|
|
Posted by the red dot on 01/16/07 18:49
"aa" <a@aa.com> wrote in message
news:45ad0ea0$0$8719$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
>
> "John Hosking" <John@DELETE.Hosking.name.INVALID> ???????/???????? ?
> ???????? ?????????: news:45acb6ad$1_1@news.bluewin.ch...
> > I am sorry to tell you this but the pages look bad at 1024x768, and
> > don't get any better at 800x600 (for which they're supposedly made). It
> > looks like the elements which are visible are misaligned and
> > overlapping. Oh, I see it looks a bit better in IE but I checked first
> > in Firefox.
>
> John, you have absolutely nothing to be sorry about. As I said, I
knowingly
> ignore FireFoxes and the likes simply because my audience, which is quite
> limited, do not use them
> How do I know which css to use? There is a JS function which returns a
> resolution on a client computer. And I also took an executive decision not
> to care about visitors who browse the Internet with their browser window
> minimised to 1/4 of its normal size. Simply because there not many of
such
> come to me, and those who came, not my customers anyway. Same applies to
> people with 640x400 resolution.
> I am not saying this is the best solution. From designer skill it is quite
> bad, actually. But for my business this is the best value for money.
> Or the best money for time spent, to be more precise
>
but why are you determined to build something incorrectly? doing it properly
is easier.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|