Posted by Steve on 10/08/07 17:31

"Onideus Mad Hatter" <usenet@backwater-productions.net> wrote in message
news:eepkg3p17u8dir6n01qgdkgdsvrghhpfkd@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 17:49:03 +0100, Brendan Gillatt
> <brendanREMOVETHIS@brendanREMOVETHISgillatt.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>Hash: SHA1
>>
>>Brendan Gillatt wrote:
>>> Okay, I'll post some tomorrow. By the way, a portal is probably the
>>> _worst_ design in the history of all time. Essentially all you're doing
>>> is reducing the amount of space available to the user with no benefit.
>
> Actually, you retard, the point of the design is to cater to the
> lowest mainstream resolution while still allowing for a centered
> position on higher resolutions. So you're not really reducing the
> amount of space you have. An alternative design would include two
> base resolutions, say 800x600 and 1024x768+. Another reason why it's
> a good design is that the extra space can be used for ad banners and
> other site tools...not that you would have any fuckin clue about that,
> your sites aren't making you any money. LOL

wow. so you justify one bad design by saying *other* bad design strategies
warrant it.

ROFLMAO


now, please do go on and show that you can do what gillet just did...using
less resources and unnecessarily pigeon-holing the end-user into a
particular[ly stupid] technology. hmmmmm, c'mon cupcake.

[Back to original message]