<?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"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Google Browser Size and thinking beyond the fold</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.prettysimple.co.uk/blog/index.php/2009/12/google-browser-size/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.prettysimple.co.uk/blog/index.php/2009/12/google-browser-size/</link>
	<description>about web design, accessibility, usability, social media and all that jazz</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 22:27:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: James</title>
		<link>http://www.prettysimple.co.uk/blog/index.php/2009/12/google-browser-size/comment-page-1/#comment-2029</link>
		<dc:creator>James</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2010 13:52:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.prettysimple.co.uk/blog/?p=1037#comment-2029</guid>
		<description>Absolutely right Graham, the vertical parameters don&#039;t work with centered fixed-width websites unless you manually adjust your own viewport size to match each resolution you want to check (which kind of defeats the purpose of the tool). It shouldn&#039;t be difficult for Google to create a centered version of the overlay, to apply to sites such as this blog.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Absolutely right Graham, the vertical parameters don&#8217;t work with centered fixed-width websites unless you manually adjust your own viewport size to match each resolution you want to check (which kind of defeats the purpose of the tool). It shouldn&#8217;t be difficult for Google to create a centered version of the overlay, to apply to sites such as this blog.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Graham Armfield</title>
		<link>http://www.prettysimple.co.uk/blog/index.php/2009/12/google-browser-size/comment-page-1/#comment-2025</link>
		<dc:creator>Graham Armfield</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Jan 2010 06:58:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.prettysimple.co.uk/blog/?p=1037#comment-2025</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the information and the tool is pretty useful.

However, with layouts that have a centered fixed-width content block (such as your blog) it is necessary to tweak the browser window size to get a good judge of a page&#039;s visibility. I&#039;m using a wide screen laptop as it would appear that you may have been when you took the screenshot above. Your pages actually would be totally visible on 800 x 600 - using the tool with a maximised window implies the opposite.

Please don&#039;t take this as a criticism of your post - I mention it only to point out something that is not covered on the Google Labs page itself, and I will be feeding this back to them too.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the information and the tool is pretty useful.</p>
<p>However, with layouts that have a centered fixed-width content block (such as your blog) it is necessary to tweak the browser window size to get a good judge of a page&#8217;s visibility. I&#8217;m using a wide screen laptop as it would appear that you may have been when you took the screenshot above. Your pages actually would be totally visible on 800 x 600 &#8211; using the tool with a maximised window implies the opposite.</p>
<p>Please don&#8217;t take this as a criticism of your post &#8211; I mention it only to point out something that is not covered on the Google Labs page itself, and I will be feeding this back to them too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gary Miller</title>
		<link>http://www.prettysimple.co.uk/blog/index.php/2009/12/google-browser-size/comment-page-1/#comment-1789</link>
		<dc:creator>Gary Miller</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:37:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.prettysimple.co.uk/blog/?p=1037#comment-1789</guid>
		<description>Nice informative article James.

I&#039;ll have to give the Google tool a run for myself. Do you think that the move away from original thinking on vertical scrolling and having important information above the fold - if, indeed, having a fold at all - has anything to do with the evolution of the humble mouse?

For example, earlier mice required you to either move the cursor to the down arrow or the slide bar, then click and hold or click, hold and move the slider down respectively.

As mice evolved in functionality it is now, for example, a simple matter for a user to flick a scroll wheel to &#039;travel&#039; down the page.

There must, surely, be some correlation there?

p.s. I must add that I haven&#039;t forgotten the importance of monitor size and screen resolution in these changes in trends!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice informative article James.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll have to give the Google tool a run for myself. Do you think that the move away from original thinking on vertical scrolling and having important information above the fold &#8211; if, indeed, having a fold at all &#8211; has anything to do with the evolution of the humble mouse?</p>
<p>For example, earlier mice required you to either move the cursor to the down arrow or the slide bar, then click and hold or click, hold and move the slider down respectively.</p>
<p>As mice evolved in functionality it is now, for example, a simple matter for a user to flick a scroll wheel to &#8216;travel&#8217; down the page.</p>
<p>There must, surely, be some correlation there?</p>
<p>p.s. I must add that I haven&#8217;t forgotten the importance of monitor size and screen resolution in these changes in trends!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

