From owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 2 16:56:16 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED78716A4CF for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2005 16:56:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: from usw2.natel.net (2b.bz [209.152.117.190]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EF25D43D39 for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2005 16:56:15 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from WD@US-Webmasters.com) Received: (qmail 13968 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2005 16:56:10 -0000 Received: from batv-01-001.dialup.netins.net (HELO Htebazile.US-Webmasters.com) (216.248.109.2) by us-webmasters.com with SMTP; 2 Mar 2005 16:56:10 -0000 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20050302104537.0cd9e020@209.152.117.178> X-Sender: wd@209.152.117.178 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 10:54:49 -0600 To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org From: "W. D." In-Reply-To: <1109751388.3933.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <200503020207.30209.luyt@ovosoft.nl> <200502272331.43726.jdalley@warp.nfld.net> <1109575096.3934.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200503020207.30209.luyt@ovosoft.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: Logo idea and FreeBSD.com concept X-BeenThere: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Evangelism List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 16:56:17 -0000 At 02:16 3/2/2005, Devon H. O'Dell, wrote: >On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 02:07 +0100, Luyt wrote: >> On Monday 28 February 2005 08:18, Devon H. O'Dell wrote: >>=20 >> > it could still use a good bit of work. >>=20 >> Indeed. For starters, the page doesn't adjust itself to the size of the= =20 >> browser window. >>=20 > >That is done for a reason, at least on my mockup. If you take a look at >websites of companies that are in the same market (Sun and IBM, for >instance), their pages do not do this either. I suspect the reason for >this is the logical one: there are still a surprisingly large number of >people browsing at 800x600. Both their sites look just fine at 1600x1200 >as well. I'm more inclined to follow their model than other ``popular >design'' models since these are companies who are known to spend more >money than either of us will ever see in our lifetimes purely for >research of their website interface. This is just silly. They make sites with a static width because they just don't care. =20 Any respectable Web site design authority will strongly recommend page width that adjusts to the browser window. Think about it: what is more accomodating to your visitors who have different browser configurations--static or variable? Human factors (user friendly interfaces), are mostly ignored on the vast majority of Web sites. Show me any evidence=20 whatsoever that these companies mentioned above have spent a=20 penny on the human factors of their website interfaces! > >Kind regards, > >Devon H. O'Dell > >_______________________________________________ >freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org mailing list >http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-advocacy >To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-advocacy-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" Start Here to Find It Fast!=99 ->= http://www.US-Webmasters.com/best-start-page/ $8.77 Domain Names -> http://domains.us-webmasters.com/