 | | Re: Who here in Legoland has a Cable modem? —John Matthews
|
| | | I am with Matthew on this one. Another good reason to design to 640 x 480 is that the text wraps to an easier to read line than full screen 1024 x 768 (or larger). Also, some folks have older video cards that do not support such large resolutions. (...) (25 years ago, 18-Sep-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Who here in Legoland has a Cable modem? —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | [ XFUT lugnet.publish ] (...) Please think very carefully before you design anything for a specific _window_size_. - People use many different window sizes in their browsers. This week I have only used 540*440, 740*500, 620*720, 1024*768, and (...) (25 years ago, 18-Sep-99, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Who here in Legoland has a Cable modem? —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) Fine, when you're talking about text, but if you've got a lot of images, pixel size does matter. (25 years ago, 18-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Fixed width web pages? (Was: Who here in Legoland has a Cable modem?) —Jacob Sparre Andersen
|
| | | | Matthew Miller: (...) Yes, but not necessarily much. If you really think the layout is important you should use PDF or PostScript. You will never be able to control layout on the web (that's an important part of what makes it something special). If (...) (25 years ago, 18-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Fixed width web pages? (Was: Who here in Legoland has a Cable modem?) —Matthew Miller
|
| | | | (...) Oh, I agree, basically. But on the other hand, the web has turned into something other than what its original designers envisioned. Presentation _is_ important, and it's important in HTML, not just in proprietary Adobe formats. Even the (...) (25 years ago, 18-Sep-99, to lugnet.publish)
|
| | | | |
