<?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: If at first you don&#8217;t succeed</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.librarywebchic.net/wordpress/2007/09/21/if-at-first-you-dont-succeed/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.librarywebchic.net/wordpress/2007/09/21/if-at-first-you-dont-succeed/</link>
	<description>Resources for librarians who are interested in the application of web design and technologies in libraries</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 20:58:36 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan Blackburn</title>
		<link>http://www.librarywebchic.net/wordpress/2007/09/21/if-at-first-you-dont-succeed/#comment-29903</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan Blackburn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:35:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.librarywebchic.net/wordpress/2007/09/21/if-at-first-you-dont-succeed/#comment-29903</guid>
		<description>Glad you found an acceptable solution.  

You got me thinking about this whole issue again for our website, and I might try Yahoo's (http://www.yahoo.com/) approach next time around.  They use a fixed width design made for 1024x768 monitors (our most common by far) and provide a "switch to narrower layout" for people still using 800x600.  

Though I think your solution is probably more flexible - and provides a better experience for users with disabilities - I do like the convenience of designing for a fixed width. (Fluid really does require a paradigm shift of sorts that not everyone is ready for . . .)

Of course, do not tell this to our librarian in charge of accessibility, as she routinely sees users with 23" widescreen monitors with the browser text-size up all the way.  Try that on a fixed width design and see what happens!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Glad you found an acceptable solution.  </p>
<p>You got me thinking about this whole issue again for our website, and I might try Yahoo&#8217;s (http://www.yahoo.com/) approach next time around.  They use a fixed width design made for 1024&#215;768 monitors (our most common by far) and provide a &#8220;switch to narrower layout&#8221; for people still using 800&#215;600.  </p>
<p>Though I think your solution is probably more flexible - and provides a better experience for users with disabilities - I do like the convenience of designing for a fixed width. (Fluid really does require a paradigm shift of sorts that not everyone is ready for . . .)</p>
<p>Of course, do not tell this to our librarian in charge of accessibility, as she routinely sees users with 23&#8243; widescreen monitors with the browser text-size up all the way.  Try that on a fixed width design and see what happens!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
