--
Nico
Re: 800x600, 1024x768...1400x1050 res.
am 30.01.2008 21:07:29 von Harlan Messinger
catalyst wrote:
> Hi! I'making a webpage in html+style in css. How to make that this webpage
> shows similar in all this 800x600, 1024x768...1400x1050 resoultions?
> It happens that 800x600 is much larger than of 1400x...
> it seems html table aren't stretching so good.As i'm a newbie in css too,
> how's stretching with css in this various resolutions? Is there any aid?
Since you haven't shown us what you're doing or in what way it isn't
behaving as you expect, an answer will be impossible unless a psychic
comes along.
Besides that, the screen resolution is absolutely irrelevant since (a)
you don't know how large the browser window is and (b) as far as you
know one user has 1400 x 1050 on a 13" (33cm) screen and is sitting half
a meter away while another has 1024 x 768 on a two-meter projection
screen and is sitting 5 meters away.
Re: 800x600, 1024x768...1400x1050 res.
am 30.01.2008 21:23:45 von a.nony.mous
catalyst wrote:
> Hi! I'making a webpage in html+style in css. How to make that this webpage
> shows similar in all this 800x600, 1024x768...1400x1050 resoultions?
None of the above. All of the above.
http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign
My monitor is 1680x1050, and I have two browser windows open
side-by-each. Or one browser and some other application, maybe my web
page editor. Screen resolution is unimportant. Think of mobile phones
and PDAs, too. You site (if a general site) should work on all of them.
> It happens that 800x600 is much larger than of 1400x...
Hmmmm?
> it seems html table aren't stretching so good.As i'm a newbie in css
> too, how's stretching with css in this various resolutions? Is there
> any aid?
Are you planning to use tables for layout?
http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?Tableless_layouts
http://htmldog.com/guides/cssbeginner/
--
-bts
-Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck
Re: 800x600, 1024x768...1400x1050 res.
am 30.01.2008 21:48:42 von mrcakey
"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote in message
news:l15oj.518957$kj1.291640@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att. net...
> catalyst wrote:
>
>> Hi! I'making a webpage in html+style in css. How to make that this
>> webpage
>> shows similar in all this 800x600, 1024x768...1400x1050 resoultions?
>
> None of the above. All of the above.
> http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign
Is it me or are you advocating adding browser-sniffing JavaScript to support
Netscape, a browser with approximately 0.5% of the market?
>
> My monitor is 1680x1050, and I have two browser windows open
> side-by-each. Or one browser and some other application, maybe my web
> page editor. Screen resolution is unimportant. Think of mobile phones
> and PDAs, too. You site (if a general site) should work on all of them.
No it shouldn't. It should work on the platforms he chooses to market to.
+mrcakey
Re: 800x600, 1024x768...1400x1050 res.
am 30.01.2008 21:58:30 von a.nony.mous
mrcakey wrote:
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote:
>> catalyst wrote:
>>> Hi! I'making a webpage in html+style in css. How to make that this
>>> webpage shows similar in all this 800x600, 1024x768...1400x1050
>>> resoultions?
>>
>> None of the above. All of the above.
>> http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign
>
> Is it me or are you advocating adding browser-sniffing JavaScript to
> support Netscape, a browser with approximately 0.5% of the market?
Why would you think that? I certainly don't care about Netscape (the
old ones). I would never use browser sniffing. If you were referring to
the part "Non-compliant browser detection" on that page, that was
written when NS4 had more of an audience.
>> My monitor is 1680x1050, and I have two browser windows open
>> side-by-each. Or one browser and some other application, maybe my
>> web page editor. Screen resolution is unimportant. Think of mobile
>> phones and PDAs, too. Your site (if a general site) should work on
>> all of them.
>
> No it shouldn't. It should work on the platforms he chooses to
> market to.
I see more and more people these days browsing the web from small screen
devices. Don't they have money too?
