I want the background image to be the width of the default screen no
matter what the browser has set.
What does the code look like?
BODY { background-image: url(picture.gif); background-width: 100%;}
or is it background-width: auto ?
I read around in W3C and did not find anything that looked correct.
TIA
Dave
--
A little rum in the morning coffee. Just to clear the cobwebs, ya know.
On 2007-08-11, Dave Kelly wrote:
> I want the background image to be the width of the default screen no
> matter what the browser has set.
There is no way to do that.
You could try using z-index with
> What does the code look like?
>
> BODY { background-image: url(picture.gif); background-width: 100%;}
> or is it background-width: auto ?
>
> I read around in W3C and did not find anything that looked correct.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson
============================================================ =======
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> On 2007-08-11, Dave Kelly wrote:
>> I want the background image to be the width of the default screen no
>> matter what the browser has set.
>
> There is no way to do that.
>
> You could try using z-index with
Thanks for your feedback. I will let the issue die.
--
A little rum in the morning coffee. Just to clear the cobwebs, ya know.
Hi all.........
Its me again.
I was guilty of humanities most cumbersome character defect. Making a
mountain out of a mole hill.
Here is what I finally wound up with and it turns out to be exactly what
I wanted to achieve. And it was so simple to do.
Please realize that this is an early part of a work in progress. I know
there is errors in the code. I'll fix that later, its time for me to go
to bed.
http://www.texasflyfishers.org/guide.htm
--
A little rum in the morning coffee. Just to clear the cobwebs, ya know.
Scripsit Dave Kelly:
> Hi all.........
> Its me again.
You're supposed to quote or paraphrase what you are commenting on when you
send a comment.
> Here is what I finally wound up with and it turns out to be exactly
> what I wanted to achieve. And it was so simple to do.
And quite different from what you asked. You have now set a fixed centered
background image. Your main mistake was that you didn't explain what you
wanted to achieve in terms of visual impression, just an assumed technical
approach (as in the Subject line).
> http://www.texasflyfishers.org/guide.htm
Well, it might be what you really wanted, but it _looks_ like a baby or an
ape has been given your page and a pen to draw with, and it happened to mess
up your content and not the available empty space (of which the page mainly
consists, so it was really bad luck).
Why make the text less readable with a background image like that?
Or to take another perspective: If the image is useful or pretty, why make
it less useful and less pretty by spilling some text over it?
Positioning the image (as background) into the upper left corner so that you
carefully _avoid_ making it cover the text might be a much better idea.
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
"Jukka K. Korpela"
news:Siyvi.205860$315.24740@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
> You're supposed to quote or paraphrase what you are commenting on when you
> send a comment.
Get a life, Yucky.
> Well, it might be what you really wanted, but it _looks_ like a baby or an
> ape has been given your page and a pen to draw with, and it happened to
> mess up your content and not the available empty space (of which the page
> mainly consists, so it was really bad luck).
Actually, I kind of like it. It's kind of a neat way to show our beloved
Texas coastline from Sabine
Pass to the Rio Grande.
> Positioning the image (as background) into the upper left corner so that
> you carefully _avoid_ making it cover the text might be a much better
> idea.
>
Maybe, maybe not. It's your baby, Dave. Do it the way _you_ like it.
Bravo, Dave. I'll be checking your site often.
El
El Kabong wrote:
> "Jukka K. Korpela"
> news:Siyvi.205860$315.24740@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
>> You're supposed to quote or paraphrase what you are commenting on when you
>> send a comment.
>
> Get a life, Yucky.
>
>> Well, it might be what you really wanted, but it _looks_ like a baby or an
>> ape has been given your page and a pen to draw with, and it happened to
>> mess up your content and not the available empty space (of which the page
>> mainly consists, so it was really bad luck).
>
> Actually, I kind of like it. It's kind of a neat way to show our beloved
> Texas coastline from Sabine
> Pass to the Rio Grande.
