Minical: thoughts and further questions

Thanks for the kind words,
and I am going to post every little thing to the list in
deference to 
Ted's wishes, to give it a fair shake and see if it is a
workable form 
of communication.

in reference to scalability, here is a way to think about
it:

lets say you design for 1024x768 assuming than
1"em" of body font == 15px
someone changes the font size such that 1"em" of
body font == 20px
 your layout algorithm would now assume an effective screen
size of 
768px x 576px.  in terms of proportions, but would adjust
actual 
postions/sizes according to the em/pixel ratio established
by a 
reference element.

so what does the layout do today if the browser is smaller
than 1024x768?
>>
>>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
scooby-dev mailing list
scooby-devlists.osafoundation.org
http://lists.osafoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman
/listinfo/scooby-dev

Yes, using ems is a totally different paradigm from what we
have going 
now in that all the widths are relative. That means the
entire layout 
grows and shrinks in width together.

What we have now works like a standard desktop application
-- two 
fixed-width areas and a single area in the middle that uses
whatever is 
left. So in screen sizes smaller than 1024x768, the middle
column 
containing the events gets thinner, but the left and right
sidebars stay 
the same (essentially how Chandler works).

Good vote on throwing this out to the list. 

Jeremy Epstein wrote:
> Thanks for the kind words,
> and I am going to post every little thing to the list
in deference to 
> Ted's wishes, to give it a fair shake and see if it is
a workable form 
> of communication.
> 
> in reference to scalability, here is a way to think
about it:
> 
> lets say you design for 1024x768 assuming than
1"em" of body font == 15px
> someone changes the font size such that
1"em" of body font == 20px
> your layout algorithm would now assume an effective
screen size of 768px 
> x 576px.  in terms of proportions, but would adjust
actual 
> postions/sizes according to the em/pixel ratio
established by a 
> reference element.
> 
> so what does the layout do today if the browser is
smaller than 1024x768?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> 

_______________________________________________
scooby-dev mailing list
scooby-devlists.osafoundation.org
http://lists.osafoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman
/listinfo/scooby-dev

Yes, using ems is a totally different paradigm from what we
have going 
now in that all the widths are relative. That means the
entire layout 
grows and shrinks in width together.

What we have now works like a standard desktop application
-- two 
fixed-width areas and a single area in the middle that uses
whatever is 
left. So in screen sizes smaller than 1024x768, the middle
column 
containing the events gets thinner, but the left and right
sidebars stay 
the same (essentially how Chandler works).

Good vote on throwing this out to the list. 

Jeremy Epstein wrote:
> Thanks for the kind words,
> and I am going to post every little thing to the list
in deference to 
> Ted's wishes, to give it a fair shake and see if it is
a workable form 
> of communication.
> 
> in reference to scalability, here is a way to think
about it:
> 
> lets say you design for 1024x768 assuming than
1"em" of body font == 15px
> someone changes the font size such that
1"em" of body font == 20px
> your layout algorithm would now assume an effective
screen size of 768px 
> x 576px.  in terms of proportions, but would adjust
actual 
> postions/sizes according to the em/pixel ratio
established by a 
> reference element.
> 
> so what does the layout do today if the browser is
smaller than 1024x768?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> 

_______________________________________________
scooby-dev mailing list
scooby-devlists.osafoundation.org
http://lists.osafoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman
/listinfo/scooby-dev