<?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: Feeds and other stuff</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.earlymodernweb.org.uk/emn/index.php/archives/2004/09/feeds-and-other-stuff/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.earlymodernweb.org.uk/emn/index.php/archives/2004/09/feeds-and-other-stuff/</link>
	<description>news and views and even some research, from an early modern historian</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 20:38:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sharon</title>
		<link>http://www.earlymodernweb.org.uk/emn/index.php/archives/2004/09/feeds-and-other-stuff/#comment-81</link>
		<dc:creator>Sharon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2004 15:34:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.earlymodernweb.org.uk/emn/index.php/archives/2004/09/feeds-and-other-stuff/#comment-81</guid>
		<description>Thanks. That makes sense even to me (though believe me I&#039;m usually even more ignorant about hardware than software...). I suppose the question then is how much I should worry about it. How many readers here are viewing the blog on low-resolution university computers (or older monitors) and not seeing it the way I want them to cf. those with up to date high-res screens who get it nice? And of the former group, does it bother anybody? (I&#039;m finicky, I admit it.)

... Although I&#039;ve just realised that the screen here in my office at least can be set to 1024x768. And, yup, then everything fits. But all the text is a bit tiny for comfort... </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks. That makes sense even to me (though believe me I&#8217;m usually even more ignorant about hardware than software&#8230;). I suppose the question then is how much I should worry about it. How many readers here are viewing the blog on low-resolution university computers (or older monitors) and not seeing it the way I want them to cf. those with up to date high-res screens who get it nice? And of the former group, does it bother anybody? (I&#8217;m finicky, I admit it.)</p>
<p>&#8230; Although I&#8217;ve just realised that the screen here in my office at least can be set to 1024&#215;768. And, yup, then everything fits. But all the text is a bit tiny for comfort&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Levesque</title>
		<link>http://www.earlymodernweb.org.uk/emn/index.php/archives/2004/09/feeds-and-other-stuff/#comment-80</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Levesque</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2004 14:38:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.earlymodernweb.org.uk/emn/index.php/archives/2004/09/feeds-and-other-stuff/#comment-80</guid>
		<description>The problem with the screens at the university is probably not the physical size of the displays, but the resolution they are running at.  I would bet that the school&#039;s PCs are showing only an 800 x 600 or even 640 x 480 display.  Your pages look just fine running 1024 x 768 on 15-inch flat panels.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The problem with the screens at the university is probably not the physical size of the displays, but the resolution they are running at.  I would bet that the school&#8217;s PCs are showing only an 800 x 600 or even 640 x 480 display.  Your pages look just fine running 1024 x 768 on 15-inch flat panels.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
