On Tue, 24 Jan 2012, Ghodmode wrote:
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
On 2012/01/23 10:35 (GMT+0800) Ghodmode composed:
960px is a good max width... for most site visitors.
...where "most" is as little as 50% + 1 of today's visitors. I consider that
a gross exaggeratio
On 2012/01/25 10:22 (GMT+0100) Markus Ernst composed:
Felix Miata composed:
On 2012/01/23 10:35 (GMT+0800) Ghodmode composed:
960px is a good max width... for most site visitors.
...where "most" is as little as 50% + 1 of today's visitors.
Is there statistical evidence for any of
Am 24.01.2012 10:07 schrieb Felix Miata:
On 2012/01/23 10:35 (GMT+0800) Ghodmode composed:
960px is a good max width... for most site visitors.
...where "most" is as little as 50% + 1 of today's visitors.
Is there statistical evidence for any of these two statements?
OTOH, the em unit bea
On 2012/01/24 11:19 (GMT+0800) Ghodmode composed:
Felix Miata wrote:
...
Here are a few real-world examples of fixed width sites:
http://www.mashable.com 972px
http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/SC/sc-mashable2560-01.jpg
http://www.stackoverflow.com 960px
http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/SC/sc-s
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:19 PM, Ghodmode wrote:
How wide it should be is a matter of opinion, and I think that's the
original question... What do we, as a community, think is a good
width.
Ghodmode
http://www.ghodmode.com
--
Sigh. I have no idea what the community thinks is a "good wid
On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:43 AM, Felix Miata wrote:
> On 2012/01/24 19:15 (GMT+0800) Ghodmode composed:
>
>> I don't know about the original poster's target demographic, but 960px
>> works well on a modern computer or a modern mobile device
>
> Debatable...
I guess some of this stuff is a mat
discuss.org] On Behalf Of Freelance
Traveller
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2012 4:50 PM
To: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org
Subject: [css-d] TwoQuestions: min/max-width, change layout with width
Question the First:
After seeing plenty of discussion, here and on other forums focussing on
website development, I&#
On 2012/01/24 19:15 (GMT+0800) Ghodmode composed:
I don't know about the original poster's target demographic, but 960px
works well on a modern computer or a modern mobile device
Debatable...
I don't know about the current generation of netbooks, but I expect
resolutions to go up.
Hig
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 5:07 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
> On 2012/01/23 10:35 (GMT+0800) Ghodmode composed:
>
>
>> 960px is a good max width... for most site visitors.
>
>
> ...where "most" is as little as 50% + 1 of today's visitors. I consider that
> a gross exaggeration except in cases where you kn
On 2012/01/23 10:35 (GMT+0800) Ghodmode composed:
960px is a good max width... for most site visitors.
...where "most" is as little as 50% + 1 of today's visitors. I consider that
a gross exaggeration except in cases where you know your demographic includes
no netbook or handheld devices. At
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 7:50 AM, Freelance Traveller
wrote:
> Question the First:
>
> After seeing plenty of discussion, here and on other forums focussing on
> website development, I've decided that maybe it's a good idea to
> implement max-width (and possibly min-width) settings on my site. The
Question the First:
After seeing plenty of discussion, here and on other forums focussing on
website development, I've decided that maybe it's a good idea to
implement max-width (and possibly min-width) settings on my site. The
sense I get from the discussion is that a max-width of 960px is probab
12 matches
Mail list logo