--
-bts
-Friends don't let friends drive Vista
Re: 800x600, 1024x768...1400x1050 res.
am 30.01.2008 22:06:23 von Harlan Messinger
mrcakey wrote:
> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote in message
> news:l15oj.518957$kj1.291640@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att. net...
>> catalyst wrote:
>>
>>> Hi! I'making a webpage in html+style in css. How to make that this
>>> webpage
>>> shows similar in all this 800x600, 1024x768...1400x1050 resoultions?
>> None of the above. All of the above.
>> http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign
>
> Is it me or are you advocating adding browser-sniffing JavaScript to support
> Netscape, a browser with approximately 0.5% of the market?
>
>> My monitor is 1680x1050, and I have two browser windows open
>> side-by-each. Or one browser and some other application, maybe my web
>> page editor. Screen resolution is unimportant. Think of mobile phones
>> and PDAs, too. You site (if a general site) should work on all of them.
>
> No it shouldn't. It should work on the platforms he chooses to market to.
You mean there are people who come to marketing meetings and say, "Our
market shows us that our high-tech molded bicycle seats are popular in
the 1400x1050 pixel, 15- to 17-inch screen, maximized browser community,
but Brand X seats sell better in the 1024x768 pixel, 19-inch,
browser-occupies-only-part-of-the-screen community"?
Re: 800x600, 1024x768...1400x1050 res.
am 30.01.2008 22:13:53 von Harlan Messinger
Harlan Messinger wrote:
> mrcakey wrote:
>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote in
>> message
>> news:l15oj.518957$kj1.291640@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att. net...
>>> catalyst wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi! I'making a webpage in html+style in css. How to make that this
>>>> webpage
>>>> shows similar in all this 800x600, 1024x768...1400x1050 resoultions?
>>> None of the above. All of the above.
>>> http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign
>>
>> Is it me or are you advocating adding browser-sniffing JavaScript to
>> support Netscape, a browser with approximately 0.5% of the market?
>>
>>> My monitor is 1680x1050, and I have two browser windows open
>>> side-by-each. Or one browser and some other application, maybe my web
>>> page editor. Screen resolution is unimportant. Think of mobile phones
>>> and PDAs, too. You site (if a general site) should work on all of them.
>>
>> No it shouldn't. It should work on the platforms he chooses to market
>> to.
>
> You mean there are people who come to marketing meetings and say, "Our
> market shows us that our high-tech molded bicycle seats are popular in
> the 1400x1050 pixel, 15- to 17-inch screen, maximized browser community,
> but Brand X seats sell better in the 1024x768 pixel, 19-inch,
> browser-occupies-only-part-of-the-screen community"?
Besides that, I'm curious why people who are so sure that it isn't worth
building a more flexible design now don't see why it's even less worth
building a design that will require a complete overhaul when the
resolutions are even higher a few years from now. I'm thinking about the
people who built fixed designs that worked at 800 x 600 several years
ago and now have a presentation that can't be read on screens with twice
the pixels in each dimension (text too small or columns too narrow) and
that create increasing frustration as more and more users try to access
them (because they see no reason why they shouldn't be able to after
having shelled out the money for the capability) on cell phones.
Re: 800x600, 1024x768...1400x1050 res.
am 30.01.2008 22:46:05 von Ben C
On 2008-01-30, Harlan Messinger wrote:
> mrcakey wrote:
[...]
>> No it shouldn't. It should work on the platforms he chooses to market to.
>
> You mean there are people who come to marketing meetings and say, "Our
> market shows us that our high-tech molded bicycle seats are popular in
> the 1400x1050 pixel, 15- to 17-inch screen, maximized browser community,
> but Brand X seats sell better in the 1024x768 pixel, 19-inch,
> browser-occupies-only-part-of-the-screen community"?
People say much stranger things than that in marketing meetings.
