Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 13:30:39 -0500 From: Warren Myers <volcimaster@gmail.com> To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Logo idea and FreeBSD.com concept Message-ID: <cd08a04c050302103018b184e7@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <9C4E897FB284BF4DBC9C0DC42FB34617641B5B@mvaexch01.acuson.com> References: <9C4E897FB284BF4DBC9C0DC42FB34617641B5B@mvaexch01.acuson.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I always trim my pages to 750 pixels. It gives a small border on each side (except in the retardedly stupid css rendering in IE), and makes it very readable. I run high res at home (1280x1024, because I only have a 17"), and like to have multiple windows open simultaneously, and if I could run 1600 or higher, I most certainly would. Having multiple windows open is nearly a necessity anymore, and sizing the site to fit in a common size of 750 wide (to allow for the window borders and such) is a reasonable thing to do, in my opinion.. WMM On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 10:22:49 -0800, Johnson David <DavidJohnson@siemens.com> wrote: > From: Devon H. O'Dell [mailto:dodell@offmyserver.com] > > > 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. > > There is a myth among corporations that webpages are supposed to look > absolutely identical on every viewing. It's about their corporate image. If > they thought they could prevent user-side stylesheets, they would. If they > thought they could put up an image of the page and call it "html", they > would. If they could forcibly resize the viewer's screen resolution, they > would. > > If you do a complete survey of corporations, though, you will find that not > all follow the above philosophies. But even if they all did, it would not > matter, because we are not a commercial corporation. It doesn't matter to us > if the user is using an unapproved temperature on their monitor, shifting > the colors out of their carefully chosen trademark specifications. We're not > that anal. Or at least we shouldn't be. > > > Both their sites look just fine at 1600x1200 > > as well. > > Irrelevant. The size of the monitor only determines the maximum size of the > windows within it. I don't know anyone who browses in a maximized window on > a 1600x1200 monitor. I'm sure people do, but they would be very rare > individuals. The days of telling the user what size monitor they must have > are long past. > > I have a 1600x1200 monitor but my browser windows are 800x1200 so I can put > two of them up on the screen side by side. I can always tell when I get to a > "made for 800x600" page, because suddenly it won't fit and I have horizontal > scrollbars! That's because the few pixels for the window border makes my > view slightly less than 800. > > So for me with my very large 21" monitor, I want a page that fits into a 788 > width. But that's just me. I'm sure there are tons of folks who prefer even > smaller sizes. > > David > _______________________________________________ > 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" > -- http://warrenmyers.com "Don't let the elephants see what the rabbits are doing." --Ben R Rich "He looks like a contented Christian with four aces." --Mark Twain
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?cd08a04c050302103018b184e7>