|
|
Posted by David Segall on 07/05/07 06:22
Neredbojias <neredbojias@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 15:22:48 GMT David Segall scribed:
>
>> Neredbojias <neredbojias@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 14:43:21 GMT David Segall scribed:
>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>>Try my site:
>>>
>>>http://www.neredbojias.com/
>> It is a respectable attempt, and better than mine, but it makes no
>> sense at all on a Palm Treo 320x320 screen
>
>Well, 320px _is_ pretty small, but I'd like to see it, anyway. Any
>particular page?
I just tried it on your home page.
>
>> and I think the line length
>> on a text page is far too long for comfortable reading on my 1680x1050
>> monitor.
>
>Text... Can you give me the url of a page you mean?
http://www.neredbojias.com/_a/uranus1.html
I would like to emphasise that this is not a criticism of your site. I
think the idea that a site can work from 320x320 to 1680x1050 using
just CSS and HTML is ridiculous. http://www.w3.org is about the best I
have seen from 800x600 to 1680x1050 but even it is useless at 320x320.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|