infolock wrote:px, despite popular belief and from what i've personally seen in every browser that we test (which includes IE, firefox, konqueror, and others) has not had any effect on the browsers ability to display, and has been found to be supported in every instance. the only time it won't be, is if the browser itself does not support CSS..
I think you misunderstand the context, and the issue.
The issue is not browser support. Browsers, as you say, support px, pt, and em. There are two key questions: Which is most consistent across those browsers for rendering size, and which gives more accessibility?
infolock wrote:good thing about using px is it will set an EXACT position and size, which is ideal for anyone who is developing.
Now we are talking about consistency, so lets get specific. The monkey in the wrench is that IE doesn't respect resizing px,
but almost everyone else does. Consistent? No. Read more:
http://oliverhodgson.com/articles/friendlyfonts/
But wait - it gets better. IE on Mac does allow you to resize px based fonts. Different platform, same browser, different answer.
If its not consistent across multiple browsers (and platforms), then the only question is accessibility.
infolock wrote: This allows the designer to set a layout that is the exact same no matter the display resolution (which is why it's recommended in every css designer handbook on the net).
On the contrary, the leading recommendations are just the opposite:
A list apart recommends relative font sizes
Twice in fact.
Usable type would love to use pixels, but end up recommending relative font sizes because of IE
So did Webmonkey
But most important of all, lets ask the W3c:
W3c wrote:
Do not specify the font-size in pt, or other absolute length units. They render inconsistently across platforms and can't be resized by the User Agent (e.g browser).
I think thats a pretty clear industry consensus.
infolock wrote:As for the empty space or whatever, never seen it. So, unless you are using a browser dating back to windows 95 or earlier, you should not have a problem using it

I saw it in Firefox 1.07, but it does seem to vary. It may be because the html is invalid, and in quirks mode, which can result in inconsistent results.
infolock wrote:Now, liquidizing or whatever, i've never heard of or used. So i don't know if this is a good method or not.
Very odd. Google "Liquid Layouts". Its the most popular trend in webdesign today, precisely because it gives both accessibility and crisp design looks. In a nutshell, it means not using tables for layout and absolute-values for fonts. Its a design that allows resizing.
infolock wrote:also, for the use of those who need font enhancements, there are tutorials galour that will help you check for this and impliment it into your css layout (which is also recommeneded in all these same handbooks).
I'm really unclear what you mean here. *All* sites need to allow visitors to resize their text. Not doing so means users cannot view the site. Thats what accessibility is about. The site designer has to include that, not the user.
infolock wrote:em, px, pts, whatever it is you wanna use are all viable options. just noting px is not bad, and is actually what we use for all our site designs (and we definately keep the impaired in prospective).
You definitely do not consider the impared if you use px. It makes it impossible to resize sites in IE on windows, which is the dominant browser.
Granted, you *can* as an impared user *disable* all fonts on the page, using a somewhat obscure setting, but doing so also removes the one reason you advocate the use of absolute font sizes: Consistent layout. With the font sizing completely removed, the site design totally breaks. Not much of a choice for impaired users, certainly not one that will win you accessibility awards.
px is bad. It isn't consistent, it isn't accessible, and it only gives the illusion of layout control on a single browser, on a single platform.