On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Egon Schmid wrote:
> Scrolling horizontally isn't as good as scrolling vertical. I would
> suggest to have one entry over the next so I can see all information all
> together on the scren. And of course leave out rows with no content.
I, personally, do not like the idea of the length of the page that
would result in switching to your above format...and, so far, I've had one
private email from someone stating the same thing :(
If you wish to take the information that is there and come up with
a sample of what you are thinking, that reflects the current layout,
please feel free to do so...but, the current layout requires much less
'real estate' then what you are proposing, and, IMHO, scrolling
horizontally or vertically means the same thing...
>
> -Egon
>
> On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 17 Jun 1998, Egon Schmid wrote:
> >
> > > Make the first column with the current table headers. In the second column
> > > the content.
> >
> > You lost me on that one...the way I'm reading it, you are suggesting going
> > further across the screen? Or do you mean do one site per table, each
> > table vertical from the other? If so, that would take up alot more to
> > dosnload then the current coniguration...
> >
> > BTW...what do you mean by 'it doesn't fit very well in netscape'? I don't
> > use anything but it, and I just have to scroll right for what is
> > missing...
>
>
