> No. We covered this pretty well in *.off-topic...the actual size of pixels
> varies widely, measuring things in pixels only ensures it will either be
too
> large or too small when people use a screen with a different size or
> resolution. An actual size unit is always better for measuring size. You
> should *never* use pixels to measure size.


Well, the argument for using pixels is that everything *else* on a web page
is measured with them. Images are an exact width and height measured in
pixels. I understand that as monitors get higher and higher resolutions,
this will make things shrink. However, until we get to the point where a
pixel is *significantly* smaller than, say, a point - where pixels are so
tiny that their size is negligable - things will continue to be based around
pixels since the difference really isn't that extreme. If pixels on my
monitor are smaller than pixels on your monitor, nearly everything looks
smaller to me, and I'm used to it.

So, in this pixel based environment, specifying font sizes in pixels does
make sense. (Certainly more sense than specifying them in points, since OS's
can't agree on how many pixels are in a point.) That's the argument for
using pixels. (More at http://www.alistapart.com/stories/fear4/ .) My
argument, however, is that pixels shouldn't be used since they create
accessibility problems. (More at
http://diveintoaccessibility.org/day_26_using_relative_font_sizes.html .)

 - Slime
[ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

Post a reply to this message