Re: Re: Re: Re: rekallrevealed.org

On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 09:10:48AM +0100, John Pettigrew wrote:
> In a previous message, Chris Green 
> <chris-Mz0lLcrk53H10XsdtD+oqA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > The issue is that the box (i.e. the text with the line round it which has
> > the tabs at the top) appears to be fixed width and is pretty wide.
> 
> This isn't a browser issue, it's a web design issue - the box has a defined
> width that will be obeyed by all browsers.
> 
I know it's not a browser issue, it's Mike (I think) that suggested it was
earlier in this thread.

> As for a solution - Mike, could you use max-width rather than width in the div
> parameters? That should allow the box to shrink for those using smaller
> resolutions. Indeed, is there any reason to limit the width at all? This
> layout seems not to need it.
> 
> If a fixed width is needed for the form layout, I'd suggest that Mike has it
> right. According to the stats, most people are now using 1024 or higher as
> their browser resolution, which makes the current width just right for them.
> 
I am using 1280x1024 here, but I don't run applications full screen,
I really can't see the point of using a Windows/GUI OS and then running
eveything full screen.  One of the major points of a windowing system is
to allow viewing of multiple applications at the same time.  That said
I do tend to run my browser using most of the screen width.
    
> Personally, though, I dislike fixed-width sites intensely; given I use a 1600
> width, I find that these layouts waste a lot of space.
> 
Yes, I use 1600x1200 on my home system, some web sites (and other
applications even) are just about unusable because they insist on a
fixed (pixel sized) window.

-- 
Chris Green (chris-Mz0lLcrk53H10XsdtD+oqA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)

    "Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence."