Just some links...
To get browser capabilities, you can use WURFL[1], and there are some
API very interesting. If Nokia tablets aren't included in the
database, you can add them easily.
Some recommendations about how to write web pages for mobile devices
can be found in W3C Mobile Initiative[2].
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 01:28:38PM -0700, Andrew Daviel wrote:
This has long seemed a problem with HTML style. Images are specified in
pixels, while text is in point size. What fits on one platform (Windows,
generally) doesn't fit on others (X11), even if the same fonts are
available
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 10:20:23AM -0700, Andrew Daviel wrote:
The Nokia tablets are 800x480, and I can't see pocket PC displays getting
much bigger than 1000x500. If they were physically larger, they would not
fit in a pocket, and if the pixels were smaller you would need reading
glasses
I write the occasional web page, and I was thinking about screen size as
it relates to web content. In the past I had not given it much
consideration, except that when I made some pages for a cellphone
(128x128 pixels, $0.02/kb data charges) I made them much smaller with no
or tiny graphics.
die 12/04/08, ad 19h20, Andrew Daviel [EMAIL PROTECTED] dixit :
The Nokia tablets are 800x480, and I can't see pocket PC displays getting
much bigger than 1000x500. If they were physically larger, they would not
fit in a pocket, and if the pixels were smaller you would need reading
glasses
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 07:55:15PM +0200, Olivier Ricou wrote:
die 12/04/08, ad 19h20, Andrew Daviel [EMAIL PROTECTED] dixit :
The Nokia tablets are 800x480, and I can't see pocket PC displays getting
much bigger than 1000x500. If they were physically larger, they would not
fit in a
die 12/04/08, ad 20h01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] dixit :
The big problem is that a lot os servers ignore the user's settings, so
they specify the sizes of text boxes explicitly in pixels based on their
specified font sizes, regardless of the browser's minimum font size.
Strange, I
Well, i know that most of you hate Flash, but flash does fit to the proper
page, even it scales
the vector-fonts as long as they are embedded.
But as mentioned: most of the *nix users hate Flash, so i assume that this
example is
not allowed to mention *grin*
Big greetings,
Carlos
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 07:55:15PM +0200, Olivier Ricou wrote:
You have the feeling your eyes cannot see a higher resolution but
you are wrong (*). For usual text I agree low resolution is ok however
if you read a PDF or any antialiasing text, if
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Olivier Ricou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Think that 300dpi
printers have been replaced by 600dpi ones when most screen are
less than 100dpi.
You don't understand how printers work. The *dot pitch*, (that is, the
distance from the edge of one dot to the *same*
Carlos Pinto wrote:
Well, i know that most of you hate Flash, but flash does fit to the
proper page, even it scales
the vector-fonts as long as they are embedded.
But as mentioned: most of the *nix users hate Flash, so i assume that
this example is not allowed to mention *grin*
The problem
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 08:52:33PM +0200, Olivier Ricou wrote:
die 12/04/08, ad 20h01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] dixit :
The big problem is that a lot os servers ignore the user's settings, so
they specify the sizes of text boxes explicitly in pixels based on their
specified
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 12:56:52AM +0100, Peter Flynn wrote:
Carlos Pinto wrote:
Well, i know that most of you hate Flash, but flash does fit to the
proper page, even it scales
the vector-fonts as long as they are embedded.
But as mentioned: most of the *nix users hate Flash, so i assume
13 matches
Mail list logo
