From: Alexey K. <ak...@ib...> - 2011-11-11 10:22:19
|
Lester, >Should we move to 1280px in the next version of the site? >> I would say no. And ask the question, why are we using pixels instead of >> percentages? > I must say that I'm in agreement on that! Yes we need to cater for viewing on > lower resolution devices, such as the range of smartphone and pads being used > nowadays (and serving an alternative theme might help there), but leaving 50% of > the screen blank on the current range of desktop machines is a right pain. It > took me a while to get http://medw.co.uk working reasonably well and it still > needs a bit more fine tuning, but I think it scales quite well from 1024 to 1920 > and on most browsers it will handle 800 even ... In 1920 it looks pretty bad, with a lot of unreasonable blank spaces: http://ge.tt/8nhaCq9?c Creating scaled design which will look great from 1024 to 1920 is non-trivial work. I think that mobile version (phones) should be completeley different, but pads already have 1024 or 1280 pixels. Regards, Alexey Kovyazin |