Posted by dorayme on 09/21/07 03:53

In article
<1190346155.268500.261560@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
windandwaves <nfrancken@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sep 21, 3:31 pm, dorayme

> > Be interesting to see
> > if you could make this page (as an example) fit into 800 wide.
> > There is little enough (I do not mean unimportant) material here
> > and if it was not for the graphic constraints of the decorative
> > images, would easily do so.
> >
> > I think it is true that while many will use this site fine, it
> > would be clever if you could work it so that it was a bit more
> > fluid. There are people who would click the text up a few notches
> > (I do as the day wears on) and there are people who find it
> > convenient and/or appreciate it when they can to have the browser
> > on 800px wide max. Clicking text up gets to too quickly break
> > this design. Lets give this test a name: How about
> > "text-click-index", the shorter the range before the design
> > breaks its graphic design looks, the less good it is qua web
> > design in the ideal? Yours is not totally bad and not totally
> > good. But it is something to keep in mind.
>
> Yes, I am working on a smaller window size, however, from our stats
> info, we found that there are no people who view on smaller
> screensizes. I have to respect the designer as well...
>

But your stats are not addressing one of my points. Put it this
way, I have more screen size than almost everyone in the world
but i still find it convenient often to limit browser windows to
800. I don't have to, i find it nice when i want to. Your stats
show nothing about this particular aspect unless the survey was
very particular and good (very rare surveys with these
qualities).

--
dorayme

[Back to original message]