Consistent Cross Browser Font Sizes

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Tim W, Jun 20, 2012.

  1. Tim W

    Tim W Guest

    Still puzzled by this. Not too sure what is wrong with specifying sizes
    in px but often hear that relative % sizes are better. When I use % I am
    getting a lot of variation from browser to browser which causes layout
    problems in menu items, headings, tag lines etc.

    What is the best way to handle these font sizes? Is it only paragraph
    text that should be specified in % ?

    Tim W
     
    Tim W, Jun 20, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 2012-06-20 15:31, Tim W wrote:

    > Not too sure what is wrong with specifying sizes in px


    They relate to the pixel, which is a mutable unit but varies by system,
    not by user. One size does not fit all.

    > but often hear that relative % sizes are better.


    For relative sizing, yes. For setting the overall size, setting nothing
    is best, though for certain technical reasons, the logically redundant
    setting body { font-size: 100% } is recommended.

    If you cannot afford the best, e.g. because a pointy-haired boss or a
    misguided customer requires otherwise, as it often happens, then use
    pixels (px) or points (pt). It's not as bad as it used to be. There are
    various schools on pixels vs. points, but the pointy-haired boss or
    equivalent probably has made his or her mind anyway.

    > When I use % I am
    > getting a lot of variation from browser to browser


    That's to be expected. That's part of the whole point. The size is
    _expected_ to adapt to users' choices, if only by their choice of browser.

    > which causes layout
    > problems in menu items, headings, tag lines etc.


    Then you should have designed the layout differently. You should not
    have a fixed and rigid layout if you use relative or no font sizing,
    thereby voting for flexibility.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Jun 20, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 13:31:34 +0100, Tim W <>
    wrote:

    >Still puzzled by this. Not too sure what is wrong with specifying sizes
    >in px but often hear that relative % sizes are better. When I use % I am
    >getting a lot of variation from browser to browser which causes layout
    >problems in menu items, headings, tag lines etc.


    The problem with fixed sized is that various users have different
    screen sizes. I run with 1024x768. I have run across all too many
    sites that assume a higher resolution. I do not like having to
    horizontal scroll to read a page.

    One annoying example can be seen here:
    http://discuss.techinterview.org/
    Look at the top right. On my system, it is clipped partway through
    the S in "Register". It is not as if there is no space to the left. I
    am more understanding when there is a lot of data being presented, but
    that is definitely not the case here.

    Of course you get variation. That is the point. Browsers will
    render to suit the individual systems.

    [snip]

    Sincerely,

    Gene Wirchenko
     
    Gene Wirchenko, Jun 20, 2012
    #3
  4. Tim W

    Lewis Guest

    In message <>
    Gene Wirchenko <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 13:31:34 +0100, Tim W <>
    > wrote:


    >>Still puzzled by this. Not too sure what is wrong with specifying sizes
    >>in px but often hear that relative % sizes are better. When I use % I am
    >>getting a lot of variation from browser to browser which causes layout
    >>problems in menu items, headings, tag lines etc.


    > The problem with fixed sized is that various users have different
    > screen sizes. I run with 1024x768.


    Which puts you in the bottom 5%-10% of web traffic (and shrinking daily).

    Sites often have to assume a minimum width, and 1280px is a safe
    assumption, *if* you need the space. However, if you don't need the space,
    there's no reason to go to 1280.

    > One annoying example can be seen here:
    > http://discuss.techinterview.org/


    That is an annoying example because there is no reason for it other than
    the web-monkey decided to make the minimum width much larger than
    necessary.

    But in general, if you need the space, you can justify a 1280 pixel
    minimum as long as you keep in mind that sites like Youtube, Google,
    Amazon, and many others get by just fine with minimums under 1024px.

    --
    'But look,' said Ponder, 'the graveyards are full of people who rushed
    in bravely but unwisely.' 'Ook.' 'What did he say?' said the Bursar. 'I
    think he said, "Sooner or later the graveyards are full of everybody".'
    The trouble with witches is that they'll never run away from things they
    really hate. And the trouble with small furry animals in a corner is
    that, just occasionally, one of them's a mongoose. --Witches Abroad
     
    Lewis, Jun 20, 2012
    #4
  5. Lewis wrote:
    > In message <>
    > Gene Wirchenko <> wrote:
    >> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 13:31:34 +0100, Tim W <>
    >> wrote:

    >
    >>> Still puzzled by this. Not too sure what is wrong with specifying sizes
    >>> in px but often hear that relative % sizes are better. When I use % I am
    >>> getting a lot of variation from browser to browser which causes layout
    >>> problems in menu items, headings, tag lines etc.

    >
    >> The problem with fixed sized is that various users have different
    >> screen sizes. I run with 1024x768.

    >
    > Which puts you in the bottom 5%-10% of web traffic (and shrinking daily).


    That's a garbage statistic. They are making a bad assumption that
    monitor resolution == browser window dims. Wrong! Not everyone runs
    their browser maximized! My desktop width is 3200 pixels and I never run
    my browser maximized...hint, 2 monitors....

    >
    > Sites often have to assume a minimum width, and 1280px is a safe
    > assumption, *if* you need the space. However, if you don't need the space,
    > there's no reason to go to 1280.


    And how is "1280px is a safe" on a handheld device? Not that folks ever
    view websites with phones these days, right?

