|
|
Posted by Jonathan N. Little on 11/11/07 17:59
1001 Webs wrote:
> On Nov 10, 11:33 pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@centralva.net>
> wrote:
> Then, the way I see it, percentages are the only parameters that
> should be ever used, at least from a graphic designer's point of view.
>
No I wouldn't say that. I would say it depends on the design criteria.
If th block is containing a fixed element, i.e. an image then I would
tend to use "px" and make the adjacent block fill the space. If it must
also contain text, then I would make sure that the text wrap will work
okay. Usually it is not friendly to scaling the text, but should
accommodate some range without breaking.
If the block is a menu, or a pull quote with limited text and the
words-per-line is part of the design then "em" would be my choice. That
way the block will scale with the text, and since this this type of
situations the block is also floated, I let the regular body text fill
the available space.
If the design has visual regions, like a 2/3 to 1/3 side bar column then
"%" may be my choice. Some folks like to use "%" for headers with logos
and footers, but personally I prefer em's and link the height to the
text scale unless the logo is a fixed graphic.
I guess my point is there is no "written in stone" rule which to use.
But, and this is a big one, web design is a flexible no fixed canvas and
your design should take that into consideration. Too many sites are
"designs in denial" and unnecessarily fail with accessibility.
If you find yourself stuck with a fixed design element, I say stop and
think. Is there another way to approach the design that would no
required the box. Many, many times the answer is yes,
> Since you are a Graphic Designer I assume you know about basic
> principles of Graphic Design, such as Balance, Rhythm, Proportion,
> Unity, etc.
> I assume that you also know how to apply the Rule of Thirds by which
> you divide the working area with a grid of nine sections with two
> evenly spaced vertical lines and two evenly spaced horizontal lines.
> The only way to do that in a flexible way, would be using percentages.
> And since percentages are also the only measurement that works well
> for other tags, such as font-sizing, that's the only attribute should
> be used under any circumstances.
>
> No one tells you about this, you know, not even w3.org. If you have a
> look at their very own style sheet, http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/home-import.css,
> you'll see things like:
> font-size: small;
> margin-bottom: 0.3em;
> margin-top: -6px;
> etc.
Yes you will for minor topical text like: p.hpmt-testimonial. You do not
see: body { font-size: small; }. No one here is suggestion that you
*never* use small font sizes, the crime is using it for your base font
size!
>
> And that's precisely my point, that CSS is confusing, hard to learn
> for the wrong reasons, frustrating and badly implemented.
> And that's NOT the designer's fault
>
Actually the bulk of it is not. Floats are the sticking point, and
having to deal with the badly broken IE browser is not helping. Also it
is a developing technology and will change. Bbut I can say this, if you
properly separate your presentation with CSS from your markup HTML then
when the changes come and IE begrudgingly follows you should *only* have
to change your stylesheet to transform a whole website. This is NOT the
case with table-layouts and embedded presentational attributes and
elements within the design. Ask anyone who has had to update vintage
DHTML 90's website!
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|