Well, you have my agreement Seems that the whole point of digital media is that the device at the other end is smart enough to work out how to display what it's sent. When we get hung up on 640x480 or 800x600 we just get stuck in the old analogue TV debates.
Is it the job of any organisation to mandate the required screen width for viewing? Like most things on the web, how content is consumed should be under the control of the user (and yes, i guess that does mean streaming standards etc before that debate resurfaces :-) ). Having said that I guess there were valid reasons for choosing not go go with a css liquid layout... as ever, the views expressed are my own etc -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Andrew Bowden Sent: Tue 4/1/2008 2:17 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [backstage] Web Semantics - Slicing The Cake > I would suggest that with the recent appearance of cheap > ultra mobile devices that 800x480 would be a more suitable > minimum screen size. That's when you need a nice fluid design! Now if only most of the worlds web designers agreed with me :) - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
<<winmail.dat>>
