On 03/07/2001 at 16:27 +0100, Lee Goddard wrote:
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Steve Mynott
>> 640x480 is more commonly used as a lowest common denominator by most
>> web design companies for the usual web market.
>
>Indeed it is, most places I've worked. But someone else doing it first,
>even a whole bunch of other people doing it, Doesn't make it a Good Thing.
>I'm surprised I had to tell you that.
I doubt Steve was arguing that it was right, merely pointing that out.
(Can I point out the whole point of making the site not-fixed-width was
that it now fits 640, 800 *and* 1024 by whatever, and indeed anything
in between? Oh. Sorry.)
>> It also presupposes a certain arrogance on the part of the designer to
>> assume the browser window is maximised to the whole screen size. The
>> browser is usually only one of many open windows.
>
>All of which can, and frequently are, maximised.
Am I the only person in the world pissed off at the fact that, after
ten or twenty years of building window systems, we've now got to a
point where (many?) people run *every single app* maximised, even
Outlook Express, for goodness sakes, and just use the Windows task bar
to swap between them?
Let them eat DOS, ffs. [0]
(One of my pet peeves with OS X is that it encourages this with the new
interfaces of many of the Apple apps- Final Cut, iMovie and iTunes seem
to be monolithic windows, unlike older stuff like Eudora which has many
floating windows. Grr.)
Now, where was that pony?
[0] I think they inhabit the same circle of Hell as people with
19" monitors running at 800x600.
--
:: paul
:: what are the military applications?
