Hi Taco, > I guess in the end it all becomes a case of - is the client > willing to pay for your extra time required to apply all these hacks.
First thing to note is that it is soooooo much quicker to develop a site this way once you get the basics right. Once you have the basics, you start the next new site with a template based on these basics and you can churn out sites in half the time you used to. Secondly, these (relative fonts) are definitely NOT hacks. Using a table to lay out non-tabular content is a hack. Exploiting a bug in a browser (like the voice family hack mentioned a few days ago) is a hack (and this one should be considered dangerous.. At least fully explore the pros and cons before using it). > Having worked for several government bodies I am afraid to > say I have NEVER worked with %, simply because it looked like > a paint to work with. And the only downfall I see in using > pixels is due to the fact IE (some versions) can't scale it. > (the only sites I developed for the gorvernment were > Intranet, so don't come down to hard on me ;-) A behaviour in IE is the most important one to worry about as it has a 93% market share (like it or not, and I'm not saying it's better than any other browser, it's just reality). I suggest you look at the user_agents hitting your site(s) at some stage. If you don't have access to analyse your log files, then a generic breakdown is a good second bet. See lists like: http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2003/November/browser.php Also FWIW (a good generic audience) take a look at the AM Online stats breakdown of browsers and platforms for November 2003 http://www.amonline.net.au/website/reports/amonline/0311/index_08_b.htm Regards, Peter ***************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ *****************************************************
