On 01/04/2008, Michael Smethurst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 :-) ).
I wonder why the BBC News site can't have a slightly different CSS file that can be selected by a cookie to say "800 wide" or "640 wide" for those people who either have smaller devices or want to work with it side-by-side? 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]/ > > > -- Please email me back if you need any more help. Brian Butterworth http://www.ukfree.tv
