|
|
Posted by dorayme on 05/06/06 09:18
In article
<leo-D4D844.22194605052006@sn-indi.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Leonard Blaisdell <leo@greatbasin.com> wrote:
> In article
> <doraymeRidThis-25DF2D.14541506052006@news-vip.optusnet.com.au>,
> dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <leo-C69178.17511705052006@sn-indi.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> > Leonard Blaisdell <leo@greatbasin.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <b_Q6g.2661$Da5.1942@newsfe4-win.ntli.net>,
> > > "Domestos" <andy.mak@virgin.netspam> wrote:
>
> > > > on the right first goes behind the text and then blends into the yellow
> > > > box
> > > > on the left... IMHO that is bad design !!!
> > >
> > > It is hardly bad design. There is a certain point in the horizontal
> > > narrowing of all web pages where the design breaks down. Content either
> > > coalesces as in the above example, jumps down or disappears.
> > > Yet it's still a far more forgiving medium than the printed page.
>
> > I agree with Leo. But, to be fair to Domestos, table layouts
> > don't have this particular breakdown.
>
> Sure they do. Drag a window with a table in it far enough to the left
> and the table contents start to disappear once all the columns have
> collapsed to their minimum.
> My blather was universal and not constrained to non-table layout.
> Geeze! ;-)
>
> leo
Then your blather was wrong. A table layout of the material on
the site I was discussing would not do the directly "crazy"
things OP was referring to. I have no time now, but if you are
not convinced I will cast it all in a table some time. How about
you doing it Leo and I will take a look and see you have not
cheated :)
And don't Geeze me! I have enough problems with religion.
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|