|
|
Posted by ByteCoder on 08/27/05 13:28
Mimic <dev@null> wrote in news:eqWdnai_A_pliZDeRVnyvQ@pipex.net:
> 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 ;)
>
Have you guys actually noticed how much useful content there is on that
site?
Just saying... ;)
--
----------------------------------
- ByteCoder -
- "Da Evul Dootchie" -
- Qnl0ZUNvZGVyQHBsYW5ldC5ubA== -
----------------------------------
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|