Time to Dump Internet Explorer

Static design = BAD
Liquid design = GOOD

binary, but true ....

So please acid, review your courses of webdesign a bit

Could you look at your settings and options and find out which option that is? It'd be fantastic if it had that feature. I'd like to clarify my words on this though. I don't mean the feature where you type in an address and a list of alphabetically similar addresses drops down and then you can select which one you want. No, the feature I want will fill in automatically while you are typing.

The first screenshot is without inline Autocomplete. The second one is with. In both cases the only thing I typed was "www.es". You can see that in the 2nd screenshot the rest of the address was filled in automatically.

Alex that is not at all true. That is nothing but your opinion.

A site such as this http://www.templatemonster.com/flash-templates/5514.html should be designed around 800x600.

A site such as Techspot which is dynamic is a different story. Both are good designs. It all comes down to preference and opinion.

The TechSpot website appears to be designed for 1024x768 screen resolution and stretches the border area to take up any slack when larger resolutions are used. It doesn't go smaller than 1024x768, and many websites are now like this. The last time I saw an 800x600 monitor it had Windows 3.1 running on it :=).

Websites designed to fit 800x600 res unfortunately don't look good (too cramped), so what do you do if you are a website designer? If it is a Tech website, then you can expect that most users will be running at least 1024x768 res (visit your favourite tech website and check it out for yourself). If it is a news website, then 800x600 would allow most users to view without sideways scrolling. Here is one website that is designed for 640x480 (http://www.theinquirer.net/) and it is reasonably ok because it is a news site, mostly full of text.

Designing all your websites for 800x600 res is not a good idea, and it really depends on your target audience, as to what is, or isn't, acceptable. There are no hard and fast rules, but if your website doesn't look good, then you will likely lose return visits, so do your homework before deciding.

Um. Nick, I didn't say TS was designed for 800x600. I said TS was a different story. Sites like TS aren't going to be designed for "specific" resolutions because it's a site that resizes itself. It will be designed to look better on a few ideal resolutions, but not a specific one. The page I linked though is another story. You'll want that "box" to fit exactly in a 800x600 window, but still look decent in other resolutions. The fact still remains that websites like that which I mentioned need to be built around 800x600 more than any other resolution.

Designing is not taking static flash 320x240 templates and putting them on the middle of your page ....

Ah yes!! I see! I've always gone for the stand-alone browser and email client in Firefox and Thunderbird than the full package in Mozilla. Perhaps I should utilize Mozilla for once!

Again Alex there you go making assumptions. I never said ANYTHING about using templates. I was using that page as an example. Please, all of you pull your heads out of your backsides.

All windows users suck !!

I find your above comment utterly childish and nonsense.

I like the vast majority of computer users use windows because it`s easy to use and gets the job done.

If Linux ever gets to the same stage then I would welcome it as a serious alternative.

As to the original topic. I personally Love the new Firefox because at the moment at least it is much more secure than IE I also like the tabbed browsing element.

I find that whenever I use IE I get a lot more Tracking cookies and spyware etc.

Therefore I only use IE for Windows updates and the odd site that doesn`t support Firefox.

Regards Howard :wave: