Jason wrote:
> On Sep 18, 2:52 pm, Tedel <simply.te...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> That said, would you recommend switching to something more like font-
>> size: 8pt; ?
>
> There are so many variables here, it's impossible to give you a
> straight answer.
>

No, it's quite easy, if you know what you're doing.

> Let's say that you're using the font family Times New Roman first, and
> the backup font is Arial. By design, Arial is a much larger font than
> TNR, so what looks good for one will look horrible for the other.
>
> So the first question is, what font face are you using?
>

Makes no difference which font is being used. The answer is the same.

> The second question is, are we to assume that this font is for general
> reading, and not headlines, etc? If so, it's not necessarily a good
> idea to use CSS to lock in a font size, otherwise it's more difficult
> for the average user to increase the font size if they can't read it.
> It's better to just use the HTML size attribute:
>
> <font family="Arial" size="-1">
>

This is one of the WORST ways of doing it. Use CSS and percentages.
The user can still adjust the font size. font-size=100% gives the
default browser font size - without all the extra <font> tag junk.

> size="0" is the same as saying "use the default," so it's unnecessary.
> -1 drops it a little smaller than the default, and -2 makes it very
> small. By the same token, +1 makes it bigger, and +2 makes it even
> bigger.
>

So is font-size=100%

> IMHO, CSS is great for areas that you want to look exactly a certain
> way (like a headline or a sponsor ad), but for general text, it's
> smarter to stay away from it.
>
> - Jason
>

Then you don't understand CSS. CSS is actually more effective at
creating fluid designs than making something look exactly a certain way.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================