Since there always are a few designers who could learn a trick or two about how to break their carefully crafted CSS based layouts before their visitors do, I think it might not hurt to finish off my contribution to this thread with one last comment.
DAVOUD TOHIDY wrote: > How many times have you happened to open up different browser windows > on your monitor and you have resized your browser window and you > have encountered problem reading and using the web content because of > overlaps etc.? > > How many times you think visually impaired individuals have tapped on > ctrl+ to increase the text size you think? > > This is what I am trying to solve with layout stability. Fine. Existing guidelines are a bit old... <http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/> ...and the latest aren't up to much yet, they say... <http://www.alistapart.com/articles/tohellwithwcag2> If you can improve on things than nothing would be better. This looks like an ok place to start... <http://www.jimthatcher.com/sidebyside.htm> ...and the rest are better suited for... <http://www.webaim.org/discussion/> > Come on give up now :) . Why :-) Since we're onto font-resizing: I usually test my creations to '200%' or 'minimum font size = 28px' and check for readability. Minor breakage of design is the norm, and your portfolio is no different in that respect. Plenty of sites that can't take any font-resizing though, so of course you have a point. I also zoom pages to 200% on a 1280 screen - with the mentioned 'minimum font size', and that can be very hard on many layouts. Yours is still a bit too rigid for such treatment, but I've sure seen them worse. >> ..., but I don't care one bit if it breaks a whole set of rules, >> definitions and "best practices" in order to be more flexible than >> required by known media. > > Then you are ignoring those who need more readability, Usability and > a better user experience. My goal is to providing a better > environment for Human Computer Interaction or (HCI). Gosh, that was part of my working title back in the mid 80'. We didn't have the www, HTML and CSS to deal with then, but we had the problems... >> - If I think a weak User Agent should be "supported", then I'll >> give it something on a level it can handle - without disturbing the >> better User Agents. > > I agree. > >> That's a natural part of an "inherently unstable" approach anyway, >> and doesn't yield worse results than any other approach. > > Well not necessarily, It can be an "inherently stable" approach. So, we have two approaches that aim to solve some of the same problems. Good, I have no problems with that. Let us know how it turns out. I'll continue tuning styles for Opera Mini 4 now. I also have to check up improvements/changes in CSS support in Firefox 3 and Safari 3 vs. older versions a bit more in depth, to see if there's anything that affect my work as a web developer. So far all I can say is that "I don't think so". 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/ List policies -- http://css-discuss.org/policies.html Supported by evolt.org -- http://www.evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
