Comments on: Truth and Beauty in HTML http://www.smallandsimplethings.org/blog/2009/06/truth-and-beauty-in-html/ by Tom DeForest Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:59:51 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: tom http://www.smallandsimplethings.org/blog/2009/06/truth-and-beauty-in-html/comment-page-1/#comment-10146 tom Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:50:31 +0000 http://www.smallandsimplethings.org/blog/?p=999#comment-10146 More clarity on HTML5 and XHTML: http://adactio.com/journal/1595/ More clarity on HTML5 and XHTML: http://adactio.com/journal/1595/

]]> By: tom http://www.smallandsimplethings.org/blog/2009/06/truth-and-beauty-in-html/comment-page-1/#comment-9814 tom Fri, 05 Jun 2009 16:40:19 +0000 http://www.smallandsimplethings.org/blog/?p=999#comment-9814 Good point. What I'm trying to say is that with ems as the base for type and layout elements the design <em>can</em> automatically inherit a relationship to each other - increasing the designer's chances of creating good design. Also, when a user is scaling text, those proportions will stay intact if you base the design on ems. And since we don't know whether users are scaling text or zooming, we increase our chances of creating bullet-proof designs by using ems. You're right, though, the unit of measurement will not automatically create good design. Good point.

What I’m trying to say is that with ems as the base for type and layout elements the design can automatically inherit a relationship to each other – increasing the designer’s chances of creating good design. Also, when a user is scaling text, those proportions will stay intact if you base the design on ems. And since we don’t know whether users are scaling text or zooming, we increase our chances of creating bullet-proof designs by using ems.

You’re right, though, the unit of measurement will not automatically create good design.

]]> By: Josh Farneman http://www.smallandsimplethings.org/blog/2009/06/truth-and-beauty-in-html/comment-page-1/#comment-9812 Josh Farneman Fri, 05 Jun 2009 14:56:54 +0000 http://www.smallandsimplethings.org/blog/?p=999#comment-9812 It seems like you are biasing one unit of measurement over another based on the design they have been associated with in the past: "Using ems, each part of the design has a relationship to the whole." and "A px is a bludgeon to force your taste on the design." Ems and pixels are both only units of measurement. Neither one inherently makes a design beautiful. A px based design could be just a beautifully proportioned and mathematically based as an em based design. Likewise an em based design can be just as ugly and lacking in rhythm as a poor px based design. I'm not saying px is better than em; I currently use ems myself. I'm just not seeing the direct correlation between the unit of measure used by the designer and the mathematical rhythm or proportional beauty of the design. It seems like you are biasing one unit of measurement over another based on the design they have been associated with in the past: “Using ems, each part of the design has a relationship to the whole.” and “A px is a bludgeon to force your taste on the design.” Ems and pixels are both only units of measurement. Neither one inherently makes a design beautiful. A px based design could be just a beautifully proportioned and mathematically based as an em based design. Likewise an em based design can be just as ugly and lacking in rhythm as a poor px based design. I’m not saying px is better than em; I currently use ems myself. I’m just not seeing the direct correlation between the unit of measure used by the designer and the mathematical rhythm or proportional beauty of the design.

]]>