5 ms·

Don't scale everything in units of rem; we want "zoom text only" to continue to do what it says on the tin. Only scale the things that need to be text-sized.

Tade0 3y ago
Things like border-radius are especially fun to watch then they're sized in rem. What was a regular border, eventually becomes a half-circle.
- FalconSensei 3y ago
  Also spacing/padding increases to much that then at some point you only have like 1 word per line, and the screen is half blank space
LoganDark 3y ago
Is there a reason for certain CSS frameworks like Tailwind to scale absolutely everything in units of rem and ignore px like the plague? Or is that just too far? I did mean font sizes though. :)
- dmix 3y ago
  Everyone jumped on the only-use-rem train when mobile started dominating because it provides relative units that scale better rather than absolute pixels. In practice it doesn't really mean much outside of blog-like text so when doing layouts it's more of just a standard everyone agrees on using everywhere because it's easier to stick to one for consistencies sake and it does the job. I don't think many frontend devs ever test zooming text using a browser anyway, their main concern is variations in screen sizes, basically device variation not manually zooming text. But I get the arguments to limit it to text.
  - afiori 3y ago
    Modern browsers zoom by increasing the CSS pixel size, so now all units are relative
    - GoblinSlayer 3y ago
      Zoom can use different algorithms, it's a setting.
- wizzwizz4 3y ago
  Incompetence, and thus obedience to a mistakenly-generalised caricature of "good practice", is my guess. I used to use em everywhere for exactly this reason. (The only reason I didn't shift to "rem everywhere", "flexbox everywhere", "web fonts everywhere", etc. was obedience to some different caricature of "good practice".) I've never seen a CSS framework that's good. (Unless you count https://simplecss.org/ https://simplecss.org/, but that's of very narrow usefulness.) They're all made by the kinds of people who don't understand web technologies, and seek to hide them behind a layer of abstraction so they don't have to think about them any more. Unfortunately for them, there's a reason the web's how it is. Some of it's backwards-compatibility, but most of it is that a large group of very clever people failed to find a way to make it any simpler without breaking something important; and so, the framework people tend to break important things. If you find yourself reaching for something like Tailwind or Bootstrap, just use inline style attributes. It's easier for everyone involved.
  - afiori 3y ago
    Good luck using pseudoclasses, pseudoelements or media queries in inline styles. Wrt Tailwind I still have not used it enough to decide whether it is good™ but it is not that different from writing inline styles. Apart from optional plugins it is more like a CSS preprocessor than a framework (every class expands to one or few CSS declaration) The most frameworky features it has is that it predefines CSS variables to allow further customization
    - wizzwizz4 3y ago
      If you need any of those things, you should be using a proper stylesheet. Use <style scoped='scoped'> in the <body>, if you really must. A crude "not that different from writing inline styles" classy framework just makes it harder to refactor your CSS in future, because it's all tucked away under incomprehensibly-named CSS classes, and there are otherwise-useless <div>s all through the HTML.
      - afiori 3y ago
        I should clarify that I primarily touch html via React, so the unit of reusability is not CSS but rather components. For handwritten html I believe that tailwind has significant downsides (unless you abuse @apply), but that the case I focus on. I should have mentioned that I believe tailwind to be applicable only if you have some strong templating support > Use <style scoped='scoped'> in the <body> This seems to have been removed from everywhere since at least 2017

Tade0 3y ago

Things like border-radius are especially fun to watch then they're sized in rem. What was a regular border, eventually becomes a half-circle.

FalconSensei 3y ago
Also spacing/padding increases to much that then at some point you only have like 1 word per line, and the screen is half blank space

LoganDark 3y ago

Is there a reason for certain CSS frameworks like Tailwind to scale absolutely everything in units of rem and ignore px like the plague? Or is that just too far? I did mean font sizes though. :)

dmix 3y ago
Everyone jumped on the only-use-rem train when mobile started dominating because it provides relative units that scale better rather than absolute pixels. In practice it doesn't really mean much outside of blog-like text so when doing layouts it's more of just a standard everyone agrees on using everywhere because it's easier to stick to one for consistencies sake and it does the job. I don't think many frontend devs ever test zooming text using a browser anyway, their main concern is variations in screen sizes, basically device variation not manually zooming text. But I get the arguments to limit it to text.
- afiori 3y ago
  Modern browsers zoom by increasing the CSS pixel size, so now all units are relative
  - GoblinSlayer 3y ago
    Zoom can use different algorithms, it's a setting.
wizzwizz4 3y ago
Incompetence, and thus obedience to a mistakenly-generalised caricature of "good practice", is my guess. I used to use em everywhere for exactly this reason. (The only reason I didn't shift to "rem everywhere", "flexbox everywhere", "web fonts everywhere", etc. was obedience to some different caricature of "good practice".) I've never seen a CSS framework that's good. (Unless you count https://simplecss.org/ https://simplecss.org/, but that's of very narrow usefulness.) They're all made by the kinds of people who don't understand web technologies, and seek to hide them behind a layer of abstraction so they don't have to think about them any more. Unfortunately for them, there's a reason the web's how it is. Some of it's backwards-compatibility, but most of it is that a large group of very clever people failed to find a way to make it any simpler without breaking something important; and so, the framework people tend to break important things. If you find yourself reaching for something like Tailwind or Bootstrap, just use inline style attributes. It's easier for everyone involved.
- afiori 3y ago
  Good luck using pseudoclasses, pseudoelements or media queries in inline styles. Wrt Tailwind I still have not used it enough to decide whether it is good™ but it is not that different from writing inline styles. Apart from optional plugins it is more like a CSS preprocessor than a framework (every class expands to one or few CSS declaration) The most frameworky features it has is that it predefines CSS variables to allow further customization
  - wizzwizz4 3y ago
    If you need any of those things, you should be using a proper stylesheet. Use <style scoped='scoped'> in the <body>, if you really must. A crude "not that different from writing inline styles" classy framework just makes it harder to refactor your CSS in future, because it's all tucked away under incomprehensibly-named CSS classes, and there are otherwise-useless <div>s all through the HTML.
    - afiori 3y ago
      I should clarify that I primarily touch html via React, so the unit of reusability is not CSS but rather components. For handwritten html I believe that tailwind has significant downsides (unless you abuse @apply), but that the case I focus on. I should have mentioned that I believe tailwind to be applicable only if you have some strong templating support > Use <style scoped='scoped'> in the <body> This seems to have been removed from everywhere since at least 2017