4 ms·
The counter-argument to liquid-layouts is the fact that you need to specify a min-width which is not supported in all browsers (easy fix for jscript sure, but c
by pxlpshr 18y ago
The counter-argument to liquid-layouts is the fact that you need to specify a min-width which is not supported in all browsers (easy fix for jscript sure, but certainly not hack-free).
So for individuals like myself, who run at 1920x1200, legibility is a significant issue unless I manually resize my browser window which is about as much of a pain in the ass as scrolling horizontally.
Sadly, there is no perfect solution when designing for the web. Horses for courses.
- cdr 18y agoAt that resolution, you'd be somewhat insane to maximize your browser window. You should be using software that divides your screen into regions.
- pxlpshr 18y agoIn OSX, the layering nature of windows to make drag-n-drop more usable sometimes becomes counter-productive. There are times when I find I just want to focus on a single item and block everything else out, which forces me to either maximize Safari, or close down all my applications. I don't care for Spaces too much right now, it's kind of buggy with Photoshop/Illustrator.
- qwph 18y agoIf you haven't already, you might want to give Think a try. It runs on OS X and might be exactly what you're looking for. http://freeverse.com/apps/app/?id=7013 http://freeverse.com/apps/app/?id=7013
- benmathes 18y agoI'm a fan of the multi-monitor model. Two 20" LCDs are often cheaper than one 40" (not the same area, I know) and can be much more useful. My typical setups are: screen one: rotated vertical with code screen two: horizontal with command line and the app splitting horizontal real estate. -------------------------- screen one: full-sized game screen two: web browser and IM client
- xirium 18y ago> min-width which is not supported in all browsers There's a very simple workaround. Reference a transparent, one pixel image and specify the desired minimum width.