<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: How long is a line of text?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.red-root.com/design/how-long-is-a-line-of-text/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.red-root.com/design/how-long-is-a-line-of-text/</link>
	<description>Lost in Cyberspace</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 07:33:27 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ryan</title>
		<link>http://www.red-root.com/design/how-long-is-a-line-of-text/#comment-886</link>
		<dc:creator>Ryan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Jan 2007 00:51:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.red-root.com/?p=44#comment-886</guid>
		<description>Yeah, I tend to always gravitate toward fixed-width designs, and I think it's for the very reason in your post.  I'm worried about the appeal of the site on a 22" widescreen, and I usually never have _that_ much stuff going on where I need the entire screen.

However, some things to think about: 1) often anyone having a widescreen wants the widescreen for a reason, and that reason it to usually have multiple windows open, side-by-side 2) fluid layouts can be easy to modify, as you can wrap your content down the center in a wrapper having 65% width or something, and increase it as you need it, and all the block level elements (assuming you used percentages) will follow the pattern, and expand 3) CSS does have a min-width and max-width I do believe... however, not to surprise anyone, but IE has a hard time understanding what that is.

Having said all that, probably one of the hardest aspects of web design is accounting for all of the different views your design can take on.  To deal with this, I usually go fixed width :-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, I tend to always gravitate toward fixed-width designs, and I think it&#8217;s for the very reason in your post.  I&#8217;m worried about the appeal of the site on a 22&#8243; widescreen, and I usually never have _that_ much stuff going on where I need the entire screen.</p>
<p>However, some things to think about: 1) often anyone having a widescreen wants the widescreen for a reason, and that reason it to usually have multiple windows open, side-by-side 2) fluid layouts can be easy to modify, as you can wrap your content down the center in a wrapper having 65% width or something, and increase it as you need it, and all the block level elements (assuming you used percentages) will follow the pattern, and expand 3) CSS does have a min-width and max-width I do believe&#8230; however, not to surprise anyone, but IE has a hard time understanding what that is.</p>
<p>Having said all that, probably one of the hardest aspects of web design is accounting for all of the different views your design can take on.  To deal with this, I usually go fixed width <img src='http://www.red-root.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
