|
|
Posted by David Segall on 07/05/07 06:28
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.nony.mous@example.invalid> wrote:
>David Segall wrote:
>
>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>>> David Segall wrote:
>>>> 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).
>
>What is the error you see, and what told you of the error? Neither the
>W3C nor Firefox Firebug report any errors.
>
>> 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.
>
>Do you really use your browser window maximized? <g>
>
>>> http://www.fingerlakesbmw.org/
>>
>> You were very brave to include a table
>> <http://www.fingerlakesbmw.org/stuff/flmodels.php> in your candidate
>> site.
>
>How else would you display a table of data, other than with a table?
>This is what tables are for. Brave? No, I use the proper markup.
>
>> 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.
>
>The width of the table fits the data presented, short widths of numbers.
>
>>> 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
>
>I've seen the site on a Palm something-or-other and it seemed to work
>rather well.
>
>> 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.
>
>I was pious? Ok, let's see your efforts.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|