Agreed. I used "10pt" only as an example. Probably old habit, too, in thinking of monospaced fonts in terms of points. Al
-----Original Message----- From: gutvol-d-bounces@lists.pglaf.org [mailto:gutvol-d-bounces@lists.pglaf.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sly Sent: Sunday, December 18, 2011 11:40 PM To: Project Gutenberg Volunteer Discussion Subject: Re: [gutvol-d] Recommendations on handling family tree tables - critique wanted
On Sun, 18 Dec 2011, Al Haines wrote:
They look reasonable to me, but you might want to experiment with the font size. Maybe a bit smaller? I use a bit of in-line CSS for this, e.g. <pre STYLE="font-size: 10pt">, adjusting the point size as needed.
My impression is that it is better style to use percentages rather than point sizes. Why? Because you don't know what the default point size is on a user's display. So if you use "font-size: 110%" and "font-size: 90%" you will get text respectively a little bit bigger and a little bit smaller than the inherited size. But if you give a fixed point size, you don't really know what relation that will have to the "default" size.
Also consider people with sight difficulties, who may have manually increased the font-size of a text so that they can read it. If you force a certain section to display at a 10point size, that might make it unreadable to them.
--Andrew _______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d