Felix, I think the term "design for" is perhaps a little bit inconsistent in terms of interpretation. Perhaps in this context it was also very badly misinterpreted.
When I was referring to "design for" I was more referring to "Accommodate for" which in essence is what fluid layouts are all about. To me "Accommodate for" simply means: - the breaking point at which the page loses its utter most usability, so for example in GMail the usability drastically reduces under a resolution below 800x600 So re-iterate, the page should be as usable as possible; meaning all elements (apart from the content area) should be too large and not too small under resolutions up to 800x600. But in all its essence of what you say - absolutely correct. Web pages should be able to scale gracefully under very small (800x600) to very large (1920x1080) resolutions. On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Felix Miata <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2008/06/10 13:28 (GMT+1000) IceKat apparently typed: > > > Should we still bother > > designing to fit in with 800x600 screen resolutions or is it Ok to just > > design for 1024x768 and not worry about smaller resolutions? > > Never should have been "designing for" either one. To design "for" any > particular resolution means you're designing against all the others. An > "800x600" page on a 2560x1600 screen is little more than a postage stamp, > about 12% in "size" measured in pixels, and definitely an unknown size > measured in inches or mm. > > Some of the resolutions you should NOT "design for" (not an exhaustive > list): > 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1152x864, 1280x960, 1280x1024, 1400x1050, > 1600x1200, 1792x1344, 1856x1392, 1920x1440, 2048x1536, 1024x640, 1280x800, > 1440x900, 1680x1050, 1920x1200, 2560x1600, 1280x720, 1366x768, 1920x1080. > > Erase the concept of screen resolution from your toolbox. Pixels have > nothing > more to do with size than the size of each other. Thinking in pixels is > what > print designers trying to publish to the web think in. The result of such > thinking is billions of magazine pages hosted on the web, not pages > designed > for the users of the fluid web medium that is hosting them. > > Sizing in em means autosizing to the environment, and letting the > environment > figure out how many pixels to get the job done. It's the right way to > design > for the medium and the people who use it. > > http://essays.dayah.com/problem-with-pixels > http://cssliquid.com/ > -- > "Where were you when I laid the earth's > foudation?" Matthew 7:12 NIV > > Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 > > Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ > > > ******************************************************************* > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ******************************************************************* > > -- - Anton Babushkin ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
