On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 20:29:26 -0500 Chris Rockwell <ch...@chrisrockwell.com> wrote: > When I read this I assumed J.C. was referring to a navigation bar > that is fixed to the bottom of the screen, and I think D'Arcy > provided a solution (I didn't test it).
It's an excerpt from a real site but I can't guarantee that it works in isolation. Sometimes CSS depends on things in the containing elements. > I think there are very valid use cases for this design pattern. If the > navigation is accessible from the bottom of the screen it is always in > easier reach of my thumbs (especially on this Note 5). It also > affords the opportunity to have "quick links" (contextual or > otherwise) as well as a hamburger type button that can expand more > navigation. The decision to put the navigation at the bottom is mostly a design one. I just think that if you do it has to be fixed in place. Otherwise it may not even show when someone goes to a site that is longer than their display. It's not as important when the navigation it at the top. Then it is more of a design decision. Not my table. > Test your user base and see if it is a better experience for them. Always the best advice. -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain Vybe Networks Inc. http://www.VybeNetworks.com/ IM:da...@vex.net VoIP: sip:da...@vybenetworks.com ______________________________________________________________________ css-discuss [css-d@lists.css-discuss.org] 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/
