On 2014-01-25 21:47 (GMT+0100) Robert Mayr composed:
Felix Miata composed:
> On 2014-01-25 21:12 (GMT+0100) Robert Mayr composed:
>> we have 960px
> Why?
Because that's the actual situation and it's still a very
used width,
as most resolutions are 1280 or 1366.
Of the dozen displays in this building, not one is 1366 native, and I doubt I
have one that even supports that cheap lowfi mode. What I do have natively
supported includes 1024, 1280, 1400, 1600, 1680, 1920 & 2048.
We shouldn't discuss here why we
have things, we want to discuss how we can make the pages better...
If you want better, work on eradicating archaic old-school assumptions.
Resolution without size has no meaning WRT size. Resolutions come in many
sizes, besides there being many more than your two (lowfi) resolutions, e.g.
1920 (HDTV), 2048, 2560, 2880, 1152, 1024, 480, 320, etc.
http://fm.no-ip.com/PC/displays.html
What matters is pixel density, and because pixel density varies rather
widely, px shouldn't factor in at all. If you think you want 960px, then what
you should want is 60rem; instead of 300px, 18.75rem; instead of 12px,
.75rem, etc. That way you avoid tiny type and narrow content on high density
screens, and big type and horizontal scroll on low density screens. Pixels
are a scourge on u9y & a11y.
--
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!
Felix Miata ***
http://fm.no-ip.com/