There'd be four at minimum to surround the text on all sides. To get a thicker shadow, you have to double that, at least. Then there's one set for "fuzz", to offset some of the obvious "multiple shadow" look this creates. Of course, if there's a simpler way, I'm open to suggestion.
The second set of four shadows (±2px offset) overlaps almost all of the first set (±1px offset). Even if the ±1px set is discarded, the difference should be nearly imperceptible, I think, unless you go out of your way to look for it. It's a lot of css for quite little gain, hence my reaction. (As for the blurred set, I don't mind.)
Usually, for thick outlines I'd just increase the shadow offset; the real ugly issue rears its head when the shadow offset gets large relative to font thickness (>50%) and the initial four shadows become completely disconnected in places. For example, post #1687247 where just the first set of four at (±3 ±3) would be inadequate, thus necessitating (±3 0) and (0 ±3) as well.
Regardless, making outlines using shadows is a kludge and I'm sure we'd all love to have wider browser support for text-stroke. =)
Leave a comment