Posted by dorayme on 07/04/07 22:12

In article <m2y7hvc292.fsf@dot-app.org>,
Sherm Pendley <spamtrap@dot-app.org> wrote:

> David Segall <david@address.invalid> writes:
>
> > The post
> > that I responded to did not qualify "any resolution" and it typifies a
> > number of posts in similar threads that make pious statements about
> > how a web page should be designed
>

> Advocating "any resolution" design is in fact the exact opposite of a
> pious statement. It's a recognition that I *don't* know anything about
> my visitors or their browsers, and a refusal to delude myself with an
> irrational belief that I do know these things.
>
> sherm--

Everyone concerned with this question will get a rather different
feeling about it if they think of the ideas being ideals and the
implementations approximations. In other words, to take the ideal
of fluid design, in reality they are less than perfect in that it
is extremely hard to make a design show up as we might want for
all screen sizes or even no screen size. The idea is that the
author gets it right if he or she makes as decent a compromise
between the competing claims as possible. Those choosing em based
designs and em widths succeed well enough in this (beau)regard.
Those choosing pixel based designs and fixed widths too often
fail spectacularly.

(btw, Sherm, your sig has the dashes after the name, and it tuns
up in replies on my newsreader.)

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]