Re: [css-d] em or % in width

> Scott, I meant that I wanted to know the source of the statement "em is > better than % because of IE goof-ups." I don't know this to be true, so > if you can tell us where you heard this from we can take a look and see > if they have wrong information, know something we don't know, or if you >

Re: [css-d] em or % in width

On 11/29/05, Zoe M. Gillenwater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Scott Hamm wrote: > > >I've been asking around in webdesign mailing list for feedbacks and > >learned a lot about em, % and accessibility in CSS part. I'm trying > >to use % so I can add up to 100% and I've been told that em is better >

Re: [css-d] em or % in width

On 11/29/05, Squibb, Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David is correct in that people with poor eyesight need higher resolution and > then magnify the text. > > I have just had to write an app for viually impaired, and that is the way it > is done. > In that case, which do you use most often?

Re: [css-d] em or % in width

Christian Montoya wrote: > On 11/28/05, Michel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I agree with you when regular crt displays are used, but things will > > change. People buy tft screens, with native 1280x1024 resolutions. > > Running in a lower resolution gives a distorted image so a lot will > > ke

Re: [css-d] em or % in width

Christian Montoya wrote, and as usual, stripped attribution (which I restored): > Scott Hamm wrote: > > If em is the best method to set up CSS > for layout, it's not Or is, depending on the design requirements. > > then how can I add up the width to remain fluid like %? > You can't. EM widt

Re: [css-d] em or % in width

Scott Hamm wrote: >On 11/29/05, Zoe M. Gillenwater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Scott Hamm wrote: >> >> >> >>>I've been asking around in webdesign mailing list for feedbacks and >>>learned a lot about em, % and accessibility in CSS part. I'm trying >>>to use % so I can add up to 100% an

Re: [css-d] em or % in width

Scott Hamm wrote: >I've been asking around in webdesign mailing list for feedbacks and >learned a lot about em, % and accessibility in CSS part. I'm trying >to use % so I can add up to 100% and I've been told that em is better >than % because of IE goof-ups. I've read in various CSS articles and

Re: [css-d] em or % in width

: 29 November 2005 08:23 To: css-d Subject: Re: [css-d] em or % in width > I'm curious about this... I figured most users would decrease their > resolution rather than increase their text size... is there any more > input on this? As my eyes have gotten older, I've generally lef

Re: [css-d] em or % in width

Christian Montoya wrote: > On 11/28/05, Michel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Quoted from Christian Montoya: >> >>>but considering that few users ever resize their text (as in nobody), >>>most visitors would never even notice the difference. >> >>I agree with you when regular crt displays are used

Re: [css-d] em or % in width

CORRECTION I wrote: This results in different font sizes on Mozilla/Opera and MSIE, when the developer uses pixel for font-sizing, because MSIE is working intern in points and not in pixels, as the others do. Correct is: This results in different font sizes on Mozilla/Opera and MSIE, when the dev

Re: [css-d] em or % in width

On 29.11.2005 00:57, Christian Montoya wrote: > On 11/28/05, Michel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Quoted from Christian Montoya: >> >>>but considering that few users ever resize their text (as in nobody), >>>most visitors would never even notice the difference. >> >>I agree with you when regular

Re: [css-d] em or % in width

Christian, On Nov 28, 2005, at 6:57 PM, Christian Montoya wrote: > On 11/28/05, Michel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Quoted from Christian Montoya: >>> but considering that few users ever resize their text (as in nobody), >>> most visitors would never even notice the difference. >> >> I agree

Re: [css-d] em or % in width

On 11/28/05, Michel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Quoted from Christian Montoya: > > but considering that few users ever resize their text (as in nobody), > > most visitors would never even notice the difference. > > I agree with you when regular crt displays are used, but things will > change. Pe

Re: [css-d] em or % in width

Quoted from Christian Montoya: > but considering that few users ever resize their text (as in nobody), > most visitors would never even notice the difference. I agree with you when regular crt displays are used, but things will change. People buy tft screens, with native 1280x1024 resolutions. R

Re: [css-d] em or % in width

> If em is the best method to set up CSS for layout, it's not > then how can I add up the width to remain fluid like %? You can't. EM width layouts are fixed width. They have been dubbed "elastic" because they resize whenever the text is resized, meaning that they "zoom in and out" depending on

[css-d] em or % in width

I'm about ready to release this site, http://www.deafaviator.org/fbcom/index.php to replace the existing beta site: http://www.firstbaptistchurchofmilford.org which will replace the aging site: http://www.firstbaptistofmilford.org . (for now, in IE, the width doesn't match up like those CSS compli