>
Wow, didn't see that at first! As an artist I can say there are some
problems in design. I would not be so brutality blunt as Jukka but his
point is valid.
To OP if you want to do such as a "watermark" with text overlaid you
have to make special considerations with the image. If the recognition
of the image is important and not just an abstract design then your
image should be clearer in its design. Maybe a touch of green fill to
the land-side and blue to the gulf-side to improve recognition that we
are looking at a coastline and not a doodle. The fill could quickly fade
if your wish to emphasize the coastline. Next because this image is
deployed as a watermark you need to modify it so it does not obscure the
text. Desaturate the color and|or lower the contrast and|or blur and
soften the image.
>> Positioning the image (as background) into the upper left corner so that
>> you carefully _avoid_ making it cover the text might be a much better
>> idea.
>>
Another possibility, but I still say if this is supposed to be the Texas
coastline it should clear as to what we are looking at.
--
Take care,
Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
Why do you say that?
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups.
Except in Thunderbird, which can't filter that well.
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 12 Aug 2007 14:14:19
GMT El Kabong scribed:
>> Well, it might be what you really wanted, but it _looks_ like a baby
>> or an ape has been given your page and a pen to draw with, and it
>> happened to mess up your content and not the available empty space
>> (of which the page mainly consists, so it was really bad luck).
>
> Actually, I kind of like it. It's kind of a neat way to show our
> beloved Texas coastline from Sabine
> Pass to the Rio Grande.
The Texas coastline? Well that's a relief. I thought I had a noodle on my
screen that just wouldn't wash off.
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
In article <7521a$46bf291c$40cba7be$29633@NAXS.COM>,
"Jonathan N. Little"
> El Kabong wrote:
> > "Jukka K. Korpela"
> > news:Siyvi.205860$315.24740@reader1.news.saunalahti.fi...
> >> Well, it might be what you really wanted, but it _looks_ like a baby or an
> >> ape has been given your page and a pen to draw with, and it happened to
> >> mess up your content and not the available empty space (of which the page
> >> mainly consists, so it was really bad luck).
> >
> > Actually, I kind of like it. It's kind of a neat way to show our beloved
> > Texas coastline from Sabine
> > Pass to the Rio Grande.
> >
>
> Wow, didn't see that at first! As an artist I can say there are some
> problems in design. I would not be so brutality blunt as Jukka but his
> point is valid.
Never mind the peccadillo about the coastline background, in
Safari, the empty spaces taking up valuable browser height seem
to have no function at all. OP might care to look into that
issue. See the page under different font size conditions in
different browsers.
--
dorayme
"Neredbojias"
news:Xns998A6C437671Ananopandaneredbojias@198.186.190.161...
>
> The Texas coastline? Well that's a relief. I thought I had a noodle on
> my
> screen that just wouldn't wash off.
Were you checking to see if the pasta was done?
El
In article <5eKvi.12032$SV4.9442@trnddc08>,
"El Kabong"
>
> "Neredbojias"
> news:Xns998A6C437671Ananopandaneredbojias@198.186.190.161...
>
> >
> > The Texas coastline? Well that's a relief. I thought I had a noodle on
> > my
> > screen that just wouldn't wash off.
>
> Were you checking to see if the pasta was done?
Boji, now that Luigi is no longer with us (sob...) to explain to
you what this is about, I feel obliged to do it myself. Throwing
pasta at a flat vertical and seeing if it sticks or not is
claimed by some to be a measure of a satisfactory level of
cooking. But it is not reliable unless you use the very same
surface and observe finer details like the rate of slippage if
any, also the bit fished out of the pot should truly
representative of the rest and so on. Too many things to go into
at this point. I might have to knock up a page on it for Aunty
Dorayme's kitchen when I have time.
You can conduct a little experiment of your own if you doubt any
of this to confirm at least part of the story. The part easily
confirmed is that uncooked dry pasta will bounce off if thrown
with any force at all.
