We have a CSS file with some rules similar to the following:
.directory-result ul
{
margin-top: 20px;
width: 60em;
}
.about-text
{
margin-top: 1em;
margin-bottom: 1em;
}
Everything is working ok, but we're wondering specifically about the inconsistencies between the margin-top values. One is 20px and the other is 1em.
Which is the best one to go with? What are the points I should consider when deciding which to use? Thanks.
em units are used for better scalability of the page when the size of the elements depend on the page's scale. It's especially important for old browsers (e.g. IE6) and mobile platforms.
px units are used for absolute values, while em is relative to the font size of the particular element.
1em means one font-line, e.g. you have a box with font-size 12px that means that 1em will be equal to 12px
Also, using px seems easier because you know the exact value, but em units inherit the value of their container.
<p>Text</p>
<div class="box">
<p>Lorem</p>
</div>
p {
font-size: 1.2em;
}
.box {
font-size: 1.2em;
}
In this case, the first <p> will have font-size equal to the basic font-size * 1.2, and the second <p> will display with font-size * 1.2 * 1.2.
They're simply two different ways of measuring. Em is linked to the font size (traditionally, 1em is roughly the width of the letter M in a given typeface), while px is pixels.
If you build everything using em, everything will scale accordingly when the user adjusts their font size (e.g. using IE's Page > Text Size menu). It also makes it easier to work to a vertical rhythm.
Pixels are better when you want to build something "pixel-perfect". Be aware that a CSS pixel doesn't always equal a screen pixel - mainly because modern browsers and mobile devices allow for zooming. This isn't usually a problem though because the entire page is scaled accordingly.
Whatever you do, make sure you're consistent throughout - it makes life much easier later on.
The ems unit is relative to the current font size in the browser. So if the user increases the font size*, or if you change an element’s font size in the CSS, the margins should still look “right” in proportion to the text.
*(This ceases to matter if the user zooms the page instead of increasing the text size (as is the default in Firefox and Chrome now, and is an option in IE).
If you're using a margin to position something a set number of pixels away from something else, then you should obviously stick with pixels.
Also here is a very good in depth tutorial:
px – em – % – pt – keyword
In this example directory-result ul represents a block - some sort of list/menu where pixel dimensions are quite important. We can’t always rely on em which defines the text size, because if we need 20px space due to some background image – well, we need 20px, no compromises.
Note that you can't create and save the image i.e. 10em wide, therefore I see no reason why should I use different units on a web page. It just creates confusion and later on it is very difficult to maintain the layout.
There is a one place though, where using em is advisable – I’m talking about text blocks. I’m guessing in your code about-text is placed within other text where adding top/bottom margin of 1em (height of text) makes sense. It’s like in any text editor (i.e. line spacing in MS Word) – text looks best when spacing between lines is defined by multiplying the height of text
So in my opinion – everywhere where you deal with design and you use images by default measured in pixels – usepixels for all padding/margin.
Everywhere where you deal with text inside a text block, and you want to add even spacing between the text nodes – useem.
Related
I'm hoping to use VW units to size my typography, but when doing so the text is huge and obviously larger than the viewport width. Essentially I want my text to be responsive within the parent .container, so the text is never cropped or overflowed as it would be if using a static size unit like px or em?
HTML
<div class="container">
<h1>Responsive Typography!</h1>
</div>
CSS
.container {
width: 100%;
background: red;
height: 100%;
}
h1 {
font-size: 40vw;
}
FIDDLE
Your Fiddle is rendering correctly.
font-size, classically, referred to the width of a capital letter M. Let's go with that for now.*
1vw is 1% of the viewport width.
Thus, font-size: 40vw roughly means "render this text such that the width of a capital letter M would be 40% of the viewport width". In other words, each individual character is going to be pretty huge.
It's not going to break to a new line because it's all one word, and CSS only breaks between words by default. (To break on characters within a word, you would use word-break: break-all on the element. It usually looks terrible, though.)
You confirmed in a comment that you're trying to scale up the font size in your header so that the full text in it is some percentage of the viewport width. Depending on your circumstances, you can either
use a smaller font-size, still in vw, and accept that text won't always be a predictable fixed width; or
try something like FitText to dynamically resize the font.
It's a shame, but there isn't a way to do quite what you want with pure CSS; as is often the case your choices are to compromise on your design goal or use some clever JS/hacks to achieve it.
* A note on font-size: what I said above isn't really how font-size is worked out; it just happens to be close enough for most fonts and it makes my answer easier to read. The actual situation is more complicated.
A more accurate rule-of-thumb is the body height, i.e. the vertical distance from the top of an ascender (upper part of letters like b, d and h) to the bottom of a descender (lower part of letters like g, j and p) on the same line. However, even this is very course and often wrong; it ultimately comes down to the font metrics, and will vary significantly between fonts.
