|
|
Posted by Mimic on 08/25/05 03:47
JDS wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:57:11 +0100, Mimic wrote:
>
>
>>>Annoying part of layout is that it's designed 1024x768 minimum
>>>resolution. I basically never have that big browser window even of my
>>>screen is bigger than that. They could easily have made main column
>>>fluid and that layout would have worked on 800x600 resolution too.
>>>
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I noticed the res thing too. Im sure they have their reasons. In defence,
>>the core user base is PC/laptop based web/gfx designers, and as such tend
>>to run in higher res's. It would be interesting to know how many people
>>outside of corporate lockdown terminals actually still run in 800*600.
>>
>>--
>>Mimic
>
>
> Missing the point, I think. The size of the viewport/browser window and
> NOT the size of the screen is what matters. for example, I currently run
> my desktop at 1600x1200 but my browser windows are *rarely* as wide as
> 1024. So that means I have to resize my browser for the stupid new ALA
> site.
>
> Am I alone in this matter?
>
I know what youre saying, but most people run their browsers at full
res. To incorporate every possible screen res between 1600*1200 and 1*1,
is just stupid. Personally, I cant stand any of me windows below
maximised :P ...besides, thats what alt-tab is for ;)
--
Mimic
"The man who awaits the rising of the sun, cannot wait forever."
[email: ZGF0YWZsZXhAY2FubmFiaXNtYWlsLmNvbQ==]
Help Stop Spam - www.hidemyemail.net
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|