Posted by dorayme on 12/09/06 21:10

In article <abf5e$4576d417$40cba7c9$29189@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art@centralva.net> wrote:

> Travis Newbury wrote:
> > Ed Seedhouse wrote:
> >> On 4 Dec 2006 09:26:12 -0800, "Travis Newbury"
> >> <TravisNewbury@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Ed Seedhouse wrote:
> >>>> People still do fixed width sites?
> >>> I prefer fixed width sites
> >> Hardly the point. What do people who have to use your sites prerfer?
> >
> > Ahh, your opinion is obviously more what people need.
> >
> >>>> Do they design cars that still require a hand crank to start as well?
> >>> Ahhh, you are implying that it is obsolete.
> >> Yes indeed.
> >
> > The key word is "you"
> >
>
> I guess the main point is yes, do what ever *you* wish. Design that
> static site if *you* so desire, it your prerogative. Just if your
> visitors are frustrated because they must maximize their browser window
> to view your site without the pain of horizontal scrolling when they
> really want two windows tiled or change their monitor resolution just to
> read that minuscule text they will exercise *their* prerogative and not
> come back!

Reminds me of an English high official's speech when challenged
about their determination to stamp out widow burning in India.
The challenge was in terms of the rights of cultural autonomy.
The official agreed and said that while they every right to
continue burning their widows, the English would exercise their
rights to round up those responsible and hang them high. Widow
burning was largely stamped out.

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]