|
|
Posted by Jonathan N. Little on 11/10/07 18:32
1001 Webs wrote:
> On Nov 10, 5:22 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@centralva.net>
> wrote:
>> 1001 Webs wrote:
>> Hmmm really mature. Asks for help on website. Given credible advice but
>> does not "fit" with preconceived misconception of "the way things should
>> be" then personality berates those that offer advice.
> I don't recall you giving any credible advice. On the contrary.
> Some people who are far more enlightened than you did, but not you.
> Had I followed your advice I would be still "dimensioning boxes in
> units proportial to the text"
> What a stupid piece of advice.
> BTW, what does "proportial" mean?
It is called a typographical error. It happens a bit here in Usenet, I
don't think many of us are free of this flaw. The word is
"proportional". Although this effort on my part may be wasted, anyway
here it goes; if you have a block that you want to contain a line of
text. When you dimension the block in absolute units: px, pt, in, cm...
then when the text's font-size is adjusted either the text must wrap
within the block or break out of it. But if you dimension the block in
em's that are proportional to the font-size then the block expands or
contracts in proportion to the font-size keeping the blocks appearance
relatively the same. If you dimension the block with '%' then it will
expand or contract with respect to the containing block or browser
viewport which is independent of the font-size so the appearance changes
as a different number of words per line will fit in such a block.
#1 Rarely looks good, many times only looks good if your fix[1] the
font-size in px's compromising page accessibility. Looks amateurish.
[1]Can be defeated by Gecko browsers thankfully
#2 Can be desirable keeping the same word count per line so the page
scales like a "zoom" feature.
#3 Can also be desirable if the proportional word count per line is not
important to the design.
>> You don't have to agree with suggestions offered, but I do thinks if you
>> want further assistance, especially *free* assistance, that this maybe
>> not the best approach.
>
> Teaming up with a bunch of losers such as Jerry Sucker and Shoddy666
> won't do you any good either.
Yep, way to "sweet-talk" me.
>
> And now that we have cleared those points, could you all stick to the
> main topic of the thread, which is "Websites and Graphic Art created
> by Children Vs Rubbish created by Shoddy666"?
> if you don't mind...
For what purpose? Will you feel better now calling him Shoddy666?
> You should show some respect for the netetiquette guidelines of
> Usenet.
And which guidelines have I transgressed?
> I don't deserve so much of your attention, really.
Probably your most accurate statement to date.
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|