Forums: Discussions for entrepreneurs and small business.

For me, I see a lot of vertical white space between the elements of the
header, the ad being the least problematic. I like the spacing because it
doesn`t look crowded but some of it could still be tightened up a bit.

I think there`s just navigation redundancy. Like the "main" tab and the "community link ... aren`t they just the same thing?

I totally LOLed at Craig`s response.

I see dead people.
Wait, wrong quote.

Yeah, the scroll thing is just annoying. Maybe we`ll get surprised when the Easter Bunny brings us the new site design on Monday.

Meanwhile, I`m off to find some Peeps. I love those things.

I have to say, I was shocked....SHOCKED!,  I say, to discover the different monitors render Web sites very differently.

I do use a 19" LCD panel, set to the high resolution (1280 something). On my system, most Web sites look too small, and the font is too hard to read. I live with it. But on a 17" monitor at 1040, things look better.

Fine. Except that when the size of the font changes, or the view size changes, paragraphs realign and spacing all changes. So now I have no real idea how to make a site look "the same" on any different kind of monitor.

I`m guessing that SuN developers may be using a larger monitor? I`m researching this CSS stuff, to see how to keep a Web page looking the same, regardless of the monitor and viewing size. Not an easy proposition.

Developers love to work on huge monitors, except that they fail to realize that
WE DO NOT. This is called User Acceptance, or Developer Stupidity, depending on one`s perspective.

I use dual 19" LCD monitors when I`m in my office, and an IBM/Lenovo 15" laptop when I`m not. Scrolling is an issue in either case.

This seems like such an obvious, glaring issue - wonder why no one ever mentioned it before?

Craig, one question on your earlier post about your 80" monitor: How do you keep all of that glare coming from your noggin` to not interfere with your viewing experience?

Ahem, "developers"??

I work on a 13" screen buddy! And that`s moving up in the world ... before the iBook fiasco in which I had to buy a new MacBook a few weeks ago, I only had a 12"!

So when it comes to sites, we test on my 13" MacBook, our 19" PC screen, and my artist`s humongo screen. So the test usually is, if it`s below the fold on my laptop, we move everything up. 1024 x 768 is a pretty safe standard now ... we`re somewhat conscious of 800 x 600 people ... and 640 x 480 (the old standard, when I first started!) - well, they need to get a new comp now.

Nikole,

See, size does matter. (is that wrong? should I not have said that?)

I think you do testing the right way. What these guys were thinking, I have no idea, except it probably went like this: "Wow, looks great on my 104" wall-panel LCD. Let`s launch this baby and take a four-hour lunch", or something similar.

I always, without fail, wear a green eyeshade when I work on the computer. That way I see only what`s directly in front of my eyes.