How to get to the Xfce 4.4 website

[Jasper Huijsmans]

Jasper Huijsmans schreef:
> Brian J. Tarricone schreef:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 1/10/2006 10:49 AM, Nick Schermer wrote:
>>> On 1/10/06, Alexander Toresson <alexander.toresson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree with all the others. It's a great design. I've just got one
>>>> question: Is the page resolution independent? That is, does it use the
>>>> full width of your browser window, or is it static width?
>>> I  was thinking of both :). 780px and 100%. Enough space in the header for
>>> a small buttun :P.
>>>
>>>> I'm asking because I've seen just too many pages on the net that are
>>>> static width, and therefore just use a part of your full horizontal
>>>> resolution on monitors that are reasonably high resolution (1600x1200,
>>>> 1680x1050 etc).
>>> Yes, but it's hard to design and in most cases a website "designed" for
>>> 780px is a but ugly in 1600px. But i'll give it a shot.
>> Yuck.  This is just lazy, IMHO.  I did my site's layout entirely using
>> 'em's.  It's not that hard and will scale to any monitor/font-size
>> combo.  The real killer here is the font size: people on 1600x1200
>> monitors will likely not be using 12pt fonts in their browser, and if
>> you force the font size to be 12pt, it'll be painful to read.  Use 'em's
>> only, please.
> 
> I strongly agree with that: Use relative sizes (em's are good) and don't 
> force font sizes on the user (If I choose a default font size, it's 
> because I want to read pages in that font size...).
> 

Relative font sizes are ok as long as the main text is 100%.