Re: 800x600, 1024x768...1400x1050 res.
am 30.01.2008 22:52:09 von dorayme
In article <60c7kjF1prbblU1@mid.individual.net>,
Harlan Messinger wrote:
> Besides that, I'm curious why people who are so sure that it isn't worth
> building a more flexible design now don't see why it's even less worth
> building a design that will require a complete overhaul when the
> resolutions are even higher a few years from now. I'm thinking about the
> people who built fixed designs that worked at 800 x 600 several years
> ago and now have a presentation that can't be read on screens with twice
> the pixels in each dimension (text too small
I wish some operating system makers thought more flexibly on this
one too. When I moved from CRT to LCD and got higher res, great
for pics, the menu fonts got peskily smaller.
--
dorayme
Re: 800x600, 1024x768...1400x1050 res.
am 30.01.2008 22:53:22 von Harlan Messinger
Harlan Messinger wrote:
> Harlan Messinger wrote:
>> mrcakey wrote:
>>> "Beauregard T. Shagnasty" wrote in
>>> message
>>> news:l15oj.518957$kj1.291640@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att. net...
>>>> catalyst wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi! I'making a webpage in html+style in css. How to make that this
>>>>> webpage
>>>>> shows similar in all this 800x600, 1024x768...1400x1050 resoultions?
>>>> None of the above. All of the above.
>>>> http://allmyfaqs.net/faq.pl?AnySizeDesign
>>>
>>> Is it me or are you advocating adding browser-sniffing JavaScript to
>>> support Netscape, a browser with approximately 0.5% of the market?
>>>
>>>> My monitor is 1680x1050, and I have two browser windows open
>>>> side-by-each. Or one browser and some other application, maybe my web
>>>> page editor. Screen resolution is unimportant. Think of mobile phones
>>>> and PDAs, too. You site (if a general site) should work on all of them.
>>>
>>> No it shouldn't. It should work on the platforms he chooses to
>>> market to.
>>
>> You mean there are people who come to marketing meetings and say, "Our
>> market shows us that our high-tech molded bicycle seats are popular in
>> the 1400x1050 pixel, 15- to 17-inch screen, maximized browser
>> community, but Brand X seats sell better in the 1024x768 pixel,
>> 19-inch, browser-occupies-only-part-of-the-screen community"?
>
> Besides that, I'm curious why people who are so sure that it isn't worth
> building a more flexible design now don't see why it's even less worth
> building a design that will require a complete overhaul when the
> resolutions are even higher a few years from now. I'm thinking about the
> people who built fixed designs that worked at 800 x 600 several years
> ago and now have a presentation that can't be read on screens with twice
> the pixels in each dimension (text too small or columns too narrow) and
> that create increasing frustration as more and more users try to access
> them (because they see no reason why they shouldn't be able to after
> having shelled out the money for the capability) on cell phones.
I'm wondering if this is the story behind the web page
http://www.jwam.com.au/
being discussed in the thread "Small font on web pages".
Re: 800x600, 1024x768...1400x1050 res.
am 30.01.2008 23:30:20 von rf
"dorayme" wrote in message
news:doraymeRidThis-9C4F1B.08520931012008@news-vip.optusnet. com.au...
> In article <60c7kjF1prbblU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Harlan Messinger wrote:
>
>> Besides that, I'm curious why people who are so sure that it isn't worth
>> building a more flexible design now don't see why it's even less worth
>> building a design that will require a complete overhaul when the
>> resolutions are even higher a few years from now. I'm thinking about the
>> people who built fixed designs that worked at 800 x 600 several years
>> ago and now have a presentation that can't be read on screens with twice
>> the pixels in each dimension (text too small
>
> I wish some operating system makers thought more flexibly on this
> one too.
They did.
Windows, at least, allows one to specify the size of menus and other such
things.
--
Richard.
Re: 800x600, 1024x768...1400x1050 res.
am 30.01.2008 23:54:16 von dorayme
In article <0U6oj.9160$421.1460@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
"rf" wrote:
> "dorayme" wrote in message
> news:doraymeRidThis-9C4F1B.08520931012008@news-vip.optusnet. com.au...
