Message-ID: <41A21F99.70607@commandprompt.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 09:19:21 -0800
From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Windows/20040913)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
Cc: Mitch Pirtle <mitch.pirtle@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL www <pgsql-www@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: "Stretchy" vs. Fixed-width
References: <200411181953.10646.josh@agliodbs.com>
	<200411211407.14499.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
	<330532b60411211334276bd3e8@mail.gmail.com>
	<200411221030.02586.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
In-Reply-To: <200411221030.02586.xzilla@users.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------050900060406010708010804"

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------050900060406010708010804
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


>Whether you "like" it is opinion (highly dependent on the proximity of your 
>browser settings to those of the designer in the fixed widht world).  
>
>Which one is better practice of good web usability is not, it is variable 
>width. 
>
>  
>
Ahh your second point is still very much an opinion. It doesn't
matter how much you state it as a fact, it is still an opinion.


>variable width <> uncontrolled.  take a look at mozilla.org or debian.org, for 
>sites that scale very well over several hundread pixel differences in browser 
>width. 
>  
>
True but it still doesn't scale to 1600x1200 and nor should it.
I think it is definately a good idea to allow resizing to a particular
size that is smaller. Mozilla does an excellent job to 640x480.
I think that is a little extreme and that 800x600 is plenty.


>>Anyone can design a layout that stretches to utilize all available
>>screen real estate. But that doesn't mean that the aesthetics or
>>usability remains constant as the layout dramatically changes - it
>>either looks great at larger sizes (and lousy on small ones), or great
>>on small sizes (and lousy on large ones).
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Again, look at php.net. Aesthetically speaking, it looks great on both small 
>and large browser sizes.   
>  
>
Well actually php.net looks horrible in general but I get your point.


O.k. I have a question, it sounds like everyone is arguing about different
things.

Are we arguing that the website should be fixed-width as in:

A. I am 1024x768 I will not resize PERIOD.

Or:

B. I am 1024x768 I will not resize to smaller than that.


To be honest this whole time I was arguing that we don't need
to scale UP. E.g; we can set the max to 1024x768 if you have a bigger
screen, great but it will still be 1024x768. However if you have a smaller
screen, we will try an accomodate you to a resolution of X.. (my IMHO would
be 800x600).

If I am incorrect on this argument, let me say now that we absolutely need
to allow scaling to smaller resolutions (to a point). Anything else would
be very silly.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake


-- 
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL


--------------050900060406010708010804
Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=utf-8;
 name="jd.vcf"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: attachment;
 filename="jd.vcf"

begin:vcard
fn:Joshua Drake
n:Drake;Joshua
org:Command Prompt, Inc.
adr:;;PO Box 215 ;Cascade Locks;OR;97014;US
email;internet:jd@commandprompt.com
title:Consultant
tel;work:503-667-4564
tel;fax:503-210-0334
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:http://www.commandprompt.com
version:2.1
end:vcard


--------------050900060406010708010804--