Felix hath said: > > Okay, what would be a good maximum width measurement (in pixels)? > >None. Let it be whatever size it needs to be.
-snip (good stuff) -- >Those adjustments may very well including permitting a reduced width, in >order to allow a squeeze in place of a scroll for viewers with larger >font-size to viewport width ratios. Only a lot of experimenting with >different viewport widths and text sizes will permit you to make good >decisions here, though asking opinions here can't hurt any. > >In the end, there is no magic across the board magic minimum or maximum. >Using either creates a limitation. Limitations on the web are usually >unnecessary at best, and destructive to user satisfaction, >accessibility, and usability at worst. My take on this screen size things is a bit different and I'm sure there are those who will disagree, but here goes. According to w3c, only 20 percent of the viewing audience has a screen size of 800 x 600 and that figure is dropping at a rate of 5 percent per six months (10 percent per year). As such, in two years, the narrow-screen user number will drop below a detectable amount. Furthermore, not trying to be elitist, but our target audience has money to burn, so I don't think there will be many who will be both frugal in purchasing a larger monitor size and yet be generous with a vanity tile purchase. Of course, I may be just trying to rationalize not redoing the layout, which as you know, is not trivial. Many thanks to all you hawk-eye's that caught things I would not have ever seen. tedd -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://sperling.com/ ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.css-discuss.org/mailman/listinfo/css-d IE7b2 testing hub -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=IE7 List wiki/FAQ -- http://css-discuss.incutio.com/ Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