--
dorayme
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 12 Aug 2007 20:39:29
GMT El Kabong scribed:
>
> "Neredbojias"
> news:Xns998A6C437671Ananopandaneredbojias@198.186.190.161...
>
>>
>> The Texas coastline? Well that's a relief. I thought I had a noodle
>> on my
>> screen that just wouldn't wash off.
>
> Were you checking to see if the pasta was done?
Well, since it was green, I was checking to see if the pasta was moldy or
alive.
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Sun, 12 Aug 2007 21:17:02
GMT dorayme scribed:
>> Were you checking to see if the pasta was done?
>
> Boji, now that Luigi is no longer with us (sob...) to explain to
> you what this is about, I feel obliged to do it myself. Throwing
> pasta at a flat vertical and seeing if it sticks or not is
> claimed by some to be a measure of a satisfactory level of
> cooking. But it is not reliable unless you use the very same
> surface and observe finer details like the rate of slippage if
> any, also the bit fished out of the pot should truly
> representative of the rest and so on. Too many things to go into
> at this point. I might have to knock up a page on it for Aunty
> Dorayme's kitchen when I have time.
Yep, you're right, that about sums up my expertise in the art of cooking.
I could burn a can of soup even if I peel the label off first.
> You can conduct a little experiment of your own if you doubt any
> of this to confirm at least part of the story. The part easily
> confirmed is that uncooked dry pasta will bounce off if thrown
> with any force at all.
Actually, I have tried this with bougars, but they just don't seem to
bounce worth a snot! Perhaps I have one of those recoilless flatscreens
which simply aren't much help in the pursuit of culinary or probiscal
pastimes.
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
This is my thread so I am going to hijack it for another question.
Is the right click function for the use of the browser only or can I
intercept the signal and use it for my own desires?
I would like to left click to go to the URL and right click to go to
another folder where I can read/write a report on that person.
Is that possible?
TIA
Dave
--
A little rum in the morning coffee. Just to clear the cobwebs, ya know.
Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 01:31:40 GMT
Dave Kelly scribed:
> This is my thread so I am going to hijack it for another question.
>
> Is the right click function for the use of the browser only or can I
> intercept the signal and use it for my own desires?
>
> I would like to left click to go to the URL and right click to go to
> another folder where I can read/write a report on that person.
>
> Is that possible?
Only in the most basic of browsers. Most of them have checkbox options to
ignore that sort of code in order to prevent right-click lockout.
--
Neredbojias
Half lies are worth twice as much as whole lies.
Scripsit Dave Kelly:
> This is my thread so I am going to hijack it for another question.
That's so idiotic an idea that it's almost amusing. Of course, you now
hijack your own second question to protect it from all those readers of this
group who are experts on its topic - after all, busy experts will skip
threads that have uninteresting (to them) Subject lines.
> Is the right click function for the use of the browser only
No, many other programs have click functions too.
> or can I
> intercept the signal and use it for my own desires?
You can, but you should not, especially since you had to ask.
> I would like to left click to go to the URL and right click to go to
> another folder where I can read/write a report on that person.
Stop wanting that. Use different links for different purposes. That way, you
will let all people access the information, even if (for example) it is
physically impossible to them to click on anything.
In an ideal world, we might have multi-destination links defined as part of
HTML and implemented in brilliant ways. In this real world, we have to stop
dreaming, since attempts at implementing such ideas in a per-site way will
just become a nightmare. Your site is not an island, and your visitors spend
most of their time on other sites, and they just don't want to learn (or
just won't learn) a new paradigm of linking and link use when they drop in.
> Is that possible?
With severe limitations, it is, but you should not even try.
Since this is alt.html in all its vagueness and charterlessness, someone may
well pop up an throw some JavaScript code at you and tell you to put it into
an onrightclick="..." attribute or something like that. If that happens,
just duck.
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/