Re: [backpackgeartesters] ATTN: Mike Lipay
- Yes, Andrew, I have that understanding also. But, as I stated, when I
look at it on my Mac, using Safari, at 1024, it looks fine to me.
Some of this has to do with font sizes, perhaps my browser default is
different than Shane's. Some has to do with Mac vs Windows, I know
that the two machines are different in displayed resolutions.
I need the additional information that I asked for. The guidelines
do specify 1024, that is not the issue. The problem is with the size
of my photos, which are at a 900 width. I need to know, from someone
who sees the problem (like Shane), just how small I need to make the
photos. I don't want to adjust it, then have someone tell me it's
still wrong, then adjust it again; I'd like to do it once and be done.
On Jun 30, 2007, at 11:27 AM, Andrew Priest wrote:
> Hi Mike
> I believe Shane answered your question indirectly in his comment.
> That is a
> report should be readable at 1024 pixels is my take from Shane's
> Personally I don't set a size for my reports, rather using the 100%
> This seems to let the report size appropriately according to the
> I also believe it is in the bylaws somewhere.
> Andrew, sir
>> Unfortunately, your report ruins the side bar at 1024 resolution.
>> If you
>> could have a look at it when you get a chance, I'd appreciate it.
>> List Admin
> Looks fine to me. What should the maximum width of the report side
> be to
> make a report look good on your computer? Perhaps this should be
> part of the
> requirements? I have the page width set at 900.
> Yahoo! Groups Links