We may be able to include some requirements around sticky headers and footers, but lets worry about that after August. Cheers, David MacDonald *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.* Tel: 613.235.4902 LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100> twitter.com/davidmacd GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/> * Adapting the web to all users* * Including those with disabilities* If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html> On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Wayne Dick <wayneedick@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Micheal, > > Keep in mind, this is not for changing the direction of 2.1. It is an > observation for silver. > > Responsive design was not developed with content enlargement in mind. It > was meant to accommodate changes in display size. > > Currently an author who creates a break point for 320px width has a > portrait mobile device in mine. They are thinking of a logical resolution > of 360 by something like 568. This means authors set fixed size and > position items at the top and bottom of a page. That burns up a lot of > space, top and bottom, but in portrait mode the room is still there for the > main content. > > The logical space for large print has resolution 320 by 180. There is > literally no room for banners. or they must flow out of the was. > > That is what I mean. I originally used symmetric to emphasize keeping more > than hardware uses in mind when designing break points. Designing for > enlargement creates different cases that are not covered in many cases. > > I am sorry that I cannot give the url, but Alastair and Steve R have > collected a lot of cases. > > Responsive design with disability in mind is different than responsive > design with hardware in mind. > > Does that answer? > > Wayne > > > > > > >Received on Wednesday, 19 July 2017 16:18:06 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:15 UTC