Re: CSS Font Sizes and Macs

by =?iso-8859-1?Q?St=E9phane?= Bergeron <stephberg(at)>

 Date:  Sat, 23 Sep 2000 09:07:24 -0400
 To:  hwg-techniques(at)
 References:  hotmail bellsouth
  todo: View Thread, Original
At 12:28 PM 23/09/00 +0200, you wrote:
>yes... i find that small and x-small and xx-small give netscape vs ie
>problems, but going larger is okay (if i remember correctly)  basically
>xxsmall is okay on ie but unreadable on netscape. and i had a client who
>demanded it that tiny.  urgh. some just dont listen...
>but i like using relative sizes in case a user has it set higher for
>reasons of poor eye sight etc.

For all the dirt on these matters, go and read the following article on A=20
List Apart:

Basically, the only two safe ways to size text on the Web for now are not=20
specifying size at all or using pixels.  Relative units like em,=20
percentages, small, x-small, etc are laden with inconsistency problems and=
can lead to disaster.  Once NS 4.x disappears and IE on Windows fixes its=20
problems with small, x-small, etc, we can then safely use relative=20
units.  Points are a meaningless measurement unit on the Web and should be=
avoided like the plague now as well as in the future.  Points are a print=20
measure and are irrelevant and unpredictable on the Web.  They have been=20
added to the CSS specifications to help designers create style sheets for=20
printing Web pages, not to size text on the screen itself.  Bottom line is,=
if you want consistent results, use pixels or nothing at all...

St=E9phane Bergeron

HWG hwg-techniques mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA