Posted by dorayme on 09/19/06 21:42

In article
<1158661954.509651.168560@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Travis Newbury" <TravisNewbury@hotmail.com> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > > > Anyway, if your make a fixed
> > > > layout what screen size do you design for? And what do you think happens
> > > > when a visitor deviates from your "design" or changes his font size, eh?
> > > Who cares, it is just a different way to design a web page. One size
> > > does not fit all on the web.
> > > (man this is a boring, and meaningless argument)
> > It is hard to say. Some disputes have been going on for thousands
> > of years. They are not boring and useless in the sense that the
> > good arguments become clearer and more convincing to rational
> > people, the bad arguments held onto by either decreasing numbers
> > of people or else increasingly stupid people. Trust me Travis,
> > this is not a boring or meaningless process. It is an essential
> > one. You just are failing to identify the people who gain.
>
> We disagree. Not all websites are for everyone. I see the economic
> value of design and layout. (Even if there is a small minority of
> potential visitors you lose because they can not see the design.) And
> I am sure we have discussed this to no end a billion times. You will
> not change my mind, not am I likely to change yours.

Slight misunderstanding old boy, there is a (silly question) on
how all websites should be in respect to fixed size, there are
questions (sensible) on how most of them should be prima facie
and there is the question of how boring and meaningless all this
talk is. I was addressing the very latter. And you, secretly, do
not find it boring at all. I know Travis. You are as keen as
mustard on the question.

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]