Rene Rivera wrote: > Hannah Schroeter wrote: ... >> Deciding for *any* resolution is *bad* "design". > > The current openbsd.org doesn't "work" at 640x480... Does that make it a > bad design? And hence should be considered a bug to be fixed by a new > design?
One of our "star" platforms, Zaurus, has only an 640x480 screen. I think it is reasonable to expect that the OpenBSD website can be usably viewed on a Zaurus running OpenBSD. Note the word "usably" -- the Zaurus is a small machine, and has some restrictions due to its size. So, some inconveniences are expected, all of the various "index.html" pages won't fit without some scrolling. But it should "work" for a tolerant version of "work". Running my tests on OpenBSD/i386 -current, Firefox and Dillo running with its window sized to 620x400 (yes, smaller than full Zaurus screen, as I figure the point of having a windowing environment is NOT to have everything full-screen!), I don't see any serious problems (well...other than the idea of Firefox on a Zaurus... *shudder* Unfortunately, I don't have the browsers more likely to be used on a Zaurus on this machine at the moment). index.html needs a little side-to-side panning to view in 620x400, but the main body text is very readable without additional horizontal scrolling, and the entire blue navigation bar is visible without horizontal scroll. donations.html also needed side-to-side scrolling when looking at the names, but that's actually very easy to read that way. Spot-checking the FAQ indicated there were some lines of screen output that caused problems (I need to fix that for other reasons), but for the most part, the content seemed very readable to me on this "small screen". Adding CSS to the OpenBSD website "because it's cool" is pure bullshit, but your claim (if true) is not. So, where do you see a practical problem? I would like to see a list of what pages you saw an unreasonable problem at 640x480 (or my more stringent test). Or are you just making noise? Nick.
