"I love that it creates a harmonious rhythm for the typography of a project. I love how it speeds up the responsive design process in the browser. And that it feels like you are working with the grain of the web, not against it. Instead of trying to control every typographic detail, you are defining boundaries that make sure your design works well - regardless of the end device."
"Fluid type can sometimes also be tricky, though. I've worked with teams who struggled with it or even abandoned it completely because it didn't work for their more imperative design process. One of the issues that some people have with it, for example, is that you have to be fine with giving up control over how large your typography is on a particular screen. That uncertainty is something not everyone feels comfortable with. But once you do you don't want to go back."
"By default, most browsers set this base to 16px, and many fluid typography solutions simply assume that value when performing their calculations. Just take the most common approach to fluid type, using rem units and clamp(): font-size: clamp(1rem, 0.6522rem + 1.7391vw, 2rem); We add a fraction of the viewport (or container) width to the base font size. Using rem ensures that our text remains responsive to any user-defined font size changes."
Fluid type produces harmonious, device-agnostic typography by scaling font sizes with viewport or container width and defining minimum and maximum bounds. Common implementations combine rem units with clamp() to add a viewport fraction to a base font size while preventing sizes from falling below a minimum or exceeding a maximum. Browsers typically default to a 16px base, and assuming that value can cause unexpected scaling when users change base font sizes. Fluid type demands some relinquishing of exact control over sizes on specific screens, yet it accelerates responsive workflows and aligns with declarative design principles.
Read at Matthias Ott - User Experience Designer
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]