From owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 2 19:31:30 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 04CCB16A4CE for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2005 19:31:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ms-smtp-03.rdc-kc.rr.com (ms-smtp-03.rdc-kc.rr.com [24.94.166.129]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6371843D48 for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2005 19:31:29 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from warren@wandrsmith.net) Received: from CPE-65-28-44-243.kc.rr.com (CPE-65-28-44-243.kc.rr.com [65.28.44.243])j22JVQiq025703 for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2005 13:31:26 -0600 (CST) Received: from www.wandrsmith.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by CPE-65-28-44-243.kc.rr.com (Postfix) with SMTP id ECD1D5DDD for ; Wed, 2 Mar 2005 13:31:25 -0600 (CST) Received: from 204.167.177.68 (SquirrelMail authenticated user warren) by www.wandrsmith.net with HTTP; Wed, 2 Mar 2005 13:31:25 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <32816.204.167.177.68.1109791885.squirrel@www.wandrsmith.net> Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 13:31:25 -0600 (CST) From: "Warren Smith" To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine Subject: RE: Logo idea and FreeBSD.com concept X-BeenThere: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: warren@wandrsmith.net List-Id: FreeBSD Evangelism List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2005 19:31:30 -0000 Johnson David said: > 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. > I have to agree with David here. My development group supports a web application that allows registered shareholders of thousands of public companies to cast their proxy vote via the Internet. We have been asked several times by clients to do some of these very things to enforce consistency of viewing. I suppose they are used to dealing with a more controlled environment like their corporate intranet. It is madness for them to expect to exercise that level of control over even the subset of Internet users represented by their registered shareholders. > 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. > I totally agree. >> 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 don't browse at 1600x1200, but I do browse at 1280x1024 and I appreciate those sites that have taken the time to use my browser real-estate effectively instead of just choosing to support 800x600 as the "lowest common denominator". Granted, however, that making a page look good at 800x600 and 1600x1200 and everything in between requires more work/time/money than just designing to 800x600. I suspect that part of the reason for this is the WYSIWYG mindset of some of the web site authoring tools that get used to generate and maintain these sites. Given that the page in question is just a proof of concept, the lack of effective use of my browser real-estate doesn't bother me, so long as the reason for it is lack of time to do it "right". I have to agree with W.D. when he said that it is silly to say that designing only to 800x600 is the "right" thing to do solely because big corporations do it. It may be the right thing to do for a given site, given the time, budget, or knowledge constraints of its authors, but it is definitely not the "right" thing to do in general. -- Warren Smith warren@wandrsmith.net