16 Oct
2014
16 Oct
'14
6:51 p.m.
Trinity must truly be part of the .1% because 99.9% of web users have
screen resolutions at least width of 1024
On 16 October 2014 14:38, Gerhard Zintel <gerhard.zintel(a)mrs-thomas.de>
wrote:
On Thursday 16 October 2014, Calvin Morrison wrote:
possible,
>
> I could see the benefit for wide screens though. I do not know if
there is
> a possibility to say "not bigger than
max width" but reformat if
screen is
smaller.
Might be a compromize.
Of course there is a way to do it. It is standard CSS and is relatively
easy to
apply using media queries. Knowing that this is not only but pretty easy, do you still disagree with the
functionality of fixed
width sites? The whole purpose of 'responsive designs' is so that one
site
can be used across many devices with only some
changes to css.
My comment was triggered by looking at your mentioned example
I'm not happy with those kind of sites using with smaller screens. I
totally agree that having a maximum width could be of benefit depending on
the content. But it should reformat at smaller sizes. If this is possible
I'm fully satisfied.
Gerhard
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
trinity-users-unsubscribe(a)lists.pearsoncomputing.net
For additional commands, e-mail:
trinity-users-help(a)lists.pearsoncomputing.net
Read list messages on the web archive:
http://trinity-users.pearsoncomputing.net/
Please remember not to top-post:
http://trinity.pearsoncomputing.net/mailing_lists/#top-posting