Prev: How wide is the world? 640 800 1200 1680 ??
Next: Can Someone please help me with my Computer stuff? 59001
From: dorayme on 26 Jan 2010 20:36
In article
<ee17b97e-9228-4edb-9e17-77d3f2901ce5(a)y12g2000yqh.googlegroups.co
m>,
"Roy A." <royarneskar(a)gmail.com> wrote:

> On 27 Jan, 01:41, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > In article
> > <eaea3176-8fad-4556-9ec4-ca117dd3a...(a)k35g2000yqb.googlegroups.co
> > m>,
> >  "Roy A." <royarnes...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 26 Jan, 15:19, jeff <jeff_th...(a)att.net> wrote:
> > > > Mason C wrote:
> > > > > What screen size should one design for?
> >
> > > The consensus in this group is not to design (for any resolution).
> > > Meaning, you should not design, but let the content flow, and adapt to
> > > the browser window.
> >
> > These "let the content flow" and "adapt to the browser window"
> > are not simple concepts, or if they are, they need to be taken
> > with a grain of salt.
>
> Yes, I agree. If I can say so, there is something those who is arguing
> for "flexible with" is not saying.
>
> At least I think you have to apply an max-with for the main content.

Indeed, that is often not a bad idea. Everything depends. If you
have nothing much but thumbnails, it is very often a good idea to
use the whole of anyone's screen to maximum extent.

If it is text that needs to be read, better max width and not let
it simply go on and on in a line. And if someone says, leave it
to the user to narrow his window, I say no! Help the user instead
by doing what is appropriate to the different elements, letting
some flex wide, ensuring other bits do the very opposite and so
on.

How the hell do you do all this at the same time on the same
page? With difficulty sometimes, but there is no law saying that
making a really good webpage or site is so easy! <g>

--
dorayme
From: Roy A. on 26 Jan 2010 20:49
On 27 Jan, 01:41, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> In article
> <eaea3176-8fad-4556-9ec4-ca117dd3a...(a)k35g2000yqb.googlegroups.co
> m>,
>  "Roy A." <royarnes...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 26 Jan, 15:19, jeff <jeff_th...(a)att.net> wrote:
> > > Mason C wrote:
> > > > What screen size should one design for?
>
> > The consensus in this group is not to design (for any resolution).
> > Meaning, you should not design, but let the content flow, and adapt to
> > the browser window.
>
> These "let the content flow" and "adapt to the browser window"
> are not simple concepts, or if they are, they need to be taken
> with a grain of salt.

I won't to mention names, but knowing that you are from Australia, it
is interesting to see how you are arguing.

People from countries that think they are the world police, would
start up with calling you names, like it would change your mind. Or
these people would group you into one or two groups, communist or not.
Or if you're lucky, terrorist. How can any be that black and white?

You, from Australia don't do that.
From: Ed Mullen on 26 Jan 2010 21:17
Roy A. wrote:
>
> I disagree. People and companies are moving from desktops to laptops.
> All laptops have a resoluting from 1280 (width). But today, about 20%
> is using an resoluting about 1024. So I would agree with you, after
> all.
>
Where do you get this idea? Statistically? There are a lot of legacy
laptops out there that have a maximum of 1024 width resolution. Mine
included. Certainly the trend in laptops over the last couple of years
is to 1280 width. But then there is the currect netbook trend which
seems to be mostly a maximum of 1024.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
Old age is when you still have something on the ball but you are just too tired to bounce it.

From: Roy A. on 26 Jan 2010 21:26
On 27 Jan, 03:17, Ed Mullen <e...(a)edmullen.net> wrote:
> Roy A. wrote:
>
> > I disagree. People and companies are moving from desktops to laptops.
> > All laptops have a resoluting from 1280 (width). But today, about 20%
> > is using an resoluting about 1024. So I would agree with you, after
> > all.
>
> Where do you get this idea?  Statistically?

Yes, statistically.

>  There are a lot of legacy
> laptops out there that have a maximum of 1024 width resolution.

Somehow, they don't show up that much in the statistic. I will ignore
them for now,

>  Mine
> included.  Certainly the trend in laptops over the last couple of years
> is to 1280 width.  But then there is the currect netbook trend which
> seems to be mostly a maximum of 1024.

Well, about 3%, I belive. But most netbooks are, or should adapt to
the realty. We can't change that.
From: Johann 'Myrkraverk' Oskarsson on 26 Jan 2010 23:41
dorayme <doraymeRidThis(a)optusnet.com.au> writes:

> In article
> <ee17b97e-9228-4edb-9e17-77d3f2901ce5(a)y12g2000yqh.googlegroups.co
> m>,
> "Roy A." <royarneskar(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 27 Jan, 01:41, dorayme <doraymeRidT...(a)optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> > In article
>> > <eaea3176-8fad-4556-9ec4-ca117dd3a...(a)k35g2000yqb.googlegroups.co
>> > m>,
>> > �"Roy A." <royarnes...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On 26 Jan, 15:19, jeff <jeff_th...(a)att.net> wrote:
>> > > > Mason C wrote:
>> > > > > What screen size should one design for?
>> >
>> > > The consensus in this group is not to design (for any
>> > > resolution). Meaning, you should not design, but let the
>> > > content flow, and adapt to the browser window.
>> >
>> > These "let the content flow" and "adapt to the browser window"
>> > are not simple concepts, or if they are, they need to be taken
>> > with a grain of salt.
>>
>> Yes, I agree. If I can say so, there is something those who is
>> arguing for "flexible with" is not saying.
>>
>> At least I think you have to apply an max-with for the main
>> content.
>
> Indeed, that is often not a bad idea. Everything depends. If you
> have nothing much but thumbnails, it is very often a good idea to
> use the whole of anyone's screen to maximum extent.
>
> If it is text that needs to be read, better max width and not let it
> simply go on and on in a line. And if someone says, leave it to the
> user to narrow his window, I say no! Help the user instead by doing
> what is appropriate to the different elements, letting some flex
> wide, ensuring other bits do the very opposite and so on.

I'll point to

http://www.maxdesign.com.au/presentation/em/

and mention that when testing with various zoom percentages, I found
it quite good.

For an example of a story site with narrow margins, you can take a
look at

http://www.literotica.com/

which may not be work safe.

It is also possible to have a button that toggles the width-cap.
It'll make the user/reader feel in control.


Johann

> How the hell do you do all this at the same time on the same page?
> With difficulty sometimes, but there is no law saying that making a
> really good webpage or site is so easy! <g>
>
> --
> dorayme
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: How wide is the world? 640 800 1200 1680 ??
Next: Can Someone please help me with my Computer stuff? 59001