    >
    >> One annoying example can be seen here:
    >> http://discuss.techinterview.org/

    >
    > That is an annoying example because there is no reason for it other than
    > the web-monkey decided to make the minimum width much larger than
    > necessary.


    True.

    >
    > But in general, if you need the space, you can justify a 1280 pixel
    > minimum as long as you keep in mind that sites like Youtube, Google,
    > Amazon, and many others get by just fine with minimums under 1024px.
    >


    Disagree, I think your site should adjust for much less...


    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Jun 20, 2012
    #5
  6. On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 18:31:45 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
    <> wrote:

    >In message <>
    > Gene Wirchenko <> wrote:
    >> On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 13:31:34 +0100, Tim W <>
    >> wrote:

    >
    >>>Still puzzled by this. Not too sure what is wrong with specifying sizes
    >>>in px but often hear that relative % sizes are better. When I use % I am
    >>>getting a lot of variation from browser to browser which causes layout
    >>>problems in menu items, headings, tag lines etc.

    >
    >> The problem with fixed sized is that various users have different
    >> screen sizes. I run with 1024x768.

    >
    >Which puts you in the bottom 5%-10% of web traffic (and shrinking daily).
    >
    >Sites often have to assume a minimum width, and 1280px is a safe
    >assumption, *if* you need the space. However, if you don't need the space,
    >there's no reason to go to 1280.


    No, it is not a safe assumption. It is wrong on my system. It
    is wrong on mobile systems. Given the latter, 5-10% and shrinking
    does not seem at all accurate.

    >> One annoying example can be seen here:
    >> http://discuss.techinterview.org/

    >
    >That is an annoying example because there is no reason for it other than
    >the web-monkey decided to make the minimum width much larger than
    >necessary.


    Quite.

    >But in general, if you need the space, you can justify a 1280 pixel
    >minimum as long as you keep in mind that sites like Youtube, Google,
    >Amazon, and many others get by just fine with minimums under 1024px.


    And I can skip such sites and have done so.

    Sincerely,

    Gene Wirchenko
     
    Gene Wirchenko, Jun 21, 2012
    #6
  7. Tim W

    Lewis Guest

    In message <jrt5qi$7a9$>
    Jonathan N. Little <> wrote:
    > Lewis wrote:
    >> But in general, if you need the space, you can justify a 1280 pixel
    >> minimum as long as you keep in mind that sites like Youtube, Google,
    >> Amazon, and many others get by just fine with minimums under 1024px.
    >>


    > Disagree, I think your site should adjust for much less...


    I think you should have a mobile version of the site, as long as you
    give the user the option to view the full site if they wish.

    I detest sites that force a mobile view on me and tend to leave them as
    quickly as possible.

    --
    I've always had a flair for stage directions.
    Look, that's why there's rules, understand? So that you *think* before
    you break 'em.
     
    Lewis, Jun 21, 2012
    #7
  8. Lewis wrote:
    > In message <jrt5qi$7a9$>
    > Jonathan N. Little <> wrote:
    >> Lewis wrote:
    >>> But in general, if you need the space, you can justify a 1280 pixel
    >>> minimum as long as you keep in mind that sites like Youtube, Google,
    >>> Amazon, and many others get by just fine with minimums under 1024px.
    >>>

    >
    >> Disagree, I think your site should adjust for much less...

    >
    > I think you should have a mobile version of the site, as long as you
    > give the user the option to view the full site if they wish.
    >
    > I detest sites that force a mobile view on me and tend to leave them as
    > quickly as possible.
    >


    I agree. But what I meant was not to *impose* a mobile view either, but
    allow flexibly for both if possible. I cannot stand the 500px ribbon
    site, usually centered with equal left and right margins of empty wasted
    space.

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
     
    Jonathan N. Little, Jun 21, 2012
    #8
  9. On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 23:05:04 -0400, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
    > Lewis wrote:
    >> Jonathan N. Little <> wrote:
    >>> Lewis wrote:
    >>>> But in general, if you need the space, you can justify a 1280 pixel
    >>>> minimum as long as you keep in mind that sites like Youtube, Google,
    >>>> Amazon, and many others get by just fine with minimums under 1024px.

    >>
    >>> Disagree, I think your site should adjust for much less...

    >>
    >> I think you should have a mobile version of the site, as long as you
    >> give the user the option to view the full site if they wish.
    >>
    >> I detest sites that force a mobile view on me and tend to leave them as
    >> quickly as possible.

    >
    > I agree. But what I meant was not to *impose* a mobile view either, but
    > allow flexibly for both if possible. I cannot stand the 500px ribbon
    > site, usually centered with equal left and right margins of empty wasted
    > space.


    +1 !

    Jonesy
     
    Allodoxaphobia, Jun 21, 2012
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. coleenholley
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,167
    coleenholley
    Jan 21, 2004
  2. BGW

    Static Font Sizes

    BGW, Jul 7, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    3,060
    Matthias Gutfeldt
    Jul 8, 2003
  3. mcp6453

    Font Sizes

    mcp6453, Aug 10, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    516
    Nico Schuyt
    Aug 11, 2003
  4. Bob

    Font Sizes (yet again)

    Bob, Dec 28, 2003, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    36
    Views:
    1,236
    Scott_From_PA
    Feb 11, 2005
  5. mttc
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    2,415
    Roedy Green
    Jul 3, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page