> > In article <60c7kjF1prbblU1@mid.individual.net>,
> > Harlan Messinger wrote:
> >
> >> Besides that, I'm curious why people who are so sure that it isn't worth
> >> building a more flexible design now don't see why it's even less worth
> >> building a design that will require a complete overhaul when the
> >> resolutions are even higher a few years from now. I'm thinking about the
> >> people who built fixed designs that worked at 800 x 600 several years
> >> ago and now have a presentation that can't be read on screens with twice
> >> the pixels in each dimension (text too small
> >
> > I wish some operating system makers thought more flexibly on this
> > one too.
>
> They did.
>
> Windows, at least, allows one to specify the size of menus and other such
> things.
Refreshing to hear good things about Windows.
I was not happy with the lack of the flexibility, up to Tiger at
least, on Macs. One gets used to it and it still looks nice.
There are all sorts of mouth watering flexibilities in Mac for
Finder views so it might seem ungrateful of me to complain.
In the case of Mac, there are a world of things in what is known
as Resource forks, resources like notices and system icons and
other stuff and these perhaps have been carried over from earlier
OSs. It is perhaps a big deal to alter all this stuff or provide
for variability in it to suit different users.
--
dorayme
Re: 800x600, 1024x768...1400x1050 res.
am 31.01.2008 00:04:22 von cfajohnson
On 2008-01-30, dorayme wrote:
> In article <60c7kjF1prbblU1@mid.individual.net>,
> Harlan Messinger wrote:
>
>> Besides that, I'm curious why people who are so sure that it isn't worth
>> building a more flexible design now don't see why it's even less worth
>> building a design that will require a complete overhaul when the
>> resolutions are even higher a few years from now. I'm thinking about the
>> people who built fixed designs that worked at 800 x 600 several years
>> ago and now have a presentation that can't be read on screens with twice
>> the pixels in each dimension (text too small
>
> I wish some operating system makers thought more flexibly on this
> one too. When I moved from CRT to LCD and got higher res, great
> for pics, the menu fonts got peskily smaller.
I have never seen one that didn't have that flexibility.
--
Chris F.A. Johnson, webmaster
============================================================ =======
Author:
Shell Scripting Recipes: A Problem-Solution Approach (2005, Apress)
Re: 800x600, 1024x768...1400x1050 res.
am 31.01.2008 00:40:22 von dorayme
In article ,
"Chris F.A. Johnson" wrote:
> On 2008-01-30, dorayme wrote:
> > In article <60c7kjF1prbblU1@mid.individual.net>,
> > Harlan Messinger wrote:
> >
> >> Besides that, I'm curious why people who are so sure that it isn't worth
> >> building a more flexible design now don't see why it's even less worth
> >> building a design that will require a complete overhaul when the
> >> resolutions are even higher a few years from now. I'm thinking about the
> >> people who built fixed designs that worked at 800 x 600 several years
> >> ago and now have a presentation that can't be read on screens with twice
> >> the pixels in each dimension (text too small
> >
> > I wish some operating system makers thought more flexibly on this
> > one too. When I moved from CRT to LCD and got higher res, great
> > for pics, the menu fonts got peskily smaller.
>
> I have never seen one that didn't have that flexibility.
Which flexibility? The one that my ungrateful self (considering
the impressive flexibility that there already is) wants more of?
Have you experience with Macs (I may be missing some preference
setting)? How do you hold the resolution at native for a LCD
screen or any resolution for that matter while yet allowing one
to set the size of the menu fonts that run across the top of the
Finder (to take an example of a Mac environment). Never mind
other things I have in mind for the moment?
--
dorayme
Re: 800x600, 1024x768...1400x1050 res.
am 31.01.2008 02:01:58 von Andy Dingley
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 20:12:08 +0100, "catalyst" wrote:
>How to make that this webpage
>shows similar in all this 800x600, 1024x768...1400x1050 resoultions?
Good web pages do indeed look similar at all resolutions, but it's
important to have the right meaning of "similar". It's about the number
of characters a particular user wants to see, not about counting pixels.
Imagine a user, with a monitor. Their eyes can see text of a certain
size, the image remains the same size, and the web designer wants to
present text to them ideally in lines of 15 words (usability studies
show that this is about the best for readng long blocks of text). Now
imagine that tehy have a number of computers, of different display
resolutions, all connected to this monitor through a switch.
