These are probably the most noticeable (intentional) changes, and I wanted to see if anyone noticed (you did!) and had any thoughts…
Both names and titles were .929em, which is a font-size I eliminated. So I moved names and titles to 1em and post meta to .8706em (seemed like a logical way to treat the hierarchy of information).
The reasoning for the elimination is that I’m using a formula to create our font scale:
multiplier ^ (step / interval). So from 1em, 1 size up is
2^(1/5), and one size down is
2^(-1/5). This makes it sane to move up and down the font scale (while nesting ems) without creating a potential infinite number of font size variations.
A couple options if this change is undesirable:
We could move names/meta both up to 1em, which is ~.7em larger than they used to be (the .87em size is too small for names, IMO).
I could modify the scale I’m using to provide more options (something like
2^(X/8)). I was trying to keep the interval small, but adding more sizes is still much better than what we started with. We’d then have a
.917em font-size for names/dates, and 21 available font-size variables instead of the 13 I’m using currently.
If you want to an overview of the available sizes in each scale, you can see them here