Zoe M. Gillenwater wrote:
> ... So please don't say that your solution is a catch-all and doesn't
> get in the way of the user. Some users, you're right, other users,
> you're wrong.
You're right. I should have used a phrase like "catch more" instead.
That's closer to what experience has told me about the 'elastic'
solution described at Roger's site.
> Neither do I. I design for users, and realize that users come in
> many shapes and sizes with different preferences.
That's it then. Two different solutions that solve some dimensioning
problems in different ways. Some visitors will always have problems no
matter which solution we choose. A few visitors even create problems
just for the fun of it, but that's another matter.
For the record (once more): I have yet to find a case where I could make
proper use of neither of the mentioned solutions. Visitors, and also my
clients, didn't like them enough to proceed, although they wasn't really
protesting against the 'elastic' one so I could have used that.
I am sure some visitors also have problems with the one I use most often
- fluid/fixed with min/max and artificial columns. Haven't received any
complains, but that doesn't tell me much. Might have something to do
with the fact that I always test my solutions and finished results to
beyond breaking-point across a big part of browser-land though.
---
I think I'll leave this subject with a remark: test - test - and test a
few more times. Don't forget to test some more with all available
options, in as many browsers as possible. That usually helps to "catch
more", regardless of solution.
regards
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
______________________________________________________________________
css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d
List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/
Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
