Split post in two

Author: mirisuzanne

content/_includes/post.macros.njk

@@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ params:
   pagination=none,
   label='Posts'
 ) %}
+  {% set posts = posts | getPublic %}
   {%- if posts | length -%}
     {%- if posts | length > above -%}
       {%- for group in posts | eventSort | byYear -%}
@@ -87,7 +88,7 @@ params:
   banner_title=none,
   page_url=''
 ) %}
-  {%- set posts = collections[tag] -%}
+  {%- set posts = collections[tag] | getPublic -%}
   {%- if posts | length -%}
     {%- set related = posts | pageYears | isPublicType | reverse | removePage(page_url) | onlyShow(limit) -%}
     {%- set title = banner_title or ['Posts about', tag] | join(' ') -%}
@@ -133,7 +134,7 @@ params:
   banner_title='Posts',
   page_url=''
 ) %}
-  {%- set posts = collections[type] -%}
+  {%- set posts = collections[type] | getPublic -%}
   {%- if posts | length -%}
     {%- set recents = posts | isType(type) | pageYears | reverse | removePage(page_url) | onlyShow(limit) -%}
     {%- if recents | length -%}

content/blog/2025/css-utopia.md

@@ -0,0 +1,127 @@
+---
+draft: true
+title: Utopian Typography in Modern CSS
+sub: Introducing the `progress()` function
+author: miriam
+date: 2025-06-18
+tags:
+  - Article
+  - CSS
+  - Typography
+series: revisiting fluid typography
+permalink: false
+summary: |
+  TBD
+---
+
+I cited [Utopia.fyi](https://utopia.fyi)
+as my favorite tool for doing all the math
+to convert from 'actual' font and viewport sizes
+(pixel values) to the appropriate CSS `clamp()` output --
+which is not at all intuitive to do by hand.
+That's especially true
+if you rely on their advanced ability to scale
+not just the individual font sizes,
+but the relative ratio between steps.
+To do this, we input:
+
+- Our desired (`px`) base font size on small screens
+- The (unitless) ratio between font sizes on a small screen
+- The minimum (`px`) viewport size
+  at which fonts & scales should start growing
+- The maximum (`px`) viewport size
+  where fonts and scales should stop growing
+- The desired (`px`) base size for large screens
+- The (unitless) ratio between sizes on large screens
+
+We have several options for output,
+but the more readable CSS option looks like this:
+
+```css
+:root {
+  --step--2: clamp(0.7813rem, 0.7747rem + 0.0326vw, 0.8rem);
+  --step--1: clamp(0.9375rem, 0.9158rem + 0.1087vw, 1rem);
+  --step-0: clamp(1.125rem, 1.0815rem + 0.2174vw, 1.25rem);
+  --step-1: clamp(1.35rem, 1.2761rem + 0.3696vw, 1.5625rem);
+  --step-2: clamp(1.62rem, 1.5041rem + 0.5793vw, 1.9531rem);
+  --step-3: clamp(1.944rem, 1.771rem + 0.8651vw, 2.4414rem);
+  --step-4: clamp(2.3328rem, 2.0827rem + 1.2504vw, 3.0518rem);
+  --step-5: clamp(2.7994rem, 2.4462rem + 1.7658vw, 3.8147rem);
+}
+```
+
+- The `rem` values represent your desired base font size
+  in relation to the common `16px` user-settings default
+- The `vw` values represent how much a font needs to scale
+  relative to the viewport
+- The clamp min and max are direct representations
+  of our desired small and large screen result
+- The internal calculation ensures
+  that our growth is offset to the correct point,
+  scaling from one value to the other
+  over the proper range of screen sizes
+
+I consider this the current state of the art,
+and I love using Utopia to get the output I need.
+With or without the specific tooling,
+this is a great CSS solution that has worked well for years.
+But I raised some concerns about the approach:
+
+- **The resulting numbers feel magical**.
+  I couldn't tell you how each one was calculated,
+  and I wouldn't be able to update them manually in CSS.
+  That's not a problem with Utopia,
+  it's one of the reasons Utopia is so helpful.
+  As a member of the CSS Working Group,
+  I wonder if we can provide some of these tools
+  in the language itself?
+- **I don't like the interaction
+  between site and user font-sizes**.
+  If I prefer a large font size for my design,
+  and a visitor on my site
+  prefers _the same large font size_,
+  that's the font size we should use.
+  We don't need to combine our preferences
+  and render an _extra-large_ font size.
+- **I don't think in pixel values**
+  when I'm defining fluid relationships.
+  I think in relative units.
+  Any CSS _pixel-to-em_ conversion math
+  makes me squirm.
+
+Many people,
+including [Richard Rutter](https://clagnut.com/blog/2441/),
+found my critique frustrating.
+It seems I wasn't very clear:
+
+- That I think this solution is _pretty good_
+  as a starting point,
+  and is working from the right set of goals.
+  I'm not opposed to fluid type,
+  I want to see if we can improve how we achieve it in CSS.
+- That I love Utopia,
+  and don't have any issues with it as a tool.
+  As CSS has evolved since their first launch,
+  Utopia's output has also changed to stay on the cutting edge.
+  _Even if_ we can find even more modern CSS improvements,
+  I imagine they'll remain the state of the art
+  for visualizing the thought process to get there.
+- How I think about
+  (or don't think about) pixels,
+  and what it looks like to design
+  without starting from a fixed unit.
+
+Most importantly,
+I didn't have any real alternative to propose.
+My first stab at a 'solution'
+was pretty similar to Utopia's output,
+and extremely underwhelming.
+All I managed to do was remove some calculations,
+and replace them with _approximations_.
+
+Those are valid critiques.
+I'm afraid I let a lot of things get mixed together
+in my original post,
+as I was just starting to put words to an idea.
+This time I want to break things apart,
+and look for real alternative approaches in CSS.