[ale] OT easy html editor

Geoffrey esoteric at 3times25.net
Tue Jan 24 10:21:47 EST 2006

George Carless wrote:
>>>This is never more 
>>>obvious than being in a school loaded with 800 x 600 monitors trying to 
>>>view a page written by someone who has a nice, sparkling 19" 1280 x 960 
>>>monitor and loves to use the full width- "Well, it looks fine on my 
>>>computer." - while the rest of us are scrolling right to see what was 
>>This, is a lousy developer.  Unless you can code your page so that it 
>>will be reasonably presented at a minimum of 800x600, as well as your 
>>1280x960, you should code for the minimum.  I've got a 21 and 22 inch 
>>monitor side by side, but I still view websites with a browser window 
>>that's 800x600.  I'd say 50% of the websites I view don't fit that size 
>>window.  That's not a problem for me, but what about the girl who's got 
>>the 14-15 monitor?  There are still plenty of them out there.  What 
>>about those mini laptops?  Sure some of them will go to 1280x960, but 
>>then you need a magnifying glass to read the bloody page.
> The converse is also true, though: it's a pain in the neck to have a Web 
> site that loads in what amounts to a small window in the size of a large 
> screen.  There is a debate, generally, between 'fixed' and 'fluid' 
> designs for the Web - where fluid designs generally resize according to 
> window size.  The problem with these is that from a design perspective 
> they have their own problems; it's quite difficult for anything but the 
> most basic task to achieve a design that resizes elegantly to different 
> screen resolutions etc. but that still follows other design/usability 
> guidelines such as the number of words on a line, etc.  Some developers 
> go for a hybrid model where certain elements of a page are fixed, while 
> others are fluid.  Until recently I was a staunch advocate of the fluid 
> width approach, but I've recently found that fixed width designs have a 
> number of advantages in terms of ease of placement and clarity of design 
> that in certain cases outweight the disadvantages.  As is often the case 
> with these things, there is a balance to be achieved--a balance that 
> needs to consider such things as likely audience of the site, etc.  And, 
> to play devil's advocate, there may be a point for many developers where 
> a decision has to be made as to whom to support: I'm damned if I'm going 
> to worry about someone who's still at 640x480, for example, and even 
> 800x600 seems rather idiosyncratic in this day and age.  

I pretty much agree with your whole premise, with the exception of the 
800x600 issue.  I won't code for 640x480, but if you take a good look 
around, most small businesses and schools have, for the most part a 15" 
monitor.  Laptops are getting larger, but again most companies don't go 
beyond 14-15 there as well.  Although I love my 16" Sony Vaio, sometimes 
I wish it had wheels...

Until later, Geoffrey

More information about the Ale mailing list