Using top-level selectors

Felix Miata wrote:

On 2008/04/11 08:08 (GMT-0500) Bergamot apparently typed:

John Dann wrote:

body {font-size: 62.5%;}
Wrong, wrong, wrong!!! *Never* do this. There is a ridiculous practice
out there of setting this tiny font-size on body, then making it larger
for individual sections of a page, like 1.3em for content. It is *BAD*.

To see demonstrated part of what makes it ridiculous, visit
http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/Clagnut/eonsSS.html

That doesn't demonstrate anything to me. Everything is quite legible to
me. Perhaps because I have a minimum font size set in my browser?

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
Why do we say something is out of whack? What is a whack?

Ed Mullen wrote:

Felix Miata wrote:
On 2008/04/11 08:08 (GMT-0500) Bergamot apparently typed:

John Dann wrote:

body {font-size: 62.5%;}
Wrong, wrong, wrong!!! *Never* do this. There is a ridiculous practice
out there of setting this tiny font-size on body, then making it larger
for individual sections of a page, like 1.3em for content. It is *BAD*.

To see demonstrated part of what makes it ridiculous, visit
http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/Clagnut/eonsSS.html

That doesn't demonstrate anything to me.

There's too much clutter on that page to demonstrate anything to me,
either. If, however, you set your browser's minimum font-size to 17px
like I do, the negatives of this stupid practice are pretty obvious when
you hit an infected page.

Everything is quite legible to
me. Perhaps because I have a minimum font size set in my browser?

The above page is mostly screenshots, so your own browser settings don't
have any effect.

--
Berg

On 2008/04/11 23:21 (GMT-0400) Ed Mullen apparently typed:

Felix Miata wrote:

To see demonstrated part of what makes it ridiculous, visit
http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/Clagnut/eonsSS.html

That doesn't demonstrate anything to me. Everything is quite legible to
me. Perhaps because I have a minimum font size set in my browser?

No, as Bergamot alluded, the page is made up primarily of 3 screenshot
images. Without understanding the content text that describes each image, it
would be difficult to know the demonstration's purpose or understand the
problem 62.5% body styling presents. Additionally, if the 1" images in the
sceenshots do not measure 1" wide on your own screen, then the effect of the
demonstration will be skewed according to the amount of deviation.

http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/Clagnut/bbcnSS.html is similar, except that the
subject web page in the screenshots has not since been subjected to redesign.
In fact, it only just went public with the idiotic 62.5% styling method two
weeks ago.
--
"Either the constitution controls the judges, or the
judges rewrite the constitution." Judge Robert Bork

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/

Felix Miata wrote:

http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/Clagnut/bbcnSS.html is similar, except that the
subject web page in the screenshots has not since been subjected to redesign.
In fact, it only just went public with the idiotic 62.5% styling method two
weeks ago.

Somebody really needs to put a stop to this horrific practice. :-(

--
Berg

On 2008/04/15 07:31 (GMT-0500) Bergamot apparently typed:

Felix Miata wrote:

http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/Clagnut/bbcnSS.html is similar, except that the
subject web page in the screenshots has not since been subjected to redesign.
In fact, it only just went public with the idiotic 62.5% styling method two
weeks ago.

Somebody really needs to put a stop to this horrific practice. :-(

Links to criticism of http://clagnut.com/blog/348/ need to be more widespread
than it and its progeny. I went to Google and entered merely clagnut. That
link's parent, "Web design and development...", was the first hit, and it was
the second, titled "How to Size Text Using Ems". Searching on merely 62.5%,
it turned up hit #3. :-(
--
"Either the constitution controls the judges, or the
judges rewrite the constitution." Judge Robert Bork

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:16:48 -0400, Felix Miata
<UgaddaBkidding.due2UCE (AT) dev (DOT) nul> wrote:

Links to criticism of http://clagnut.com/blog/348/ need to be more widespread
than it and its progeny. I went to Google and entered merely clagnut. That
link's parent, "Web design and development...", was the first hit, and it was
the second, titled "How to Size Text Using Ems". Searching on merely 62.5%,
it turned up hit #3. :-(

I was fascinated by the vehemence with which my mention of this
practice was met. As someone trying to improve my grasp of CSS, I
picked up this 'tip' (in combination with subsequently setting the
default font size to 1.4em or whatever for body text) partly as a
result of the seemingly repeated hits in a (font-size CSS) search on
Google. But it was certainly reinforced by reading in a text that I
have to hand ('CSS and HTML Web Design' by Craig Grannell, which is
seemingly a reasonable guide to current CSS practice) 'the general
consensus in the industry is that the 62.5% method is the one to go
for'.

I'm sure that this sort of issue is very familiar to the cognoscenti
here, but for someone trying to improve their knowledge of CSS, it's
really quite difficult to know where to turn for an authoritative but
practical guide to best current CSS practice. Any suggestions?

JGD

John Dann <news (AT) prodata (DOT) co.uk> writes:

Felix Miata <UgaddaBkidding.due2UCE (AT) dev (DOT) nul> wrote:

Links to criticism of http://clagnut.com/blog/348/

And finally… what is an em?
Classically, an em (pronounced emm) is a typographer’s unit of
horizontal spacing

That’s an instant classic for sure.

