Re: A problem with the new Gamespot design

I think I'll stop reading gamespot just because of this. -Tim "Doberman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (33 lines)

> > "Chris Remmers" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > What happened to the hardware reviews? I've always thought that Loyd > > Case does a really good job. > > > > I got ALOT of problems with the new design. > > Did any of their people actually bother to LOOK at the > thing? Did they try to read the tiny white on black type? > From further then 3 inches away? On a 1024 x 768 setting? > > Why is there no easy way to get to a games general info > page with the rating, publisher info, links to both user and > site reviews, etc? For archived titles, the only way seems to > be to go directly to the review and then jump to the info > page. Foolish. > > Could they take up even more room with their logo bar > and ad banner? > > I could list more, but looking at the site for reference is > giving me a headache. > > Too bad. I was always pleased with their coverage, reviews, > etc. I'm gonna hafta find another site to get that stuff from now. > > Dobe > > >

"Chris Remmers" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > What happened to the hardware reviews? I've always thought that Loyd > Case does a really good job. > I got ALOT of problems with the new design. Did any of their people actually bother to LOOK at the thing? Did they try to read the tiny white on black type? From further then 3 inches away? On a 1024 x 768 setting? Why is there no easy way to get to a games general info page with the rating, publisher info, links to both user and site reviews, etc? For archived titles, the only way seems to be to go directly to the review and then jump to the info page. Foolish. Could they take up even more room with their logo bar and ad banner? I could list more, but looking at the site for reference is giving me a headache. Too bad. I was always pleased with their coverage, reviews, etc. I'm gonna hafta find another site to get that stuff from now. Dobe

then that screws up the other 99.999% of the websites in the world Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> Did you ever try INCREASING the TEXT SIZE in your browser? > -- > Regards, > Bruce Kennewell, > Canberra, Australia. > --------------------------- > > Doberman <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > Did any of their people actually bother to LOOK at the > > thing? Did they try to read the tiny white on black type? > > From further then 3 inches away? On a 1024 x 768 setting? > > > > >

Yeah. Bleeeeaaaaahhhhh. Like the content. Hate the layout. -- * Alex Pavloff - alex at pavloff dot net * * You've heard that water swirls differently * * depending on the hemisphere -- ever tried it? *

Did you ever try INCREASING the TEXT SIZE in your browser? -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Doberman <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > > Did any of their people actually bother to LOOK at the > thing? Did they try to read the tiny white on black type? > From further then 3 inches away? On a 1024 x 768 setting? >

Huh? Has modern living reduced your physical ability to move and click your mouse more than once?! -- Regards, Bruce Kennewell, Canberra, Australia. --------------------------- Paul Dragon <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > then that screws up the other 99.999% of the websites in the world > > > Bruce Kennewell <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > Did you ever try INCREASING the TEXT SIZE in your browser? > > -- > > Regards, > > Bruce Kennewell, > > Canberra, Australia. > > --------------------------- > > > > Doberman <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > > > > > Did any of their people actually bother to LOOK at the > > > thing? Did they try to read the tiny white on black type? > > > From further then 3 inches away? On a 1024 x 768 setting? > > > > > > > > > > >

"Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Huh? > Has modern living reduced your physical ability to move and click yourmouse > more than once?! > Why should I (or anyone else) be required to compensate for someone else's bad design practices? Dobe

Because there is no such thing as bad design practice in terms of web page resolution. It might have escaped your attention that some people struggle with a 14" monitor at 640x480 whilst others can afford a 21" jobbie running at much higher res. Think about it! MS

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > Why should I (or anyone else) be required to compensate > for someone else's bad design practices? > > Dobe > >

On Mon, 15 May 2000 17:06:06 -0500, "Doberman" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >"Bruce Kennewell" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> Huh? >> Has modern living reduced your physical ability to move and click your >mouse >> more than once?! >> > > Why should I (or anyone else) be required to compensate >for someone else's bad design practices?

You shouldn't... but I'm running in 1024x768 on a 15 inch and it reads fine, so I don't see the original complaint. Jason Kozak _ "To fight a thousand battles and win five hundred is not so good as to fight fifty and win them all."