Re: resolutions

by Bob McClelland <moonraker(at)webart.u-net.com>

Date:	Fri, 20 Feb 1998 21:05:26 +0000
To:	hwg-graphics(at)hwg.org
In-Reply-To:	default
	todo: View Thread, Original

At 17:19 20/02/98 -0000, Alastair wrote:
>Anders & co:
>
>>Best sites imho, are those that are fully scaleable - while keeping in mind
>>that 130 characters on ONE single line, doesn't look good.
>
>I *totally* agree. I dislike web designers who stick everything in a 615
>width table. When I view it on my screen at 1024/768 you can't see nearly as
>much as you should be able to. After all - God invented high resolutions to
>fit more on screen...

O.K., so I use 1280 x 1024 all the time, and I agree that fixed width stuff
looks daft (or can do) if only 600 or so wide. But how do you design a
flexible site when the graphics in it are fixed width anyway? I did a site
for a photographer:

http://www.webart.u-net.com/sefton/

which is basically a collection of images and very few words. I really
would be grateful for any help you could give.

regards
BOB (McClelland)
Cornwall ENGLAND
-----------------------------------------
URBAN IMAGES: http://www.webart.u-net.com
-----------------------------------------

HWG: hwg-graphics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA