A sincere "thank you" to everyone who took the time and effort to
respond on this, on and off list.
I feel somewhat vindicated; there was certainly some unequivocal support.
There are also some excellent quotes to use next time I grumble to a
site about missing or obscured content.
In response t
On Jul 26, 2005, at 3:04 AM, Jeremy Keith wrote:
Clive Walker wrote:
We use the stats here to guide our general design choices.
I think that's missing the point. The goal is not to design for the
majority but to design for everybody.
It is often not a question of designing for the maj
Good afternoon Sunny,
I operate a design shop in Dallas, Texas and I always make sure my sites
render properly in 800X600 because there is still a high percentage of
users setting their screen resolutions to 800X600.
I'm not willing to sacrifice or ignore that large audience, which could
have a n
I am also older, and LIKE 800 res.
I feel that to be standards acceptable, there is no reason why a site cannot
be made fluid, so it fits all resolutions.
I see s many sites either a narrow band in the middle at high res,
lately one on the left with a mile wide blank space on the right, (looks
Rick Faaberg wrote Tue, 26 Jul 2005 00:41:11 -0700:
> SunUp wrote Tue, 26 Jul 2005 17:12:38 +1000:
> i build web sites. i'm over 40. i have 20/20 vision. i work (and play)
> at 800x600. i LIKE it.
I like the highest resolution my equipment can provide, like the difference
between dot matrix prin
nts.
---Original Message---
From: Terrence Wood
Date: 07/26/05 09:02:10
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Cc: Terrence Wood
Subject: Re: [WSG] My life as an 800x600 leper (was: Site Check: Broadleaf)
worse... some people think an accessible site is one that is >
On 27 Jul 2005, a
worse... some people think an accessible site is one that is online =)
On 27 Jul 2005, at 12:42 AM, Kay Smoljak wrote:
Although way too many people still think accessible sites are for
blind people :)
**
The discussion list for http://webstan
I think accessibility is starting to be as much about accommodating
*any* browsing situation as much as accommodating disabilities.
I think it was from the very beginning. Accomodating dissabilities is where work was needed fast and results were needed badly.
In time accessibility will mean and
On 7/26/05, TN38 [Admin] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's not starting to, it always has been.
What I meant was that more people are starting to see it that way.
Although way too many people still think accessible sites are for
blind people :)
--
Kay Smoljak
http://kay.smoljak.com/
It's not starting to, it always has been.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Kay Smoljak
Sent: 26 July 2005 13:14
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Subject: Re: [WSG] My life as an 800x600 leper (was: Site Check: Broadleaf)
I
On 7/26/05, SunUp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i build web sites. i'm over 40. i have 20/20 vision. i work (and play)
> at 800x600. i LIKE it.
I use a TabletPC to surf the web, on my lap, with a stylus, in
portrait mode - so, 768x1024 instead of the other way around. So
horizontally, that's narrow
Sunny wrote:
i build web sites. i'm over 40. i have 20/20 vision. i work (and play)
at 800x600. i LIKE it.
I build websites. I'm under 40. I have 20/20 vision. My monitor is
1440 x 900 pixels but I too like to surf at 800 pixels wide (although
usually taller than 600 pixels: just personal p
I couldn't agree with you more. If a web designer believes they are
worth their salt then they should make their designs accessible on
devices when viewed at 800 x 600 pixels... it's a basic rule surely?
Me too. I like my sites to work well on mobile phones and PDAs too - where
a screen as bi
Hi Sunny,
I'll jump right to it and I will tell you NO you are not wrong to hope
that. Most sites can and should scale down to 800x600 resolution
without to much effort for their makers. Bad news is ... they wont
change easily, it's too convenient to work at large resolution: you
wont have to divi
Sunny,
I couldn't agree with you more. If a web designer believes they are
worth their salt then they should make their designs accessible on
devices when viewed at 800 x 600 pixels... it's a basic rule surely?
Cheers,
Blair
On 26/07/05, SunUp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >accessibility means a
:
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 8:41 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] My life as an 800x600 leper (was: Site Check: Broadleaf)
On 7/26/05 12:12 AM "SunUp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent this out:
so, seriously folks, am i wrong to hope that a site will look "right"
in my browsing environ
On 7/26/05 12:12 AM "SunUp" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent this out:
> so, seriously folks, am i wrong to hope that a site will look "right"
> in my browsing environment? should i "get with the current trend" and
> go 1024+ ?
Not that everyone has one, but do you realize that there are monitors that
su
>accessibility means access for everyone regardless of technology availability
> or other kinds of disabilities. I think web standards were meant to raise
> awareness
> first and give an impulse to all of us to build a better web.
>A web for everyone, everywhere !
*applause*
i have to chime in
18 matches
Mail list logo
