ok - i'll attack myself here, save everyone else the trouble. i was a bit crabby about the re-quote of: >> On 2007/02/21 16:57 (GMT) Barney Carroll apparently typed: >> >>> What do you mean by "basing designs on 100% of user defaults"? >> > > if you RE-READ the original message, he said "not" right before your > snip, making your quote 100% misleading. the original quote would be: > > "Maybe it's an indirect impetus to get designers to see the folly of not > basing designs on 100% of user defaults. 100% of user defaults leaves it > up to each user to decide what's too big or too small or just right for > his > local environment." > > ok, there was a kind of double negative in the original message, it was "the folly of not basing their designs...." - which in essence, means....the advantage of basing their designs....blah blah blah. soooooory~! i was trying to clear the confusion but caused a bit more, i love it! anyway, no offence intended. but i STILL claim that if someone wants to make a design that you disagree with, maybe it's ok after all....give guidance, not rules. i disagree with the tone of that e2r article - even though i agree with it in some ways. how can you preach design rules?? they are not rules.