When they switch displays. the number of pixels varies. The size of
letters, and ideally the number of letters across the browser window
width too, should _not_ vary. This gives the user the best possible
experience of consistent browsing.
Now imagine another user, logging into these same computers. They have
poor eyesight, so they adjust teh default text size in their browser(s)
to be bigger. This users should now see bigger physical letters which
they're able to read in comfort. Again it should remain consistent as
they swap display resolutions.
Another user also has a multi-display monitor switch, but their is
bigger and they like to work with many windows open at once. We don't
know what size text they prefer, but we do know that the ideal number of
words on a line is about the same. As they re-size their browser
windows (having also adjusted ther favourite text size) the web page
should ideally keep the line length roughly the same in terms of
character sizes, not in terms of pixel counting.
How do we do this? Well the surprise is that it's all very easy - just
set your widths in the "em" unit, not in pixels. CSS does the rest for
you. It's also a good practice to _avoid_ setting widths whenever you
can. Setting margins and letting the browser control overall size
generally works out far better than trying to set the absolute width of
some element in the middle.
This is particularly important when working with heights. Avoid setting
heights: set margins or padding, then let the browser fill the space and
stretch the canvas as far as it needs to.
Font sizes are best left unset, allowing the defaults to take effect. If
you do set them, body text goes at 1em / 100% with no exceptions! Do NOT
set them in pixels, points or mm.
If you _wish_ to, set the maximum width of your overall "content" (the
text block where the main part of the site content sits). Do this only
once, do it in ems, and allow for some padding inside this. This keeps
line widths constrained to the usability limit and avoids awkwardly
long lines.
Don't set the widths of nested elements. Set one, maybe set margins, let
the others work it out from their parents or children.
Where there are siblings (i.e. columns), set the width of _some_ of
these columns, but not all. Maybe set left and right columns (menus,
teasers and banner ads) to 20em each and let the centre fill out as it
can best do. Maybe also contrain the centre with max-width, as
described, but otherwise let it float to fill in the gap.
When an element contains images, these are inherently pixel-sized, not
character-sized. So here you might well set a rigid width, and do it in
pixels. This can get awkward if there are sibling columsn sized in ems,
and the users vary their window width a lot. Consider avoiding the
problem altogether by using a wider column altogether, sized in ems, and
floating the images inside this, allowing text to flow past them. it
can look a lot more fluid this way when re-sizing.
Whenever you design _anything_. use a crude HTML / CSS prototype to
display the overall sizing you've created. Watch its behaviour as you
re-size windows and adjust font sizes. You don't have to be perfect
allthe time, you don't even have to be perfect at one particular size,
you certainly can't avoid the layout breaking totally at some widths -
but you should watch and see how extreme these limiting widths are, and
make sure they're out of the likely range to encounter.
--
Cats have nine lives, which is why they rarely post to Usenet.
Re: 800x600, 1024x768...1400x1050 res.
am 31.01.2008 02:55:21 von Andy Dingley
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:54:16 +1100, dorayme
wrote:
>> Windows, at least, allows one to specify the size of menus and other such
>> things.
>
>Refreshing to hear good things about Windows.
Don't worry. If you do use this feature in Windows, it screws up default
font sizes in IE
You can always rely on a Gates product to screw you up one way or
another. 8-)
Re: 800x600, 1024x768...1400x1050 res.
am 31.01.2008 03:41:18 von Blinky the Shark
catalyst wrote:
> Hi! I'making a webpage in html+style in css. How to make that this webpage
> shows similar in all this 800x600, 1024x768...1400x1050 resoultions? It
> happens that 800x600 is much larger than of 1400x... it seems html table
> aren't stretching so good.As i'm a newbie in css too, how's stretching
> with css in this various resolutions? Is there any aid?
Something to think about: My screen size is 1920x1600. What size is the
viewport in which my browser is rendering your page?
--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net