4 ms·

>why are you putting a browser into 25% of the screen? Because that's how he wants it? I do the same thing, my web browser exists to retrieve information from

>why are you putting a browser into 25% of the screen? Because that's how he wants it? I do the same thing, my web browser exists to retrieve information from web sites. Having it take up my entire screen would be a hindrance. People who foolishly assume that because I have a high resolution display, that my browser must also be that resolution are, quite frankly, incompetent. This is web design 101 stuff, nobody should be working in a professional capacity that thinks a fixed resolution website is acceptable.

ChikkaChiChi 14y ago
Don't get me wrong, I'm not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but if I have a to-do of 20 some web services I'm reviewing to find the right competitors to pit against one another, I do judge a book by its cover in some respects. If I was shooting from the hip, my immediate thought about a website I can't get to the sign up button in a basic setup has issues with their team doing proper testing, a possible inattention to detail, and more growth required in their product and processes until they have a fully-fleshed out and mature product. I'm not saying that's the case; I'm saying that's what my impression would be with no other research.
lukeholder 14y ago
Well would your argument stand if I said i have my browser filling 5% of my screen? responsive design is useful, but designing for majority screen resolutions is just good business sense. How far do you take responsiveness? 100px wide?
- papsosouid 14y ago
  >Well would your argument stand if I said i have my browser filling 5% of my screen? That depends how big your screen is. >responsive design is useful, but designing for majority screen resolutions is just good business sense. And limiting your site to 960+ is a pretty dumb idea for that reason. A quarter of my monitor is 800 pixels wide. That is an entirely usable size, and any decent website works fine in it. It is especially dumb to break a website for people using <960px browsers when the website in question is incredibly simple and could easily work in a 300px window.

ChikkaChiChi 14y ago

Don't get me wrong, I'm not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but if I have a to-do of 20 some web services I'm reviewing to find the right competitors to pit against one another, I do judge a book by its cover in some respects. If I was shooting from the hip, my immediate thought about a website I can't get to the sign up button in a basic setup has issues with their team doing proper testing, a possible inattention to detail, and more growth required in their product and processes until they have a fully-fleshed out and mature product. I'm not saying that's the case; I'm saying that's what my impression would be with no other research.

lukeholder 14y ago

Well would your argument stand if I said i have my browser filling 5% of my screen? responsive design is useful, but designing for majority screen resolutions is just good business sense. How far do you take responsiveness? 100px wide?

papsosouid 14y ago
>Well would your argument stand if I said i have my browser filling 5% of my screen? That depends how big your screen is. >responsive design is useful, but designing for majority screen resolutions is just good business sense. And limiting your site to 960+ is a pretty dumb idea for that reason. A quarter of my monitor is 800 pixels wide. That is an entirely usable size, and any decent website works fine in it. It is especially dumb to break a website for people using <960px browsers when the website in question is incredibly simple and could easily work in a 300px window.