Posted by Neredbojias on 07/05/07 06:56

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 06:22:44 GMT David Segall scribed:

>>>>http://www.neredbojias.com/
>>> It is a respectable attempt, and better than mine, but it makes no
>>> sense at all on a Palm Treo 320x320 screen
>>
>>Well, 320px _is_ pretty small, but I'd like to see it, anyway. Any
>>particular page?
> I just tried it on your home page.

I've shrunken that page to under 300px in ie, ff, and opera, and seen no
particular problem. Sure, one of the graphics creates a horz scrollbar
and at a certain size the text is difficult to read because of the
largeness of the letters, but that's hardly an issue where I'm
accountable. Perhaps this "Palm Treo" doesn't handle html all that
correctly or attempts shrinkage, etc., with an inferior algorthm.

>>> and I think the line length
>>> on a text page is far too long for comfortable reading on my
>>> 1680x1050 monitor.
>>>
>>Text... Can you give me the url of a page you mean?
> http://www.neredbojias.com/_a/uranus1.html

Yes, I can see what you mean here, and I agree. It's probably too long
for even a 1024x monitor. Maybe I'll ditz with that anon.

> I would like to emphasise that this is not a criticism of your site. I
> think the idea that a site can work from 320x320 to 1680x1050 using
> just CSS and HTML is ridiculous. http://www.w3.org is about the best I
> have seen from 800x600 to 1680x1050 but even it is useless at 320x320.

Your probably right, although non-complex text-and-graphics only, such as
a thumbnail page, might have a chance.

--
Neredbojias

A hearty, healthy,
Living body
Will vomit, spit,
And oft go potty.

- Burma Shave

[Back to original message]