Hi gang:
Please review the following site:
http://ancientstones.com
Suggestions and comments welcomed.
Thank you.
tedd
--
http://sperling.com/
On 06/04/27 08:55 (GMT-0400) tedd apparently typed:
Please review the following site:
http://ancientstones.com
Suggestions and comments welcomed.
Nice. But, those using sidebars are likely not to appreciate it so much.
It requires a lot of viewport width or a smallish default text size to
tedd wrote:
Hi gang:
Please review the following site:
http://ancientstones.com
Suggestions and comments welcomed.
Thank you.
tedd
Sweet!
Has David Laakso seen this site?
Nothing constructive to add, however, some of your images seem to need
the background changed to match the
At 8:20 PM +0530 4/27/06, Rahul Gonsalves wrote:
tedd wrote:
Hi gang:
Please review the following site:
http://ancientstones.com
Suggestions and comments welcomed.
Thank you.
tedd
Sweet!
Has David Laakso seen this site?
Interesting that you should ask -- he's provided much design
At 9:54 AM -0400 4/27/06, Felix Miata wrote:
On 06/04/27 08:55 (GMT-0400) tedd apparently typed:
Please review the following site:
http://ancientstones.com
Suggestions and comments welcomed.
Nice. But, those using sidebars are likely not to appreciate it so much.
It requires a lot of
At 1:23 PM -0400 4/27/06, David Laakso wrote:
On 06/04/27 08:55 (GMT-0400) tedd apparently typed:
Okay, what would be a good maximum width measurement (in pixels)?
Thanks.
tedd
I prefer 780 min with 1200 max feeding same to the 'evil one' with
'ie expressions. Felix will, I hope, provide the
The main page title bar says Ancient Title. Think you mean Tile :)
On 4/27/06 5:55 AM, tedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi gang:
Please review the following site:
http://ancientstones.com
Suggestions and comments welcomed.
Thank you.
tedd
Okay, what would be a good maximum width measurement (in pixels)?
Some may disagree with this, but I try to aim at using WebTV's (MSN TV)
browser's usable screen area as a max measurement: 544 for the width (I
haven't succeeded with all my pages yet). As we all know, it is hard,
really, to
On 4/27/06, David Merchant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
a max measurement: 544 for the width
TTFN,
David
/snip
8^O
544!? Max!? Wow! What's that look like at a 1600x1200+ resolution?
--
Tom Livingston
Senior Multimedia Artist
Media Logic
www.mlinc.com
On 06/04/27 12:32 (GMT-0400) tedd apparently typed:
At 9:54 AM -0400 4/27/06, Felix Miata wrote:
On 06/04/27 08:55 (GMT-0400) tedd apparently typed:
Please review the following site:
http://ancientstones.com
Suggestions and comments welcomed.
Nice. But, those using sidebars are likely
I suspect the large font size must be due to selecting Georgia as the
first choice?
Just a question, as a newbie ( still! ), what does the lge class do; as in
...span class=lge nbsp;|nbsp; /span...
I didn't see it defined in either style sheet?
Really liked the clean design, especially after
8^O
544!? Max!? Wow! What's that look like at a 1600x1200+ resolution?
Well, I actually try to make them fluid, so for larger resolutions the
sites don't look bad, but 'tis hard to make sites completely fluid (at
least for me) and so at some point when reducing window down, the page
isn't
-Original Message-
From: tedd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 7:55 AM
To: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org
Subject: [css-d] Site Check Please -- ancientstones.com
Hi gang:
Please review the following site:
http://ancientstones.com
Suggestions
At 3:59 PM -0400 4/27/06, Tom Livingston wrote:
On 4/27/06, David Merchant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
a max measurement: 544 for the width
TTFN,
David
/snip
8^O
544!? Max!? Wow! What's that look like at a 1600x1200+ resolution?
I personally think that in trying to accommodate the
Felix hath said:
Okay, what would be a good maximum width measurement (in pixels)?
None. Let it be whatever size it needs to be.
-snip (good stuff) --
Those adjustments may very well including permitting a reduced width, in
order to allow a squeeze in place of a scroll for viewers with
On 4/27/06, tedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
only 20 percent of the viewing audience has a screen size of 800 x 600 and
that figure is dropping at a rate of 5 percent per six months (10 percent per
year).
As such, in two years, the narrow-screen user number will drop below a
detectable amount.
haves.
deano
-Original Message-
From: tedd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 7:55 AM
To: css-d@lists.css-discuss.org
Subject: [css-d] Site Check Please -- ancientstones.com
Hi gang:
Please review the following site:
http://ancientstones.com
17 matches
Mail list logo
