[LINK] Redirects, User counters and Advertising

[Craig Sanders]

On Mon, Feb 26, 2007 at 06:15:54PM +1100, Eric Scheid wrote:
> On 26/2/07 4:05 PM, "Marghanita da Cruz" <marghanita at ramin.com.au> wrote:
>
> > I thought that was the idea of standards - weblogs seem to capture
> > the browser information anyway so, you will have to come up with a
> > better excuse for why websites don't work.
>
> so what is the standard and reasonable width for a web page?

the correct answer to that question is that it is up to the client
(i.e. the browser), not up to the server or the web designer. this is
"web-design 101" stuff, anyone who calls themselves a web developer
should know it.

it is completely unreasonable to make ANY assumptions about what width
or height is available at the browser.

specify width as percentages if you must, but let the browser format it
to suit local conditions.

i have to spend a lot of time using a crappy old laptop with a tiny
1024x768 screen - and am routinely pissed off by dickhead web developers
who assume that everyone has a big screen on every computer they use,
therefore it's OK to make their pages stupidly wide.

more likely, it doesnt occur to them to even think about it - they just
assume that because it looks OK on their giant screen that it is fine
for everyone.

morons!

craig

-- 
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>

BOFH excuse #364: Sand fleas eating the Internet cables