Patrick H. Lauke wrote...
[...] See above. It's not a case of people not upgrading. If somebody
needs
and prefers their resolution low, they'll set their machine to that
even on a large new 21" monitor. It's not an issue of people not
buying/upgrading. [...]
---
I heartily agree. My wife got a new machine a while back. Running XP Pro (so
it's new and not something in need of an upgrade). Out of the box the OS
software was set to send video to her new flat screen monitor at a
resolution of 1024x768. My wife didn't like it. Too small. I made it 800x600
for her. Now she loves it. She doesn't have great eyesight -- which may be
to my advantage as I grow older myself ;-) -- and setting the monitor to
800x600 blows everything up, evenly and perfectly. For her is it an awesome
solution (better than the magnifying glass).
The only downside, of course, is when she wants to go to a web site that
rudely doesn't support that resolution. This is not 640x480 we're talking
about. It's 800x600 and it's still widely used and should be supported.
It's my only beef with the ALA site. The makers made assumptions that web
developers don't use anything smaller than 1024x768. That's a pretty
dangerous [making assumptions] and I seriously doubt it is true. Instead of
assumptions, it's better to make allowances in my opinion.
Mike Cherim
http://green-beast.com/
******************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
******************************************************
