Chuck_Schick wrote:Um ... people at libraries and public schools that can't afford to update their hardware nearly as often as the tech savvy home user?
But why would those fuckers want to read the daily paper anyway.
Or people with visual disabilities for whom a 1024x768 resolution is like reading Braille without your fingers? But fuck them too.
Jesus, people. Design your own sites how you want. But don't be so fucking glib as to suggest there isn't a huge segment out there that might be saying "fuck that site" because it's inconvenient for y'all to take their needs into consideration. Where I sit, we call designers with attitudes like yours "half-assed, lazy fucks."
Back on topic, when I resize that Cap Times site, the stupid ad bar on the right doesn't move accordingly. I have to refresh my browser (IE 7) to make it reposition correctly.
lazy designers for lambasting their
lazy designers? I understand what you're saying, but I myself noted in my critique that they should be designing with relative widths.
Shit, all of my work validates and is accessible, even on the tiny proprietary browser in my ancient cellphone. But when I did Lauren Woods' site, I optimized for 1024x768 and up because I knew the student audience could handle it and it wasn't worth giving up the screen real estate for something like 3% of the visitors. Likewise, when I did Gary Poulson's site, things were optimized for 800x600 and a slightly less tech-savvy audience. And screen res shouldn't affect font size if you design with relative font sizes.
So I kind of resent being called a half-assed, lazy designer. All I'm saying by applauding the Cap Times' move to 1024x768 and up is that there came a time when it stopped being worth it to support 640x480, and there'll come a time when it'll stop being worth it to support 800x600, and I like that we're getting closer to that time.