurement, regardless
of the type of measurement.
geeze, this morning I thought I knew this stuff. Now I'm lost.
I wasn't thinking that the em or the ex stretched the glyph. I understand that
the font-size constructs a square out of the measurement, regardless of the
type of measurement.
assuming an "m" is 16px wide but 10px tall, it's to
On Jan 25, 2012, at 9:13 AM, Paceaux wrote:
> I read the CSS2 spec this afternoon, and learned that the em is really an
> "em square" and the square is how font-size is determined.
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/REC-CSS2-20110607/fonts.html
No, not really. 'em' as an unit of measurement is defin
I have a class called "tagline" that is located in the css file here:
http://www.redcanoecu.com/_css/global.css It's located in the /*Header*/
section.
The problem is that when you go to our site: http://www.redcanoecu.com then try
and login to Online Banking the tagline "your dreams our passio
Years ago I read a book on typography and it didn't click until today that the
"em" isn't strictly a horizontal measurement in CSS. I'd never thought that
hard about it until today. I was naturally concluding that "em "was a
horizontal measurement and "ex" was vertical - and that either could
> From my this, it really visually appears as if the em is not an "m" or an
> "M" in
> even the most plain typeface. That's when the text is centered. If it's left
> or
> right aligned, you can fit in two more "m".
As has been discussed before in this thread, em is not a horizontal measure.
I
I won't speak to appropriate min/max sizes for "most" as that debate
seems to already be handling itself quite nicely without me. ;)
However, if you want to look into responsive design, Ethan's books is
short, to the point and filled with more than enough info to get your
feet wet. It's well worth
This a curious subject that you've brought up.
So to satisfy my curiosity as to the size of an em and an ex, I tried the most
boring experiment possible: http://cssdesk.com/aHUQR
From my this, it really visually appears as if the em is not an "m" or an "M"
in even the most plain typeface. That
I think other comments have kind of addressed that for most of us in this
discussion group, we knew that the em isn't one "M".
Regarding your article, I have a few thoughts:
1. Experiments have results. For the sake of your readers, provide the results
of the experiment.
2. explain the experim
On 2012/01/24 19:15 (GMT+0800) Ghodmode composed:
I don't know about the original poster's target demographic, but 960px
works well on a modern computer or a modern mobile device
Debatable...
I don't know about the current generation of netbooks, but I expect
resolutions to go up.
Hig
Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
I find that an odd formulation, since _no_ letter is 1em wide.
On what basis do you claim that, Jukka ? Surely not even you
have had time to measure every glyph in every font that has ever
been invented ... !
But that’s not the most common common misconception;
pe
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
> On 2012/01/23 10:35 (GMT+0800) Ghodmode composed:
>
>
>> 960px is a good max width... for most site visitors.
>
>
> ...where "most" is as little as 50% + 1 of today's visitors. I consider that
> a gross exaggeration except in cases where you kn
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> 2012-01-24 8:23, Ghodmode wrote:
>
>> So, how big is an ‘em’? I set up a small experiment to tell me just
>> that.
>
>
> I don’t see the point of the blog entry or the experiment.
You acknowledged misconceptions. That's the point...
On 2012/01/23 10:35 (GMT+0800) Ghodmode composed:
960px is a good max width... for most site visitors.
...where "most" is as little as 50% + 1 of today's visitors. I consider that
a gross exaggeration except in cases where you know your demographic includes
no netbook or handheld devices. At
20 matches
Mail list logo
