in alt.html, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> accooper wrote:
>
> > OK, I do a lot of web building for Ministries and Missionaries at no
> > charge. It seems that they all believe that their web page needs to look
> > great at
> > 640x480.
>
> Can they provide statistics which show evidence of a large proportion of
> 640x480 users?
Well, I often use 600px wide browser window.
> The only people who require such resolution are those with
> very modern PDA's. The standards (or common practice) says 800x600 is the
> minumum to cater for. One who insists on working at 640x480 will just have
> to cope with scroll bars.
Or you just need to know how to do flexible page. It is not impossible
> > I try to explain that this limits what can be done and that even
> > 14" monitors can do 800x600 which gives more room for more stuff.
When I had 800*600, I always had about 600px wide window. I had some
userCSS to fit most stuff in it, but usually, when website didn't fit, I
left it. (it required one keystroke to move 800px wide window, n´but I
didn't use it very often)
> > I make all my sights to expand and contract using %
> > instead of Pixels.
>
> That's a good idea, but it gives you less control over the looks of the
> page.
That is bullshit. It is much less likely that your site will break if you
use % than px. I never understood how controlling every px on 50% of
browsers gives more control than making working layout for 90% of
users...
Of course, there is even smaller change to get it break, when you use em,
% and px together. And you can still aim to perfect result. Just don't
try pixelperfect, that'll never work, by definition (pixel perfect works
only when used number of pixels are just right for user. Hardly ever
happens.)
--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>
Utrecht, NL.
|
|