I have an h1 I want to fit the entire width of the viewport which consists of 13 characters in a monospaced font. After reading the CSS-Tricks article on viewport sized typography it seems like logically if I want to achieve this I simply have to set my h1's styles to:
h1 {
font-size: 13vw;
font-family: monospace;
}
This however is rendering with a bit of space left over (highlight the text to see the white space):
(There would be an image here but I don't have enough rep so click here for the JSFiddle)
I have tried other sizes, font-size: 14vw; is slightly too big, font-size: 13.99vw; seems just right, but strangely font-size: 13.999vw; is still too big?
Can someone explain what is going on here? Why would each character of a 13 character length string in a monospaced font require more than (100/13)% of the viewport width to fit the entire viewport width?
Before I begin I'm just going to say that I'm not going to give you a workaround due to issues I've raised in comments on Stoyan Dekov's answer. Instead I'm only going to answer your question of Can someone explain what is going on here?
font-size != width
The problem here is that you're assuming font-size is the same thing as width. It isn't. The CSS Fonts Module defines font-size as:
...the desired height of glyphs from the font.
This means that font-size is more comparable to height than it is to width.
This isn't specific to the vw unit, either. If you specify a font-size in pixels you'll also notice that the computed width does not match the font-size.
But even then it all depends on which font-family you're using anyway, as the same paragraph continues to say:
For scalable fonts, the font-size is a scale factor applied to the EM unit of the font. (Note that certain glyphs may bleed outside their EM box.) For non-scalable fonts, the font-size is converted into absolute units and matched against the declared font-size of the font, using the same absolute coordinate space for both of the matched values.
The key words here being scalable and non-scalable.
Even if a non-scalable font was being used though, 13vw would not reflect each character's width. This would never work with vw, but it may work with vh but only if the aspect ratio of each individual character matched the screen's aspect ratio.
The problem is if a text is the exact same size as the parent container, it will span across a second line.
body {
margin: 0;
width:100px
}
h1 {
font-family: monospace;
width:100px;
}
That will cause the text to go onto a new line as they are both 100px. That's why 14vw is too big, but 13.99 is just enough: Fiddle DEMO
However, you can use text-align: justify; to achieve what you want.
Take a look at this Fiddle DEMO.
Im using em font sizes, which is working fine for everywhere apart from the sidebar.
In the main content the em size is great. If I copy this em size to the sidebar the text becomes larger.
Im using a html/body size of 17px. Then 1.412em to get the size I would like. To see a live link of the sidebar font bigger go to this link. If you look at the twitter feed on the right sidebar you will see its using the same em but you view it a lot larger.
Using em as measurement value would just not inhert but increases accordingly.
Here's an example:
<div>
<p>
<span>foo bar</span>
</p>
</div>
body{
font-size: 1em;
}
div{
font-size: 1.5em;/*1.5em of 1em == 1.5em*/
}
div > p{
font-size: 1.5em;/*1.5em of 1.5em inherited from div == 2.25em*/
}
div > p > span{
font-size: 1.5em; /*1.5em of 2.25em inherited from p == 3.375em*/
}
So, I would recommend you to use px as measurement value.
Use ems to make scalable style sheets only.
If you want to know more about px, em, and % please follow this link and this link
Don't use em for font-size, that's just about the only place where you should never use it.
1em is the size of an m in the current standard font. You can use this to set paddings/margins, for example between paragraphs or around text blocks, that need to scale according to font size, to cater for people using custom settings at OS/browser level, or just as an easy way to keep a 'good' distance without having to worry about precise pixels.
Scaling a font to a relative size to the m of the current standard font makes no sense at all, unless you want to achieve this effect. If you would want to, it would be more logical to specify font-size:110%, for a single element or block. As a rule, use pt or px to specify font sizes.
I have a project where IE9 is the minimal compatibility browser. That means that I can use the rem unit.
In my experience on large projects, involving many dev, the use of "em" creates quite a mess. I do not say that it is bad in itself, just that it seems to "naturally" happened on over time, when there is different people with varying skills working on a project. Dom elements tend to pile up, and that do not work well with the compounding behavior of "em".
After having looked at a lot of resources online, it seems that there is a lot of cargo cult on the question.
there is the temptation of solution 1:
start with this (suggested here css3files.com comment - David Buell ):
solution 1 :
html { font-size: 10px;}
body { font-size: 1.3rem;}
Rem for anything text-related and px for the rest.
But even though, I am not sure where I am really contrained to use another unit than "rem". I did some zooming test, and did not notice differences between "rem" and "px". The advantage of "rem" over "px" seems to be that "rem" will be relative to the a size set with "%" on the body, and this allows to change all text sizes in one line for a specific breakpoint.
