On 02/04/2008, Dogsbody [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Really? I assume that Fearghas was talking about stuff like the Asus
EEE (and the new Elonex One) rather than mobile phone like content.
The EEE/Elonex/Cloudbook group of machines have fully functional
OSes
and fully functional
On 02/04/2008, Fearghas McKay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 15:25 +0100 1/4/08, Andy Leighton wrote:
Really? I assume that Fearghas was talking about stuff like the Asus
EEE (and the new Elonex One) rather than mobile phone like content.
The EEE/Elonex/Cloudbook group of machines have fully
Really? I assume that Fearghas was talking about stuff like the Asus
EEE (and the new Elonex One) rather than mobile phone like content.
The EEE/Elonex/Cloudbook group of machines have fully functional OSes
and fully functional browsers. They are far more like a PC than a
mobile phone.
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 12:49 PM, A Agutter Pineapple Blue
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Planning When Developing (Current Topic BBC Dimensions).
The current subject in the group is in relation to the display
dimensions. After years and years of research, the optimal size is 800 x
600 and you
Hi Matt,
Yes, Yes and yes to all your comments. If we could all work towards the
standard of 1024 x 800 would be a massive plus for all and a piece of
the jigsaw we can put a tick to in the box. I am a believer in
development more than many and had the great fortune to develop and
explore
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: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk
Subject: RE: [backstage] Web Semantics - Slicing The Cake
I would suggest
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
On 01/04/2008, Andrew Bowden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would suggest that with the recent appearance of cheap
ultra mobile devices that 800x480 would be a more suitable
minimum screen size.
I have found that people with poor eyesight often take their high resolution
monitors and adjust
These points are valid - But I am a believer in taking things
forward, and not getting stuck with 800x600 because the
aforementioned research says so... The name escapes me, I
think it was on the BBC Blog, saying that 95% of users are on
1024 and up. That's some research you can't really
On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 01:57:28PM +0100, A Agutter Pineapple Blue wrote:
Fearghas has pointed out a valid issue and before I wrote my comments, I
knew the Mobile factor would come into the equation.
The Mobile platform after careful research and with comments emerging
from W3C is to
Hi All,
I concur with all the valid points raised below confirming my findings
over the years and through hands on experience. We can all read a book,
but there are many times a technique or method is not found in written
pages. This can be said for web development and authoring. As just one
Back to basics?
http://www2.iicm.tugraz.at/cguetl/education/projects/mischitz/Seminar.htm
At 15:25 +0100 1/4/08, Andy Leighton wrote:
Really? I assume that Fearghas was talking about stuff like the Asus
EEE (and the new Elonex One) rather than mobile phone like content.
The EEE/Elonex/Cloudbook group of machines have fully functional OSes
and fully functional browsers. They are far
13 matches
Mail list logo
