From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Philip Newton
> Paul Makepeace wrote:
> > Not to sound cruel or heartless or anything but if someone
> > can't see the entire 100% on a 640x480 screen they have bigger
> > problems than viewing London.pm: their entire computer sucks
> > harder than an Olympic Sucking Squadron.
>
> True, but sometimes that's because one's computer has gone wonky under
> Windows due to who-knows-what, and one can bring it up under VMware for
> Linux but only in 640x480 with 16 colours because one can't install the
> VMware video driver due, again, to who-knows-what, but at least usable
> 640x480 is better than 1024x768 that locks up after a couple of minutes.
Not that I want to butt again to what might be a private conversation,
and not that I want ot again be accused of authoring 'another AOL post'
but some guru here, but perhaps it may help to have the contribution of
a social outside to the group: seems the matter of the visual scale of the
London.pm homepage centres on the nature of the target audience.
How many perl programmers living in London (or, as the site says,
non-programmers maybe not even living in London) can't see it? Or are
too lazy/confused/skint to implement a 1024x768, high-colour display
resolution? I know laziness is a virtue like hubris, *but*.... well,
I think the requirement of 1024x768 is probably a good common denominator.
But then, I also think fixed-width and absolute-sized fonts are fine too,
so long as they're not fixed to an absolute size that most people can't
see without excreting as much effort as the site designer. I wanna flip
through the site, not site stiff and attentive just to read it. (I've
got a belly to think of, after all.)
lee
