I doubt we ever defined a minimum resolution. While it would be good if somebody checked the experience on a smaller monitor to make sure there's nothing non-functional about it, it actually seems acceptable to assume >1000 pixels. (A recent quick analysis here at UCB, looking at visitors coming to our library, showed that <5% had screens less than 1024 pixel-wide, screens with greater than 1024 but less than 1280 pixels width made up ~22%, and >73 % of the browsers connecting supported greater than 1280 pixels). And, as one person put it: "Huge numbers of sites (I'd even risk saying "most sites") no longer support 800x600 cleanly, and many are even dropping 1024, so folks with monitors that small are already really used to having to scroll horizontally to get their work done. At this point, I wouldn't feel at all bad about moving to a 1000 or even 1,200-pixel-wide layout." Anybody have specific stats on Engage users?
Judy On Mar 31, 2012, at 11:25 AM, Greg Logan wrote: > Do we have a minimum resolution that the engage UI should work at? It > occurs to me that I'm testing my changes on large (1080P) monitors and > that might not exactly meet the needs of the project. > > G > > _______________________________________________ > Matterhorn mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn > > > To unsubscribe please email > [email protected] > _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Matterhorn mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn To unsubscribe please email [email protected] _______________________________________________
