|
|
Posted by dorayme on 12/07/07 21:10
In article <a7eil3heogdd2iobtl15o6f0nb08bnqvsb@4ax.com>,
David Segall <david@address.invalid> wrote:
> dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >Lets see if you like the latest proposed solution by someone who
> >studiously avoids my name... someone who seems to have a rather
> >nice idea. If this does not please you, say so and I will have a
> >go... <g>
> Thanks dorayme. Since everyone approves of Bergamot's solution and Ben
> C warned me that than an "improved" version of his would be
> complicated I have to acknowledge that the problem I posed does not
> have a simple solution. Although I am prepared to accept that my site
> will break for viewports and font sizes outside the range I am capable
> of designing I am not about to reject a superior "fluid design".
>
Good for you and good luck on your project.
Just one thing though, while I agree that no author can be
expected to have a design look its best at all times on all
computers, the standard around here (but most definitely not out
there in the real world) is 'a few clicks of text size adjustment
by the user should make little difference, nor a range of
monitors from at least 800px to 1600px.
Now, of course, this might seem vague to you, but you can make it
mean more by thinking about it: for example, up the text size and
yes, it will look different but will something look 'particularly
wrong'? And you will develop a sense of judgement about these
things, nothing you can actually write down in strict rules...
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|