I was fascinated by the vehemence with which my mention of this
practice was met.

I was fascinated by the supposed impact of a resource that you wouldn’t
even want on toilet paper if you were in the prepress business.
And this appears to be a www.authoring group.

[…] ('CSS and HTML Web Design' by Craig Grannell, which is
seemingly a reasonable guide to current CSS practice) 'the general
consensus in the industry is that the 62.5% method is the one to go
for'.

What consensus in what industry?

For government work, the default font-size is alright where I live (it’s
recommended to explicitly set body/table to 100% if you want to scale up
and down siblings using the em unit due to Internet Explorer bugs,
though).

The majority of corporate web sites I worked on have their font sizes
set in px because ‘the default is too large’. That’s bad, but it could
be worse (see below), and is usually not negotiable.

Only about 10-20% of corporate web sites I know have a bullshit
accessibility policy that requires something around 70% for *initial*
font sizing. Those are basically the same people who think that desktop
‘firewalls’ will prevent the network against crackers.


--

|| hexadecimal EBB
o-o decimal 3771

--oOo--( )--oOo-- octal 7273
205 goodbye binary 111010111011

In article <pqpc04hr946ujgfmafou77s1mso2f3sh0r (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>,
John Dann <news (AT) prodata (DOT) co.uk> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:16:48 -0400, Felix Miata
UgaddaBkidding.due2UCE (AT) dev (DOT) nul> wrote:

Links to criticism of http://clagnut.com/blog/348/ need to be more widespread
than it and its progeny. I went to Google and entered merely clagnut. That
link's parent, "Web design and development...", was the first hit, and it was
the second, titled "How to Size Text Using Ems". Searching on merely 62.5%,
it turned up hit #3. :-(

I was fascinated by the vehemence with which my mention of this
practice was met. As someone trying to improve my grasp of CSS, I
picked up this 'tip' (in combination with subsequently setting the
default font size to 1.4em or whatever for body text) partly as a
result of the seemingly repeated hits in a (font-size CSS) search on
Google. But it was certainly reinforced by reading in a text that I
have to hand ('CSS and HTML Web Design' by Craig Grannell, which is
seemingly a reasonable guide to current CSS practice) 'the general
consensus in the industry is that the 62.5% method is the one to go
for'.

I'm sure that this sort of issue is very familiar to the cognoscenti
here, but for someone trying to improve their knowledge of CSS, it's
really quite difficult to know where to turn for an authoritative but
practical guide to best current CSS practice. Any suggestions?

JGD

Your best alternative, until you know more about this issue, is to do
the simplest rational thing possible. You can see from simple inspection
that any 62.5%/1.4em scheme is inherently a scheme of some complexity.
So you stay away from such things until you are better able to judge
things.

I recommend the following in order of simplicity;

1. Do nothing at all about font-size. rely on the intelligence built
into default settings for the elements. They have been thought out by
whole armies of people devoted to the business.

If this is too bold, then do 2 below.

2.1 Put body {font-size: 100%;} in spite of it being a default, to avoid
an Internet Explorer bug in this business, never mind what it is, 100%
instruction can do no harm over and above the default.

2.2 Put nothing at all anywhere else until you spot a size you are not
happy with. Do not trouble yourself to do what is unnecessary from the
start.

2.3 Try hard to resist changing main content. Leave it be. If you must
change it, be very conservative. For almost anything else like
navigation and footers, resist going below 85%. You can safely use em
values instead of percentages for under body. Perhaps there might be
some text that is so boringly legal that you might go to .8em.

That's it. You do not need any authority for this, its reasonableness is
plain on its face.

--
dorayme

John Dann wrote:

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:16:48 -0400, Felix Miata
UgaddaBkidding.due2UCE (AT) dev (DOT) nul> wrote:

Links to criticism of http://clagnut.com/blog/348/ need to be more widespread

'the general
consensus in the industry is that the 62.5% method is the one to go
for'.

Such drivel comes from dee-ziners, who give lip service to usability and
accessibility by pronouncing their use of ems for text sizing.

They have no real interest in complying with the *spirit* of usability
or accessibility guidelines. If it's good enough for the majority, it's
good enough for them. It matters not that it would be so easy to avoid
altogether the issues they have created for the minority.

Their usual take: it's our problem for choosing to use "non-standard"
settings.

I'm sure that this sort of issue is very familiar to the cognoscenti
here, but for someone trying to improve their knowledge of CSS, it's
really quite difficult to know where to turn for an authoritative but
practical guide to best current CSS practice. Any suggestions?

There are an awful lot of hypocrites out there. Plus, some who are
considered authoritative on usability or accessibility aren't so "up" on
style and don't provide any CSS guidance except in the most general terms.

Generally speaking, anyone who promotes the use of body font-size less
than 100% is highly suspicious. Anyone condoning the use of px or pt for
body font-size is to be ignored completely. Go from there.

--
Berg

Felix Miata wrote:

Links to criticism of http://clagnut.com/blog/348/ need to be more widespread

I gave it a shot:
http://www.bergamotus.ws/rants/how-n...n-the-web.html

--
Berg