On 2008/06/10 13:28 (GMT+1000) IceKat apparently typed: > Should we still bother > designing to fit in with 800x600 screen resolutions or is it Ok to just > design for 1024x768 and not worry about smaller resolutions?
Never should have been "designing for" either one. To design "for" any particular resolution means you're designing against all the others. An "800x600" page on a 2560x1600 screen is little more than a postage stamp, about 12% in "size" measured in pixels, and definitely an unknown size measured in inches or mm. Some of the resolutions you should NOT "design for" (not an exhaustive list): 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1152x864, 1280x960, 1280x1024, 1400x1050, 1600x1200, 1792x1344, 1856x1392, 1920x1440, 2048x1536, 1024x640, 1280x800, 1440x900, 1680x1050, 1920x1200, 2560x1600, 1280x720, 1366x768, 1920x1080. Erase the concept of screen resolution from your toolbox. Pixels have nothing more to do with size than the size of each other. Thinking in pixels is what print designers trying to publish to the web think in. The result of such thinking is billions of magazine pages hosted on the web, not pages designed for the users of the fluid web medium that is hosting them. Sizing in em means autosizing to the environment, and letting the environment figure out how many pixels to get the job done. It's the right way to design for the medium and the people who use it. http://essays.dayah.com/problem-with-pixels http://cssliquid.com/ -- "Where were you when I laid the earth's foudation?" Matthew 7:12 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
