|
|
Posted by dorayme on 12/05/23 11:56
In article <7M4Hg.10234$NY2.4232@reader1.news.jippii.net>,
"Wrm" <nomailstodragon@north.invalid> wrote:
> "dorayme" <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> kirjoitti
> viestiss:doraymeRidThis-99ABD8.08002024082006@news-vip.optusnet.com.au...
>
> <snip>
>
> > Well, well! I don't suppose you would care to give me a URL to
> > this; to save a lazy martian trouble?
>
> Might be about this
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html/browse_frm/
> thread/7827161e86a522e6/3f013af1c59adfda?#3f013af1c59adfda
> but as you read it you might realize that what was claimed to be said and
> what Spartanicus said is kinda different ;)
>
> <snip>
er... yes... not quite the blood and guts I was expecting.
Anyway, Spartanicus is probably mostly right in saying "a footer
that remains in view is a poor design decision, it wastes
valuable screen real estate and for what? Very rarely is there a
valid reason to keep a footer visible at all times."
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|