ctidd

9 ms·

31.
by ctidd 7y ago
On the topic of rems, when using them for layout, you'd use a body font size rather than the root element's font size to control the size of text in your page. At that point the root font size exists only as a scaling factor, deco
32.
by ctidd 7y ago
Cars are designed for humans, then infrastructure is designed for cars. That step of removal from being designed for humans conflicts with any idea that designing for cars is design for humans by proxy: disproportionately catering to automo
33.
by ctidd 8y ago
I'd recommend spending some dedicated time learning about layout, not leaning on a framework. CSS layout is largely about the relationship between elements. Instead of looking at it as "I want this element on the right," try
34.
by ctidd 12y ago
Your complaint is that you hear about too many opportunities in the "career-limiting" area of .NET development? No .NET developers are looking for work? Sounds like anyone wanting to be employed should get familiar with .NET. Or d
35.
by ctidd 13y ago
In my browser it renders as perfect grays, confirmed by the inspector.
36.
by ctidd 13y ago
It appears to be an attempt to make it easier to find the beginning of the next line after you finish reading a line. However, the effect is much too subtle to be of use, and even if made more prominent, it would still ruin the typographic
37.
by ctidd 13y ago
Wow. As an typography enthusiast who's miserable with bezier curves, I've never seen something this straightforward. I love the coordinates it gives you on handles and points. Being able to easily work from metrics forward is a
38.
by ctidd 13y ago
I would strongly recommend reviewing your 101 WRT what you're calling tags and clarifying that tags represent elements that are interpreted and rendered by the browser. (The browser does not render tags.) Also, the distinction of seman
39.
by ctidd 13y ago
Regarding your thought, there's an aspect of design known as typography that directly deals with easing and encouraging reading. So I'm inclined to say no -- this is not a common designer anti-pattern -- and to say it is implies t
40.
by ctidd 13y ago
Legibility and readability are technical terms in the field of typography. From what I've seen, the new iOS typography is adequately legible, but somewhat lacking in readability. To proclaim similar descriptions -- which might or might
41.
by ctidd 13y ago
Of course -- H&FJ is an excellent foundry, and they're not competing in the same space as, say, Google Web fonts. That's what I mean by not competitive. It's a completely different league, as it sounds like you're we
42.
by ctidd 13y ago
It doesn't seem to provide much in the way of competing directly with Typekit. Still, this is big news for a lot of people. H&FJ is practically THE type foundry for original typefaces. They compete on quality rather than price or o
43.
by ctidd 13y ago
From the article: Sang has no illusions that even a clever cryptographic font—which you can use in email messages to shield them from snoops and font-recognition bots—will remain encoded for long. They're not meant to be long-term tool
44.
by ctidd 13y ago
You can use "why" to question the context in which the amendment was created, and I even agree with you about that context, but "why" is a broader term, which can be thought, in these circumstances, to include also the i
45.
by ctidd 13y ago
That's exactly the point aspensmonster was making by misquoting the amendment to make light of the rayiner's comment.
46.
by ctidd 13y ago
Not bad kerning either, necessarily. (It's automatically kerned by the type engine regardless of the letter-spacing property.) Just loose tracking. It's fairly common for typographers to track bold text slightly looser than book text so as
47.
by ctidd 13y ago
Why does the author assume the reader's gender with terms like "gentlemen" and "brother"?
48.
by ctidd 14y ago
Firefox / Windows 8. It only appears to impact the blog post. If I go to your home page, middle clicking works as expected. Also, I'm getting a character encoding glitch that's rendering gibberish next to your login button. One last thing:
49.
by ctidd 14y ago
That's a completely false generalization. Brighter than #666 will lean into the danger zone for some readers, but #444 is safe for most type, although very slightly light in perception. In any case, the ideal type color is dependent on the