Post #1787332
2026-04-27 19:25 UTC
Replies (4)
-
@DunwichType@typo.social 2026-04-27 19:41
@JTDType tiny and micro may be confusing in the same way that condensed and compressed are.
-
@db@typo.social 2026-04-27 19:43
@JTDType The current names are only confusing insofar as I would have guessed Display is the largest opsz, and would not be sure about the ordering of Tiny vs Micro. I was thinking maybe something like the below as a mnemonic for the design concept, without it suggesting actual, absolute optical sizes? Enfilade 16x Enfilade 8x Enfilade 4x Enfilade 2x Enfilade 1x
-
@klim@typo.social 2026-04-27 20:05
@JTDType The problem with numbers is the Point/Pixel divide: does the number refer to the size in points or pixels? XS S M L XL Might be better… but the don’t sort alphabetically in font menus which is annoying 😅
-
@nicksherman@typo.social 2026-04-28 06:01
@JTDType I would say your named sizes are confusing, not just because the order isn’t totally obvious, but also because some of them (esp. “Headline”) have implications beyond just size. If you want to try a relative size-naming system that sorts alphabetically, I’ve been toying with a scheme that goes in reverse order: Huge Large Medium Small Tiny X Tiny XX Tiny Naming based on a number might be a more appealing approach if the handling of `opsz` values was more reliably consistent across software, and/or the spec for the `opsz` value was directly tied to actual optical (perceived, angular) size. Unfortunately the current landscape for `opsz` numbering is a rat’s nest. Related: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-css-archive/2020Jun/0055.html