Default text size change IS seemingly an issue, since "px" and "rem" text remains unchanged. But I wonder is there is usage statistics about this (this SO user thinks nobody). If it is really used then, I think I should drop the "easy math" font-size definition on the html tag.
solution 2 :
body { font-size: 0.8125rem;}
That gives 13px size with the browsers default size of 16px - and users can still change the default setting. (and maths aren't that hard starting with 16)
What I am really unsure of is the case of different screen resolution, and the case of different pixel density (which I know can be changed on windows).
to sum up:
No need to accomodate anything below IE9.
reponsive design.
handle zoom well.
handle user text size change if that's really used.
no magic, as barebone as possible (I use a css preprocessor but I want to avoid crazy use of it).
I think many frontend developer adapt their interface to browser zoom. But what is the practice with text-only zoom ? Its a somewhat more hidden browser feature. How many devs actually test it and code for it ?
I see that SO supports it but that it sorta breaks beyond a certain scale.
What the right base setup for a IE9+ interface, that supports responsive web design?
keep a rule - All font sizes must be specified using rem only with a pixel fall back. Do not use percentages, ems or pixels alone.
font-size: 14px; /* pixel fall back rule should come first */
font-size: 1.4rem;
more infor - https://github.com/stubbornella/oocss-code-standards
I did some testing here : http://codepen.io/Olivvv/full/aGDzI
a few interpretations :
solution 1 : WRONG
html { font-size: 10px;}
prevents the permanent browser/user font-size setting to be applied. If the user has requested a bigger font-size,it should take effect.
See here with the SO website, things break a little with very big fonts, but at least the user gets the font-size increase.
solution 2: OK
body { font-size: 0.8125rem;}
is actually the same as
body { font-size: 0.8125em;}
since the can only inherit from the element "em" as the same value as "rem" ("rem" stands for root em, the em value of the root element, i.e the element)
solution 3: INTERESTING
html{font-size: 62.5%;}
body{font-size: 1.6em;}
---> 1 rem == 10px
(if the browser is set to default, i.e 16px; - (62.5/100)*16 == 10)
Now about the possible strategies :
1. rem only
html{font-size: 6.25%;}
body{font-size: 16em;}
+ only working with rem; for font-size, width, padding, margin, borders. This seems to be the easiest way to go.
Here 1 rem equates to 1px in defaut setting. It responds to user change of the default setting, so it is accessible.
When doing responsive design, the interface can be zoomed by changing the % value of the . for instance:
html
the whole interface is zoomed. Zoom is vertical and horizontal.
div.foo{
font-size: 16rem;
border: 16rem solid;
width: 350rem;
border-color: limegreen;
}
That will create a box that expands both vertically and horizontally.
Issue: What about vertical zoom ?
2. rem and em (in order to get vertical zoom)
rem -> interface elements, width essentially
em -> text (can be resized independently from interface elements (which are in rem) by changing the font-size value on the body)
px -> seperators, borders essentially
This way we achieve interfaces that respond well to both browser zoom and browser font-size setting
Some comments on ideas read on some blogs and
"just use px, if your brain works in pixel" --> Very Wrong. Font-size in px will be unreadable for some users who have explicitely requested bigger font size. (and what about dpi different from 96 ?)
"layout in em" --> average wrong, since a different user font size will make appear horizontal scrollbars or not use the full viewport space. Such behavior relates to zoom, not font size. (note that I am not considering browsers older than IE9 - just let them fall back on their default values )
I wasn't sure how to word the question for this topic...sorry.
I'm just starting to learn CSS.
I have a <div> with a background image and there is text within the <div>. I read that choosing font sizes in em is a good choice because some people might require larger text sizes in their browsers. So setting the font-size with em would accommodate these types of users better.
But the problem with allowing the text to be resized, is that in many cases, the text within my <div> is going to go beyond the size of the background image and make the page look terrible and poorly designed.
Is there a way to use CSS and allow the background image to 'match' or 'expand' to accommodate to larger text size?
You could set the width of the div to the img width so that it never expands wider (beyond the image).
Of course, the enlarged text would force the div to grow height-wise.
You could also set the background-img to repeat (if the image allows for it), so that when the text expands, the image is repeated.
background-image:url('whatever.png');
background-repeat:repeat-x;
// x = horizontal, y = vertical
Since you are starting out, you might want to read http://na.isobar.com/standards/#_pixels_vs_ems wherein they say:
We use the px unit of measurement to
define font size, because it offers
absolute control over text. We realize
that using the em unit for font sizing
used to be popular, to accommodate for
Internet Explorer 6 not resizing pixel
based text. However, all major
browsers (including IE7 and IE8) now
support text resizing of pixel units
and/or full-page zooming. Since IE6 is
largely considered deprecated, pixels
sizing is preferred. Additionally,
unit-less line-height is preferred
because it does not inherit a
percentage value of its parent
element, but instead is based on a
multiplier of the font-size.
Correct:
#selector {
font-size: 13px;
line-height: 1.5; /* 13 * 1.5 = 19.5 ~ Rounds to 20px. */
}
Incorrect:
/* Equivalent to 13px font-size and 20px line-height, but only if the browser default text size is 16px. */
#selector {
font-size: 0.813em;
line-height: 1.25em;
}