Posted by aa on 01/16/07 17:42

"John Hosking" <John@DELETE.Hosking.name.INVALID> ???????/???????? ?
???????? ?????????: news:45acb6ad$1_1@news.bluewin.ch...
> I am sorry to tell you this but the pages look bad at 1024x768, and
> don't get any better at 800x600 (for which they're supposedly made). It
> looks like the elements which are visible are misaligned and
> overlapping. Oh, I see it looks a bit better in IE but I checked first
> in Firefox.

John, you have absolutely nothing to be sorry about. As I said, I knowingly
ignore FireFoxes and the likes simply because my audience, which is quite
limited, do not use them
How do I know which css to use? There is a JS function which returns a
resolution on a client computer. And I also took an executive decision not
to care about visitors who browse the Internet with their browser window
minimised to 1/4 of its normal size. Simply because there not many of such
come to me, and those who came, not my customers anyway. Same applies to
people with 640x400 resolution.
I am not saying this is the best solution. From designer skill it is quite
bad, actually. But for my business this is the best value for money.
Or the best money for time spent, to be more precise

[Back to original message]