Posted by cwdjrxyz on 09/30/07 03:14

On Sep 29, 8:34 am, "fefewf" <efw...@ddd.ddd> wrote:
> why is using pixel font sizes wrong?

As several others have pointed out, various browsers respond to pixel
font sizes in somewhat different ways and for different screen
dimensions, thus other methods for controlling text size often work
better for a wide range of browsers. One extreme way to avoid many of
these problems is to make the whole page as an image, including the
text. This actually has been done, but usually for reasons other than
making the page more viewable. Some who put up pages or send out email
that is likely to get blocked if certain words are included sometimes
use just an image for the questionable material. Most filters for
blocking content do not scan words in images. Of course you can set
your browser not to show images but then you may block images you
might wish to see, especially if alt for the image is set to something
misleading making you think you might wish to turn on images. Making
too much of the page as a large image may greatly increase the file
size over using text and a few small images, if required. This would
sometimes slow your page down too much if you are aiming for viewers
who have only a slow dialup connection. I see no need for making most
of the page an image for my personal use. However, some spammers and
scam artists apparently think it is of benefit to them to do so. They
must think that they will gain more viewers by avoiding being blocked
by scans of text than they will lose from viewers who have images
turned off.

[Back to original message]