On 2/3/11 4:06 PM, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
What the designers do is pick something that looks good for them, and if
they're /really/ "professional", they'll assume some "standard" screen
real-estate is available and design the page as if the user was browsing
at that.
More likely they'll just try to please the managers.
Sorry, I don't quite get your point there. Of course there is the
standard 960px desktop viewport to target, and typical mobile device
dimensions are getting more and more important as well. It's part of
delivering a good job to make sure that your work looks splendid at the
few »standard« configurations, and not too bad on the rest. Where is the
contradiction? And what does »pleasing the managers« have to do with that?
I just wanted to point out that using relative font sizes has hardly any
intrinsic advantages to just specifying sizes in pixels (zoom controls
work for both). You just have to specify *everything* using one method,
if you want to have a consistent, layout glitch-free experience for your
users – and in the end, pixels often make your life easier because you
tend to be dealing with stuff for which pixels are the native unit of
measurement. [1]
David
[1] By the way, the situation is getting considerably better with the
advance of CSS3 and web fonts, since you'll be able to go without pixel
graphics for design elements a lot more.
