From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Behalf Of Simon Wistow > Steve Mynott wrote: > > > 640x480 is more commonly used as a lowest common denominator by most > > web design companies for the usual web market. > > The ironic thing is that designers who have been triumphantly crowing > that bandwidth is getting fatter, nobody uses everything but IE5 under > Windows and can run at 1024x768 in 16.7 Million colours minimum now have > to deal with WebTV, Set-top boxes, WebAppliances, Kiosks, PDAs and cHTML > enabled browsers over very slow links. > > Laugh? I almost did. > > God I don't miss web design. Course, I'm doing Wap now which is even > worse, still ... I figure if they don't identity themselves allowing for a different style sheet, sod 'em. Luckily, my clients have agreed. I could disagree with myself on this one, though.
- Re: Website: no longer fixed width Greg McCarroll
- Re: Website: no longer fixed width Steve Mynott
- Re: Website: no longer fixed width Greg McCarroll
- Re: Website: no longer fixed width Paul Mison
- Re: Website: no longer fixed width Natalie Ford
- Re: Website: no longer fixed width Philip Newton
- RE: Website: no longer fixed width Lee Goddard
- Re: Website: no longer fixed width Kevin O'Rourke
- Re: Website: no longer fixed width Steve Mynott
- Re: Website: no longer fixed width Simon Wistow
- Re: Website: no longer fixed width Lee Goddard
- Re: Website: no longer fixed width Robin Szemeti
- RE: Website: no longer fixed width Lee Goddard
- Re: Website: no longer fixed width Simon Wistow
- RE: Website: no longer fixed width Paul Mison
- Re: Website: no longer fixed width Robert Shiels
- Re: Website: no longer fixed width Paul Makepeace
- Re: Website: no longer fixed width Robin Szemeti
- Re: Website: no longer fixed width Simon Wistow
- Re: Website: no longer fixed width Rob Partington
- RE: Website: no longer fixed width Lee Goddard