|
|
Posted by dorayme on 11/23/44 11:42
In article <1qqe12t10g67vvgs41khv55rloi8v24i8c@4ax.com>,
Andy Dingley <dingbat@codesmiths.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 07:44:27 +1100, dorayme
> <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> >what counts is
> >how it looks on a 17" colour screen at 1024 x 768 in millions of
> >colours...
>
> Not much looks worse than one of those sites.
>
> 5 years on, now that I'm running at 1600x1200 and the original site
> cowers in a corner and refuses to get any bigger.
it looks bad the way you quote me (without context)... I know I
have no reputation to uphold but still...
:)
[me too, a 1600 x 1200... plus really much more as I run more
than one screen (all "as one" rather than mirrored). ... as it
happens I have one 17" at 1024 x 1200 in the line up and it is
quite a reasonable thing to use for web pages. It is a more
"accurate" experience than looking at a site in a corner of a big
monitor. Or should I say, an easier one, not requiring a suitable
change in text size to reflect liklihoods...]
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|