|
|
Posted by David Segall on 07/04/07 16:39
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote:
>David Segall wrote:
>
>> Sherm Pendley <spamtrap@dot-app.org> wrote:
>>
>>>"Infant Newbie" <infant@newbie.new> writes:
>>>> Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?
>>>
>>> Still? I never did.
>>>
>>>> If not, what do you use?
>>>
>>> Flexible markup that works at any resolution.
>>
>> Can you post the URL of a site of yours, or anyone else, that does
>> this?
>
>You may look at a couple of mine if you wish.
>
>http://www.freezeblock.com/
At 800x600 <http://www.freezeblock.com/homeowner.php> looks fine
except for the link to the installation process which seems to have an
error in the line (Firefox 2.0.0.4). At 1680x1050 I think the line
length of the first two lines is far too long although I like the way
you have used the illustrations and the boxed testimonials to limit
the lenghth of subsequent lines. You seem to have given up on
<http://www.freezeblock.com/install.php> so it looks like a fixed
width page except that the heading looks centered at 800x600 and right
justified at 1680x1050.
>http://www.fingerlakesbmw.org/
You were very brave to include a table
<http://www.fingerlakesbmw.org/stuff/flmodels.php> in your candidate
site. It could hardly be defined as "liquid" since you have limited
the width and I think the headings are not corectly aligned at the
maximimum width.
>
>A browser window 'round 800 or so gives the better reading line length,
>but the pages will fit in any sized window within reason.
I'm sure you do not expect your site to be usable on a Palm Treo at
320x320 and I totally agree that this is not "within reason". The post
that I responded to did not qualify "any resolution" and it typifies a
number of posts in similar threads that make pious statements about
how a web page should be designed without providing any guidance on
how to achieve it.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|