2008/12/14 Andy Wardley <a...@wardley.org>: > But these days, it's considered "officially" OK to assume that 1024x768 is > the lowest common denominator for screen width, which gives you a nicely > sized > bit of content-space to play with. Making it fluid upwards of that tends to > result in wide wide columns that are hard to read. So although I used to be > staunchly anti-fixed width, I guess I've now been swayed towards them.
Can I please point out (if just for my own personal feeling of self-justification), that no, it isn't always appropriate to do this? On ultra-portable netbooks (like my Eee) and on mobile phones, this sort of approach can make navigation impossible. If you could guarantee that full-blown machines would be all that was ever used, maybe. But this is simply not true. Plus the dot pitch is different, which can really screw up some layouts. Dominic -- No train here, but still: The sign says: "Ready to Leave" Normal service, yes?