800 x 600
- Started
- Last post
- 27 Responses
- sexypixel0
must be some nice perks working on that site rabit :)
can you help me out in the 'looking for...." thread below?
- kodap0
I'm using 544width X about 4000 height
- IRNlun60
by using this logic, do most of you design a site for 16-bit color depth?
I prefer to work with 800x600 and 32 bit color depth, I assume like most people. But looking at it on 16 bit, it looks like crap.
All stats pretty much say its even on the 32 bit vs. 16 bit users.
- ribit0
dave... it was iMarc right?
a bit expensive if I remember right :)
- ribit0
"must be some nice perks working on that site rabit :) "
like what?! We're still struggling to make any money after 3 years at it.... our users love us though...
- sexypixel0
i though you'd be flown to auto shows, get to drive the lastest cars, models, groupies the whole 9 yards.
i love that site tho, great quality images well done
- davetufts0
yup! come on, it was like 1999 everything was freakin' expensive...
back to the topic at hand - fixed width design is insane.
Small screens aren't only for 'OLD' people who are afraid to upgrade - web enable palms, cellphones, tablet PCs, etc.. small screens are more a part of our future than our past.
Flexible/fluid design or CSS design is what smart people do:
http://www.alistapart.com/storieā¦