Posted by rf on 10/25/07 12:56

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:WA%Ti.272807$ax1.57630@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> rf wrote:
>
>> dorayme, you should mention *before* citing the following URL that the
>> advice contained therein is bad advice and totally outdated.
>>
>>> hXXp://www.basictips.com/which-font-size-px-pt-em.shtml
>
> I was thinking the same thing. <g>

I'll add another quote from the site in here, which IMHO turns around
entirely the bits you have quoted. This quote immediately precedes yours on
the page:

"Our advice is the same as the majority of long-time designers. When you
specify a font size, specify it in pixels (px) not points (pt) or em."

They are saying "use px and the viewer be damned" and the following quotes
justify that stance:

> It says, "Using a pt or em font-size property instead of px allows for
> your site text to be resized according to the viewer's system settings."

So use px so the viewer cannot resize her font and stuff up your pixel
perfect design.

> Whoohoo. Great for all the folks with perfect vision.
>
> It goes on, "If their system is set to view very large text, your web
> site's layout will become distorted and your web site may be illegible
> to them."
>
> Not if you use ems or percentages, and layout your page correctly...

But they have already stated we should be using px. And they are saying that
the possible distortion or illegibility is a reason *to* use px.

>>> I mention it because there is a lot of bad advice about. OP
>>> should not be fooled in researches.
>
> Oh, she did say so, but 'after the fact.'

I didn't read it that way. I read it as possibly endorsing the site because
there is a lot of *other* bad advice about. And what exactly does "OP should
not be fooled in researches" mean? Not a lot to me I'm afraid.

As I have said elsewhere, another WTF moment from doryame.

--
Richard.

[Back to original message]